Updates on Sac Arena Search, Tournament Situation

[Grizfan-24]

Don't light Sacramento State on fire for this debacle. This rests in the hands of our Big Sky Conference officials, who didn't get the proper guarantees from schools. Sacramento of course would have known in advance from the BSC they would need to find another facility, but the BSC obviously didn't expect or hold Sacramento State to their requirement. This is of course assuming the BSC informed Sacramento State before 2015 that their facility would be inadequate.

Sacramento State has been dealing with the arena issue for years, and frankly the BSC didn't care enough before this to press SS on the arena issue. The fact the Sacramento State admin is scrambling to find a facility suggests that the BSC didn't make it abundantly clear what would need to happen. There might have been some unforeseen circumstances in this regard, but none of which that couldn't have been handled with actual forethought.

I get that it requires a guarantee to have access to a facility that you might not use. Gotta think the BSC could have helped SS out in that regard, to find a facility in advance in Sacramento that wouldn't require retrofitting a facility that isn't clearly geared for basketball at this point.

I truly believe that Sac States story is a good one on the floor. I would hope that if they win the title in the regular season, that the facility they use works out. Then hopefully as a result this provides incentive to move to a pre-determined neutral site facility. Whether it be Reno, Spokane, Billings, Salt Lake City or otherwise, I think it would be better for the BSC in the long run. Just my opinion.

 

[EverettGriz]

Don't light Sacramento State on fire for this debacle. This rests in the hands of our Big Sky Conference officials, who didn't get the proper guarantees from schools. Sacramento of course would have known in advance from the BSC they would need to find another facility, but the BSC obviously didn't expect or hold Sacramento State to their requirement. This is of course assuming the BSC informed Sacramento State before 2015 that their facility would be inadequate.

Sacramento State has been dealing with the arena issue for years, and frankly the BSC didn't care enough before this to press SS on the arena issue. The fact the Sacramento State admin is scrambling to find a facility suggests that the BSC didn't make it abundantly clear what would need to happen. There might have been some unforeseen circumstances in this regard, but none of which that couldn't have been handled with actual forethought.

I get that it requires a guarantee to have access to a facility that you might not use. Gotta think the BSC could have helped SS out in that regard, to find a facility in advance in Sacramento that wouldn't require retrofitting a facility that isn't clearly geared for basketball at this point.

I truly believe that Sac States story is a good one on the floor. I would hope that if they win the title in the regular season, that the facility they use works out. Then hopefully as a result this provides incentive to move to a pre-determined neutral site facility. Whether it be Reno, Spokane, Billings, Salt Lake City or otherwise, I think it would be better for the BSC in the long run. Just my opinion.

Both sac and PSU were made aware when they were invited to join the BSC that they would be unable to host the Tournament in their on-campus gyms. They've known it for years.

That said, I agree with you that the BSC never should have admitted them given their inadequate facilities and have not put enough pressure on them to correct it since.

It should be a huge embarrassment to them. But I'm not certain they care enough to be embarrassed.

 

[NorthEndZoneDan]

As much as I hate to admit it, my guess is we'll be watching both Big Sky tournaments in Missoula this year.

and we have a winner here!!!!

 

[CDAGRIZ]

Don't light Sacramento State on fire for this debacle. This rests in the hands of our Big Sky Conference officials, who didn't get the proper guarantees from schools. Sacramento of course would have known in advance from the BSC they would need to find another facility, but the BSC obviously didn't expect or hold Sacramento State to their requirement. This is of course assuming the BSC informed Sacramento State before 2015 that their facility would be inadequate.

Sacramento State has been dealing with the arena issue for years, and frankly the BSC didn't care enough before this to press SS on the arena issue. The fact the Sacramento State admin is scrambling to find a facility suggests that the BSC didn't make it abundantly clear what would need to happen. There might have been some unforeseen circumstances in this regard, but none of which that couldn't have been handled with actual forethought.

I get that it requires a guarantee to have access to a facility that you might not use. Gotta think the BSC could have helped SS out in that regard, to find a facility in advance in Sacramento that wouldn't require retrofitting a facility that isn't clearly geared for basketball at this point.

I truly believe that Sac States story is a good one on the floor. I would hope that if they win the title in the regular season, that the facility they use works out. Then hopefully as a result this provides incentive to move to a pre-determined neutral site facility. Whether it be Reno, Spokane, Billings, Salt Lake City or otherwise, I think it would be better for the BSC in the long run. Just my opinion.

Both sac and PSU were made aware when they were invited to join the BSC that they would be unable to host the Tournament in their on-campus gyms. They've known it for years.

That said, I agree with you that the BSC never should have admitted them given their inadequate facilities and have not put enough pressure on them to correct it since.

It should be a huge embarrassment to them. But I'm not certain they care enough to be embarrassed.

Good post. Admitting Sac and PSU definitely put the Big Sky on an awful trajectory. Bad management, bad facilities, bad fan support, just bad.

 

[ISUguy]

I think you guys are missing the Hornet's point -- Sac is selling out its home games this year. They are playing very well at home. And 1,100 Sac fans in a gym that seats 1,100 fans equates to a much better home court advantage than, say, 3,500 Griz fans in a facility that seats 7,000 fans.

quote="CDAGRIZ"]

Because the rec center is just that, a rec center. Not an events center.

