Still support the BSC

[Grizbacker1]

Great game so far. Sorry to do this, but I am very disappointed in attendance of the championship. The local team is playing for a trip to the big dance and they draw next to nobody. I am guessing there is not even 2k there. PSU fans, let rest of Portland know you have very good team. They deserve much better support. Portland area fans, you really suck. :thumb:

I guarantee if the GRIZ were in this game there would be just as many people. How disappointing for a very good team and what a pathetic representation of the BSC. No wonder it is so tough to get good recruits in basketball at any BSC school. Thanks so much for supporting BSC basketball Portland. (pathetic).

Bad guess on your 2K estimation. I'll forgive you since we've hosted more times than the UM in the last decade, and it's probably hard to determine a conference tournament crowd.

Congrats on your 1st trip to the Big Dance. I think all Griz fans will be pulling for you guys to get a W. Don't be happy just to be there. The Griz and Weber State have shown it can be done. Good luck!

 

[Montana Gym Rat]

Attendance was 4,113.


Montana and Montana State averaged more than that for their regular season home games this year.

Weber had 9,178 in last year's Big Sky Championship.

Northern Arizona drew 3,163 in the 2006 Championship.


Missoula, Bozeman and Ogden draw good crowds on a regular basis. Every other Big Sky school doesn't get much for attendance. At least PSU wasn't as pathetic as NAU in 2006.

 

[SactoHornetFan]

Even then for Weber 9100 and change is still not filling it out at 12K. If we ever host the champ game (with us in it) at Arco, we could easily put 8K in the lower bowl only because this town is such a bandwagon town. Sorry to my friends at PSU, but Portlandia is not, as evidenced by the 4,100 at the Garden last night.

 

[Grizfan-24]

4,000 for a championship game. Too bad. especially on a home floor, and home team playing for its first NCAA tournament birth.

Sad. This is a school issue rather than conference issue. School pride gets people in the seats, not conference title games. PSU to be honest is probably 16th on the list of things to do for most people in portland.

The Big Sky is frankly a terrible basketball conference. Not in terms of competition, but in terms of draw and allure. Hard to get excited to go to Sac State adn play in front of a high school crowd.

 

[Montana Gym Rat]

Even then for Weber 9100 and change is still not filling it out at 12K. If we ever host the champ game (with us in it) at Arco, we could easily put 8K in the lower bowl only because this town is such a bandwagon town. Sorry to my friends at PSU, but Portlandia is not, as evidenced by the 4,100 at the Garden last night.

I'd have to see it before I would believe it. Not that I don't doubt Sacramento fans would jump on with the team, but when it only takes 1,200 for a sellout - it's quite a leap of faith to say that 7x that amount would show up for a conference championship.

BTW, the largest crowd at the Hornet Nest this year was 703. Home average was 583. Sacramento State hasn't sold out a basketball game since February 25th of 2006. They've only sold out 6 games in the last 5 years.

Your enthusiasm is great, but my small high school in middle of nowhere Montana used to get over 2,000 people on a regular basis.

 

[Grizfan-24]

I am all for doing what the WCC has done in recent years, which is determining the site of the conference tournament in advance. I think for attendance purposes, this would benefit us. Some years the disadvantage is that the home team may not be the best, but for travel purposes it sure makes sense. Moreover, I am all for extending hte tournament back to all 9 teams.

This way schools like Eastern and Sac with small gyms could in theory for two years, move their respective tournaments to say the Arco arena or the Spokane arena. UofM, MSU, NAU, WSU could all host on the home floor.

 

[mporter]

I am all for doing what the WCC has done in recent years, which is determining the site of the conference tournament in advance. I think for attendance purposes, this would benefit us. Some years the disadvantage is that the home team may not be the best, but for travel purposes it sure makes sense. Moreover, I am all for extending hte tournament back to all 9 teams.

This way schools like Eastern and Sac with small gyms could in theory for two years, move their respective tournaments to say the Arco arena or the Spokane arena. UofM, MSU, NAU, WSU could all host on the home floor.

