So, what's next for the BSC Leadership?

[UMGriz75]

I know enough to know I don't know, but I assume they are pretty good because they were selected among a large group of qualified people and retained year to year by someone who knows if they are doing well.

How large is the actual "group of qualified people?"

 

[mtgrizrule]

No it's about whether or not we feel someone is a good official. I'm saying we don't know enough about the rules and philosophies to know if they are doing a good job. I know enough to know I don't know, but I assume they are pretty good because they were selected among a large group of qualified people and retained year to year by someone who knows if they are doing well.

You must be damn close to some officials or know the minority of the truly good and fair ones. I have been an official in Nebraska, Colorado, and Montana. EG is 100% correct. The officiating in the BSC is poor, and inconsistent at best. It has been that way for way too long. The good or better than average NCAA officials in the Big Sky are the exception, not the rule. I am disappointed that Fullerton has let the officiating be questionable at best for way too long. It truly does take away from too many games in the conference.

 

[EverettGriz]

violin is a nokdaker who hasn't suffered through the years and years of awful officiating the rest of us bsc fans have. He'll learn.

And to suggest that the average fan cannot judge the quality of officiating is ludicrous. But I suspect he knows that and is just trolling.

 

[marceagfan5]

1. The RPIs. Seriously, addressing this issue should not only be job one beginning today, it should have been job one 12 years ago. It is simply unacceptable for as many teams as we have who have RPIs in the 300s. Montana and Weber should not win on the road, and watch their RPI drop significantly, as it did repeatedly this year, simply because their league SOS is so putrid. It's time to start SERIOUS reforms for schools who don't want to legitimately compete at -- at a minimum-- an average DI level. Fines; loss of shared revenue; exclusion from post-season play. Whatever it takes, the Conference needs to step up and show leadership on this issue immediately.

I don't mind Big Sky teams scheduling some crappy non conf teams, hell its the only way to get a home game sometimes, but they need to win those games.

I do think each Big Sky school needs to play some big boys every year and it would help if we could win a few of those games.

The Big Sky RPI has sufferred because most schools have horrible non-conf records with no quality wins, and that is what needs to change to help our RPI among other things...

Would be nice to see more Big Sky teams play in some of the November and December tourneys. I know Eastern just signed on to host one next year where they host 4 mid major schools and there is another bracket of high major schools and they eventually all play each other....would love to see more Big Sky schools in tourneys with the big boys

EG is right about the RPI's though, teams do need to be held accountable for their scheduling and trying to make this league better. If we are going to continue to move forward with a neutral site tourney location, it would be nice if we had more options as to where it would be held and an option to have a semi final or two televised as well...only way that happens is if the league improves...

 

[fanofzoo]

Everettgriz
'What say you? Will the BSC leadership begin addressing these issues, or are they still trying to find the off ramp on the road to Reno?"

 

[fanofzoo]

Everettgriz
'What say you? Will the BSC leadership begin addressing these issues, or are they still trying to find the off ramp on the road to Reno?"

As Kasper said "they(bsc) are right and all you others can suck it" or pretty much said that.

They want (need) the people in Reno to go to the games?

They hold the tournament in a out of the way place?

I call this the rock and the hard place, the bsc is not going to force any members to improve so we can bitch all we want, nothing will change.

Come on Jon, grow a pair and see the problems, don't end up being part of the problem but I understand the money is good.

 

[EverettGriz]

I don't have high hopes, zoo

 

[griz71]

I don't have high hopes, zoo

Neither do I...sadly.

 

[coyote]

#1 and #2 go together. Bad basketball is hard to officiate well and often results in a lot of fouls. I have enough friends who officiate and explain things to me in a way that I realize most of us don't know what a foul is. For example there is no such foul as over the back or reaching in.

Not 95 fouls worth.

And, by that standard, there's no specific foul for murder on the court, either. I think most of us that have watched and played BB all their lives have a pretty good understanding of what's a foul.

You actually don't. I've listened to enough people talk about what they think is a foul to know we don't understand it. The primary reason is we get most of our information from announcers who also don't understand the rules. It's not our fault. I'm very grateful to my officiating friends who have helped me understand this. The other guy who posted who has officiated has more credibility on this topic than anyone. If he says the quality of the officiating is below par, believe him. But he also doesn't know if the official leadership is directing or instructing their officials to call it a certain way.

Let me ask you this, Violin: There were 95 fouls called in the two semifinal games. I'd say there won't be half that many in the 3 final four games, total. Now, you can say we don't know what a foul is. But would you also say that the officials working the Final Four games don't know what one is? The bottom line is, no matter what the rule book says (and I've officiated myself at the lower levels, so I'm fairly well-versed), there's subjectivity on every call. The point is that the bsc officiates games markedly different than any other conference, and certainly different than the NCAA tournament. Does that make sense to you, your official friend, or ANYONE?

:thumb:

 

[UMGriz75]

The bottom line is, no matter what the rule book says (and I've officiated myself at the lower levels, so I'm fairly well-versed), there's subjectivity on every call.

This is particularly true, and depends, reasonably enough, to a great extent on the background of the ref. In my sports, refs who were once "players" tend to be more forgiving -- "don't interrupt the flow of the game unless the foul itself has interrupted the flow of the game" -- and brushing off incidentals. Refs without that background tend to be more "technical" and call more fouls, kind of a psychological make-up for not having played the game, I guess.

The bottom line is training, training, training. And I mean for the Refs. "Subjectivity" can be narrowed by repeated exposure to given standards.

 

[ISUguy]

I'm on the Big Sky's press release distribution list, and when I got their most recent release about Big Sky football on Root Sports, I asked Jon Oglesby of the conference office about the TV situation regarding basketball. Following is his response. I'm encouraged that basketball is an area of greater focus within the conference office:

There have been multiple discussions between the Big Sky Conference and ROOT SPORTS to broadcast basketball, and these have been ongoing. Unfortunately, the two sides have not been able to come up with a mutually-beneficial agreement on that issue.

Since returning from the conference championships in Reno, there have been multiple discussions in the league office, led by deputy commissioner Ron Loghry, on ways to improve basketball, and television remains part of that discussion.

Improving basketball is one of the primary initiatives in our league right now, and televising basketball remains an avenue the conference office is pursuing.

 

[IdaGriz01]

I'm on the Big Sky's press release distribution list, and when I got their most recent release about Big Sky football on Root Sports, I asked Jon Oglesby of the conference office about the TV situation regarding basketball. Following is his response. I'm encouraged that basketball is an area of greater focus within the conference office:

There have been multiple discussions between the Big Sky Conference and ROOT SPORTS to broadcast basketball, and these have been ongoing. Unfortunately, the two sides have not been able to come up with a mutually-beneficial agreement on that issue.

Since returning from the conference championships in Reno, there have been multiple discussions in the league office, led by deputy commissioner Ron Loghry, on ways to improve basketball, and television remains part of that discussion.

Improving basketball is one of the primary initiatives in our league right now, and televising basketball remains an avenue the conference office is pursuing.

That's somewhat encouraging, but not a lot. I tend to be a "glass half full" guy, but I'm also old. My overall reaction to vague statements like that is "talk is cheap." A major part of solving any problem is defining what the problem actually is. Is TV coverage (or lack thereof) a major root cause of the s****y level of BBall in the Big Sky? Personally, I don't think so, but I do agree that better TV exposure would certainly help. On the other hand, I don't have any magic answers as to what the root cause, or causes, might be. So ... "go for it!"

 

[ISUguy]

I'm on the Big Sky's press release distribution list, and when I got their most recent release about Big Sky football on Root Sports, I asked Jon Oglesby of the conference office about the TV situation regarding basketball. Following is his response. I'm encouraged that basketball is an area of greater focus within the conference office:

There have been multiple discussions between the Big Sky Conference and ROOT SPORTS to broadcast basketball, and these have been ongoing. Unfortunately, the two sides have not been able to come up with a mutually-beneficial agreement on that issue.

Since returning from the conference championships in Reno, there have been multiple discussions in the league office, led by deputy commissioner Ron Loghry, on ways to improve basketball, and television remains part of that discussion.

Improving basketball is one of the primary initiatives in our league right now, and televising basketball remains an avenue the conference office is pursuing.

That's somewhat encouraging, but not a lot. I tend to be a "glass half full" guy, but I'm also old. My overall reaction to vague statements like that is "talk is cheap." A major part of solving any problem is defining what the problem actually is. Is TV coverage (or lack thereof) a major root cause of the s****y level of BBall in the Big Sky? Personally, I don't think so, but I do agree that better TV exposure would certainly help. On the other hand, I don't have any magic answers as to what the root cause, or causes, might be. So ... "go for it!"

In fairness, I asked the league folks specifically about TV, and they responded about that specific topic, while also mentioning they are looking at a lot of things related to improving Big Sky basketball.

In my mind, there are specific things the Big Sky can and should address as best they can: providing help in getting better non-conference schedules for members (I know they have been working on this in the past with limited results, but persistence is probably going to be the key); improving officiating (perhaps joining the Western consortium that shares training and scheduling of officials); some kind of television deal; and just a greater conference-wide focus on the issues that are constraining Big Sky basketball.