Good subject. I think I'm a little mixed on this. Part of me agrees with you since it would be neat to have all schools in the conference get the opportunity to host. However, doesn't that take the reward out of it for the school that wins the regular season in the conference? I guess some reward would be the NIT bid, but would that outweigh hosting if the regular season champ were to fall in the semis or the finals? I suppose my view would change if the BSC was in a position to send an at large bid in addition to the conference tournament champion....

 

[Grizfan-24]

How many confernces in the NCAA still cling to this idea. Me thinks the number is smaller by the year.

Many conferences have gone to predetermined areas...ACC-Charlotte, Atlanta, Big East -NYC, PAC 10 LA, etc....

The biggest issue to me is that if you want to increase attendance, is set the site earlier, rather than the current time. Which frankly for those teams who do not make it beyond the home site one, won't go.

I just think for the BSC to move forward, they have to do more to market the BSC championship and maybe more importantly get us a tv contract with a notable regional broadcaster. If it is tuesday nights at 10pm, then so be it. A proactive marketing campaign and get away from the BSCTV crap.

 

[dbackjon]

Is still making sure the best team gets to the dance. Having a Big Sky team win a game (Like Montana and Weber) or at least being competitve (Like NAU in it's two appearences) still far outway any attendence issues.

The value of a first round win far exceeds the value of a few thousand more in the stands. While both would be nice, the league is still determined to do everything it can to make sure the best teams get to the conference finals.

Which means eliminating any chance one of the conference bottom-dwellers have any chance to get hot and run the table. Making sure the top two teams only have to play two games, and making sure the conference winner has home-court advantage. This formula is working for the Big Sky now. No need to change it.

 

[griz8791]

I am all for doing what the WCC has done in recent years, which is determining the site of the conference tournament in advance. I think for attendance purposes, this would benefit us. Some years the disadvantage is that the home team may not be the best, but for travel purposes it sure makes sense. Moreover, I am all for extending hte tournament back to all 9 teams.

This way schools like Eastern and Sac with small gyms could in theory for two years, move their respective tournaments to say the Arco arena or the Spokane arena. UofM, MSU, NAU, WSU could all host on the home floor.

Good subject. I think I'm a little mixed on this. Part of me agrees with you since it would be neat to have all schools in the conference get the opportunity to host. However, doesn't that take the reward out of it for the school that wins the regular season in the conference? I guess some reward would be the NIT bid, but would that outweigh hosting if the regular season champ were to fall in the semis or the finals? I suppose my view would change if the BSC was in a position to send an at large bid in addition to the conference tournament champion....

The Big Sky used to pre-designate the site back in the early 80s. The rule changed a couple of times in the 1983-1986 period. I think there was at least one year in that time frame where the Griz would have qualified to host it under the rule that had been in effect the previous year (winning the regular season), but not the rule that was currently in effect (winning the regular season the year before but not this year). There was also discussion of there not being enough hotel rooms in Missoula compared to Boise and Reno, which is where they really wanted to always have it regardless of whether those teams had earned it or not. In those days they weren't shy about screwing everyone else over to protect Boise State and I believed they were perpetually changing the rule just to keep the tournament out of Missoula. I don't believe we actually had the tournament in Missoula until the early 90s when Delvon Anderson was playing.

So no, I am not a big fan of pre-designating the site on criteria other than this year's on-court performance. Having been on the receiving end of that for what seemed like a century, I'm not interested in imposing it on anyone else. Win the games, host the tournament. Otherwise shut up and book your hotel rooms.

 

[Grizfan-24]

Change is neccessary in my opinion. The WCC, which ten years ago had nary a team with national exposure, to getting three teams in the NCAA tournament this year. Moreover a conference that traditionally was far weaker than the BSC.

Part of my issue with the BSC, is that is does a terrible job at promoting all of the great aspects of the conference.

Screw promoting the best teams into the NCAA, really I think that is hogwash personally. How many times in the past decade has the number one team actually won out the BSC tournament in its current form? The UofM in its last three trips to the Big Dance WASN'T the number one seed. In fact the UofM in its recent hosting of the tournament didn't win. NAU did. To me hosting doesn't mean crap.