In the end, though, there is only so much the conference office can do. You can't "legislate" good basketball. You can't make better recruits or better coaches go to Big Sky schools, you can't force donors to step up with the millions of dollars it takes to construct new or better facilities, and you can't wave a magic wand and immediately improve the RPI of league schools. The conference office works FOR the presidents, not the other way around. The presidents decide the priorities for their schools, within the constraints of their individual situations.

 

[putter]

I remember Fullerton saying that basketball games are evaluated by retired D1 officials and each person is given a grade and "pointers" to get better.....I also remember Fullerton challenging schools to up their OOC schedule - I think this was 5 or 6 years ago. Obviously this has not happened but something has to be done to encourage schools to get serious about this. Really, there is a lot of money on the line with future NCAA wins, actually being able to get a decent TV contract, and people attending a conference tourney so that all the games could be televised. Today schools follow the $$ but administrations need to have the foresight to know where the future money is and go get it.

 

[IdaGriz01]

I remember Fullerton saying that basketball games are evaluated by retired D1 officials and each person is given a grade and "pointers" to get better.....I also remember Fullerton challenging schools to up their OOC schedule - I think this was 5 or 6 years ago. Obviously this has not happened but something has to be done to encourage schools to get serious about this. Really, there is a lot of money on the line with future NCAA wins, actually being able to get a decent TV contract, and people attending a conference tourney so that all the games could be televised. Today schools follow the $$ but administrations need to have the foresight to know where the future money is and go get it.

Totally agree. Sadly, "foresight" is in pretty short supply these days, it seems to me. But higher education has a bunch of problems already ... old saying, worth repeating in its entirety: "When you're up to your a** in alligators, it's tough to remember that your original intention was to drain the swamp."

 

[EverettGriz]

I'm on the Big Sky's press release distribution list, and when I got their most recent release about Big Sky football on Root Sports, I asked Jon Oglesby of the conference office about the TV situation regarding basketball. Following is his response. I'm encouraged that basketball is an area of greater focus within the conference office:

There have been multiple discussions between the Big Sky Conference and ROOT SPORTS to broadcast basketball, and these have been ongoing. Unfortunately, the two sides have not been able to come up with a mutually-beneficial agreement on that issue.

Since returning from the conference championships in Reno, there have been multiple discussions in the league office, led by deputy commissioner Ron Loghry, on ways to improve basketball, and television remains part of that discussion.

Improving basketball is one of the primary initiatives in our league right now, and televising basketball remains an avenue the conference office is pursuing.

That's somewhat encouraging, but not a lot. I tend to be a "glass half full" guy, but I'm also old. My overall reaction to vague statements like that is "talk is cheap." A major part of solving any problem is defining what the problem actually is. Is TV coverage (or lack thereof) a major root cause of the s****y level of BBall in the Big Sky? Personally, I don't think so, but I do agree that better TV exposure would certainly help. On the other hand, I don't have any magic answers as to what the root cause, or causes, might be. So ... "go for it!"

In fairness, I asked the league folks specifically about TV, and they responded about that specific topic, while also mentioning they are looking at a lot of things related to improving Big Sky basketball.

In my mind, there are specific things the Big Sky can and should address as best they can: providing help in getting better non-conference schedules for members (I know they have been working on this in the past with limited results, but persistence is probably going to be the key); improving officiating (perhaps joining the Western consortium that shares training and scheduling of officials); some kind of television deal; and just a greater conference-wide focus on the issues that are constraining Big Sky basketball.

In the end, though, there is only so much the conference office can do. You can't "legislate" good basketball. You can't make better recruits or better coaches go to Big Sky schools, you can't force donors to step up with the millions of dollars it takes to construct new or better facilities, and you can't wave a magic wand and immediately improve the RPI of league schools. The conference office works FOR the presidents, not the other way around. The presidents decide the priorities for their schools, within the constraints of their individual situations.

Thanks for the info, BV. I agree it's encouraging that the BSC is at least involved in conversations with Root about televising BB. But frankly, I'm not surprised they haven't gotten a deal done. There isn't a lot of financial incentive for Root to do so. So this is one of those cases where BSC Leadership must do just that: lead. I agree that the Commish works for the Presidents. But part of that role is providing counsel on what would be in their long-term best interest. And a TV deal is, even if the league has to pay Root for, say, the first 3 years of a contract. The old axiom applies here: sometimes you gotta spend some money to make money. I know money is tight everywhere. But if the universities in this conference are committed to participating at the DI level (something I frankly have some reservations about), they need to prove it on this issue.