They changed it that way because they didn't want to happen what happened in regularity with the tough BSC back in the 80's, the lower ranked teams getting into the NCAA tournament.

I am just frustrated, because most years it doesn't take a lot to get into the top six. If you want to ensure your one seeds get the to the NCAA, then don't play a conference tournament. Pull an Ivy league and just play the regular season.

Conference tournaments are all about money and not about 'NCAA' qualifying. Cause if that were teh case, then they would never play them. In my corner of the universe, why not market the conference, create an exiciting environment for basketball over three days, and see what happens.

I went to the 87 tournament in Bozeman, I was in the fourth or fifth grade, and I remember the title game...BSU-UI, this was the year after MSU won the conference tournament. There are plusses and minuses to every argument. I am a proponent of finding a place like Portland, Spokane, Phoenix, Sacramento, Salt lake City, to play the tournament. Or even...Las Vegas.

 

[Grizbacker1]

I think a vote of the coaches should decide it. After all, they are the ones who should know what is best for the team. All the scenarios mentioned have pretty much been done at one time or another, and someone (usually the one who doesn't advance) is always going to complain. :twocents:

 

[Grizfan-24]

GB,

Agreed. I know the BSC has used different formats in the past.

Coaches are the best sources to ask on this issue.

I am not sure the IMHO, that some of this doesn't fall on Fullerton to put forward a future plan of success for the BSC. I will take anything than the current malaise that seems to have infected the BSC as a whole.

 

[Grizbacker1]

GB,

Agreed. I know the BSC has used different formats in the past.

Coaches are the best sources to ask on this issue.

I am not sure the IMHO, that some of this doesn't fall on Fullerton to put forward a future plan of success for the BSC. I will take anything than the current malaise that seems to have infected the BSC as a whole.

If the member schools and fans of the BSC have to rely upon Dougie Fullerton to come up with a vision and plan for the future then we are doomed. How the hell he ever got that job is beyond me. Name one person at msu that misses that guy.

 

[Grizfan-24]

GB,

Agreed as well. Fullerton is a dolt, and has shown little leadership in putting the BSC stronger position. In the time he has been commish, the BSC has lost it position as a prominent mid major conference.

I used to think the BSC was a good conference for us in basketball, but I no longer think of that. This might not be the conversation that we are willing to have here, but football isn't the reason in my honest opinion the Griz should look to move to the WAC or otherwise.

The BSC as it stands now will eventually smother our basketball programs into mediocrity. I just don't see how under the best circumstances that we could get great recruits here for basketball when the schools now in the WCC and other mid major conferences seem to be pulling them away.

I am just getting the sense, if we try to hang on to the BSC ship, sooner or later we are going to gown down with it. Just as so long as the conference continues to do nothing to better the product of its members.

 

[Grizbacker1]

GB,

Agreed as well. Fullerton is a dolt, and has shown little leadership in putting the BSC stronger position. In the time he has been commish, the BSC has lost it position as a prominent mid major conference.

I used to think the BSC was a good conference for us in basketball, but I no longer think of that. This might not be the conversation that we are willing to have here, but football isn't the reason in my honest opinion the Griz should look to move to the WAC or otherwise.

The BSC as it stands now will eventually smother our basketball programs into mediocrity. I just don't see how under the best circumstances that we could get great recruits here for basketball when the schools now in the WCC and other mid major conferences seem to be pulling them away.

I am just getting the sense, if we try to hang on to the BSC ship, sooner or later we are going to gown down with it. Just as so long as the conference continues to do nothing to better the product of its members.

I guess I should give him an ounce of credit for his effort in getting the OOC BB schedules improved. Your last sentence was reminiscent of MRR's famous "the ship be sinking". Personally I am not that pessimistic, because I know PSU will be strong next season, the Griz will be better, msu will, and the rest of the league, with a couple of unknowns should be improved. :twocents:

 

[Grizfan-24]

GB, I sure hope you are right. I really do.

The better the conference gets, the better the rivalries get. I am waxing nostalgic here, but I loved the late 80's and early nineties when BSU, UI and UNR came in here. THe crowds weren't the largest, but sure were loud.