 

[citygriz]

Here's the problem.

TV is built around markets and ratings. And the Big Sky conference has neither the markets nor the team or teams to draw ratings.

Markets: Missoula, Bozeman, Ogden, Flagstaff, Grand Forks, Greely, Moscow--you get the picture. Even where we do have some markets--Portland and Sacramento--there is overwhelming competition from pro teams and bigger schools. When I was a little kid growing up in Helena, my family took us to visit relatives in Minneapolis. I'd never seen such a big city--and lo! there were two! St. Paul! Twin cities! I knew New York was the biggest city, but I couldn't imagine New York being bigger than Minneapolis and St. Paul combined! Imagine my shock when I got home and did the math. But it's the same math for the Big Sky conference. All these college towns don't add up to one even medium-size TV market.

Teams: It is amazing what one successful program can do for an entire league. Used to be I could go watch our Griz at USF, and pay $15 for a front-row seat. Last time, the premium seats went for $50--all thanks to Gonzaga. Used to be, too, I could go over to Moraga and watch our Griz in a half-empty gym against St. Mary's. Now, apparently, we can't even schedule St. Mary's--again, thanks to Gonzaga. If we or Weber could break out and make some major noise on the national level, we might have the team to draw the ratings that Gonzaga draws. But it'd only be because we were good enough to attract interest from bigger markets like Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, et. al.

Of course, these things go together like a horse and carriage--you can't get the horses (the player or coaching talent) when you don't have the carriage (TV.) Unless DeCuire can, all by himself. I still think it's amazing what he's accomplishing at Montana--the one school (with Weber) that might pull the Big Sky out of the muck.

 

[AllWeatherFan]

I was told there would be no math in this thread.

 

[EverettGriz]

Citay, I'm not sure I completely agree. I'm not sure market share is critical for televised basketball. To quote the great George Castanza when he's asked by the exec at NBC why anyone would watch the show he and Jerry were writing: "Because it's on TV".

If the bsc would simply get some of their better games on television, people would watch. Would it be Duke/UNC numbers? Uhh, hardly. But the top teams in this league play good, exciting BB, and people will watch it.

That all said, as I noted above, there's little incentive for Root to broadcast the games without the bsc stepping up with some cash. As I've noted before, the BSC football deal with Root was largely a way to ensure that the smaller cable companies in the NW continued to carry Root, so the station became more valuable when it was on the market. Now that it's been sold to the Mariners, that incentive has, to some extent, gone away, although the Mariners would still like to own the Montana, Idaho markets.

 

[mtgrizrule]

Citay, I'm not sure I completely agree. I'm not sure market share is critical for televised basketball. To quote the great George Castanza when he's asked by the exec at NBC why anyone would watch the show he and Jerry were writing: "Because it's on TV".

If the bsc would simply get some of their better games on television, people would watch. Would it be Duke/UNC numbers? Uhh, hardly. But the top teams in this league play good, exciting BB, and people will watch it.

That all said, as I noted above, there's little incentive for Root to broadcast the games without the bsc stepping up with some cash. As I've noted before, the BSC football deal with Root was largely a way to ensure that the smaller cable companies in the NW continued to carry Root, so the station became more valuable when it was on the market. Now that it's been sold to the Mariners, that incentive has, to some extent, gone away, although the Mariners would still like to own the Montana, Idaho markets.

EG, you don't know how many times I have channel surfed and found small to mid major conference games on various networks. I love watching the mid major and small conferences. To be honest, I am so overwhelmed by all the Big 5 conference games all over tv. I look forward for other games. Do I watch P5 games? I sure do, depending on matchups. Oregon State, Utah, and Nebraska are programs I like to watch, due to either GRIZ ties or me loving Nebraska sports due to living there for quite awhile. I search for other games frequently Wednesdays through Sunday. I find a lot of games. I never stumble upon a Big Sky game though, other than North Dakota games on whatever network they play on.

I'd be happy to pay for a reliable online option as well, but prefer tv. I honestly question the efforts the powers to be in this conference have put forth for basketball. This is one of many reasons why I question Montana sticking with the Big Sky or not flexing their muscles a little more w/in the conference. Then again, being we are out west in a state with a small population, we are likely still pretty far away from getting to where many of us would like to be. That would be as a member of the Mountain West Conference. I hope our champions center and improved facilities put us in position to be selected. We need more corporate backers though. Not really sure which companies are in position and willing to step it up for Montana.

In the meantime, we can patiently wait and hope for the conference to become better. I wonder how close we are to having a new conference commissioner named?