I think in the 90-91 seasons, the UofI rivalry was all the bit as good as our MSU-UM rivalry.

That is what the conference needs.

 

[Grizbacker1]

GB, I sure hope you are right. I really do.

The better the conference gets, the better the rivalries get. I am waxing nostalgic here, but I loved the late 80's and early nineties when BSU, UI and UNR came in here. THe crowds weren't the largest, but sure were loud.

I think in the 90-91 seasons, the UofI rivalry was all the bit as good as our MSU-UM rivalry.

That is what the conference needs.

Some of the best BB environments in the past 20 years were the Nevada-Reno, Boise State, Idaho games. I wish we would just do whatever we can to get them on the schedule. They were great rivals and I think the fans would come out for those type of games. The problem is I don't think the coaches of those schools want to come to Missoula because in their eyes they have nothing to gain, a a lot to lose because a win is expected, and they know they could get beat.

 

[Grizfan-24]

GB,

Agree completely. I would love to see BSU, UofI and UN on hte schedule. Regionally it makes sense. Boise and Idaho are regional rivals, and would generate lots of excitement over a number of years. Look at the burgeoning rivalry we have with EWU, and that has all the makings of one that could replace UofI and BSU.

I think the mystique of Adams Fieldhouse is gone however, years of medocrity in terms on home records have rendered most of the home court advantage null and void. The loud crowd is gone, done in by Hogans attempt to put fat cats in court side seats. That too is another conversation. We just haven't gone through one of those 20-30 game home winning streaks in a long, long time. I really think it predates the renovation. Could be mistaken.

Teams, conferences and national schedules have changed UofM too. UofM scheduled roughly the same type of schedule for close to twenty years. A NAIA school here, Simon Fraser there, one pac ten school and the rest the 150-300 ranked schools. UofM now isn't one of the best 150 most years and teams don't want to take chances to stroll into d-berg and lose. There is nothing to gain by coming in here as you said. Just doesn't make sense to have the chance to lose against a team that would be ranked outside the top 150.

I am for the WAC for the reason that if MSU were to improve its facilities in football would renew our best rivalries that I have ever known as a griz fan. That is if we were ever to move up. Not saying we should.

 

[Grizbacker1]

GB,

Agree completely. I would love to see BSU, UofI and UN on hte schedule. Regionally it makes sense. Boise and Idaho are regional rivals, and would generate lots of excitement over a number of years. Look at the burgeoning rivalry we have with EWU, and that has all the makings of one that could replace UofI and BSU.

I think the mystique of Adams Fieldhouse is gone however, years of medocrity in terms on home records have rendered most of the home court advantage null and void. The loud crowd is gone, done in by Hogans attempt to put fat cats in court side seats. That too is another conversation. We just haven't gone through one of those 20-30 game home winning streaks in a long, long time. I really think it predates the renovation. Could be mistaken.

Teams, conferences and national schedules have changed UofM too. UofM scheduled roughly the same type of schedule for close to twenty years. A NAIA school here, Simon Fraser there, one pac ten school and the rest the 150-300 ranked schools. UofM now isn't one of the best 150 most years and teams don't want to take chances to stroll into d-berg and lose. There is nothing to gain by coming in here as you said. Just doesn't make sense to have the chance to lose against a team that would be ranked outside the top 150.

I am for the WAC for the reason that if MSU were to improve its facilities in football would renew our best rivalries that I have ever known as a griz fan. That is if we were ever to move up. Not saying we should.

You got me started on the seating. The sad thing about the BB seating plan after the Dahlberg rennovation was most of the "fat cats" didn't want to move. I am/was always of the opinion those seats should be for the students. The problem is now they are going to piss off some of the "fat cats" one more time when and if they ask them to move again. I wouldn't have an issue with that, but unless the ones that moved are offerred their old seats back, then this is may become another cluster%&*#@. I still believe they need to bite the bullet and just do it. They also need to get rid of the damn press tables, and that row of seats that the Jack Nicholson wannabes sit in. OK, I feel better now, Go Lady Griz!