Then why have events there? Not trying to be a jerk, but this whole thing seems very, very DIII. If you win and don't have the facilities, just work a deal to let the second place team host. Lord knows SAC doesn't have much of a home court advantage, so why make the entire conference look bad?

Sac doesn't have much of a home court advantage? The Hornets were 13-1 at the Nest this year and a perfect 9-0 in the Big Sky. I don't know about the Lord but I would pretty much call that a home court advantage! The Nest may be small but it can be very loud and intimidating to opponents when it's full. The Well is only about 5 years old, knowing the space their talking about, with 3,000 seats it could be deafening to opponents!

No kidding. Running the table in BSC play this season (34-8 at home going back to the start of the 12-13 season) and Sac doesn’t have home court advantage? :? :lol:
Excellent display of egriz logic right there.

Regarding logic, please see my previous post. Assuming that a good home record implies the existence of a home court advantage is actually a logical flaw.

I saw you guys in Spokane this season. I think your players learned what a home court advantage is. Ask them if your arena compares.[/quote]

 

[CDAGRIZ]

I think you guys are missing the Hornet's point -- Sac is selling out its home games this year. They are playing very well at home. And 1,100 Sac fans in a gym that seats 1,100 fans equates to a much better home court advantage than, say, 3,500 Griz fans in a facility that seats 7,000 fans.

You are missing their point. They were saying Sac's home record means they have a home court advantage. This is illogical as explained above.

To address your point (which, again, is completely different than the Sac fans' point that you incorrectly accused us of missing), it wouldn't be 1,100 Sac fans because they would have to allocate tickets to the visiting team per BSC conference tournament rules. Even if it was 1,100 Sac fans, which it wouldn't be, it wouldn't be loud or hostile enough to constitute a home court advantage markedly different than a neutral site. I've been to plenty of games in volleyball gyms, and they do not confer a home court advantage.

Look at this hostile environment! What an absolute joke.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4vHkFFcWwA[/youtube]

 

[ISUguy]

Everybody knows the tournament is not going to be played in the Nest because it's not big enough. But your insistence that Sac State doesn't have a home court advantage there defies logic. They're selling out the place now, they're winning, and nobody in the conference has been able to get a W there.

Prediction Machine, an on-line betting site that uses real data to assist in its picks, notes the average "home court advantage" in college basketball is about 4 points. But it rates the home court advantages of all 350 Division I teams and puts Sac States at 123. (As compared, for example, to Montana's, at 135). So not only is Sac State's court worth the average 4-point advantage, it's probably worth a point or two more.

http://www.predictionmachine.com/conference-nfl-review" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I think you guys are missing the Hornet's point -- Sac is selling out its home games this year. They are playing very well at home. And 1,100 Sac fans in a gym that seats 1,100 fans equates to a much better home court advantage than, say, 3,500 Griz fans in a facility that seats 7,000 fans.

You are missing their point. They were saying Sac's home record means they have a home court advantage. This is illogical as explained above.

To address your point (which, again, is completely different than the Sac fans' point that you incorrectly accused us of missing), it wouldn't be 1,100 Sac fans because they would have to allocate tickets to the visiting team per BSC conference tournament rules. Even if it was 1,100 Sac fans, which it wouldn't be, it wouldn't be loud or hostile enough to constitute a home court advantage markedly different than a neutral site. I've been to plenty of games in volleyball gyms, and they do not confer a home court advantage.

Look at this hostile environment! What an absolute joke.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4vHkFFcWwA[/youtube]

 

[Grizfan-24]

I think you guys are missing the Hornet's point -- Sac is selling out its home games this year. They are playing very well at home. And 1,100 Sac fans in a gym that seats 1,100 fans equates to a much better home court advantage than, say, 3,500 Griz fans in a facility that seats 7,000 fans.

You are missing their point. They were saying Sac's home record means they have a home court advantage. This is illogical as explained above.

To address your point (which, again, is completely different than the Sac fans' point that you incorrectly accused us of missing), it wouldn't be 1,100 Sac fans because they would have to allocate tickets to the visiting team per BSC conference tournament rules. Even if it was 1,100 Sac fans, which it wouldn't be, it wouldn't be loud or hostile enough to constitute a home court advantage markedly different than a neutral site. I've been to plenty of games in volleyball gyms, and they do not confer a home court advantage.

Look at this hostile environment! What an absolute joke.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4vHkFFcWwA[/youtube]

I don't think Fullerton cares one bit about improving facilities in the Big Sky. Frankly because several schools have low rate high school facilities in several sports. I think he cared more about markets (PSU and Sac State) rather than facilities that would compete at the D1 level.

At this point I think it is water under the bridge, because as long as we are talking about this at this point, the BSC didn't seem all the interested in back up their bluster about arenas or the penalty for not having adequate facilities for post season tournaments.

Sac State would have gotten something done had the BSC made it clear their is no chance in holding a post season tournament with a guarantee of a tournament grade facility prior to the start of the season. I just don't think that existed at any point.

As for environment there are several facilities in the BSC that probably rate lower as a fan environment that SS. The three domes probably are close to the top of the list and probably throw in the Stott Center as well. I have been to UofI and ISU for games and frankly they are abjectly terrible fan environments. In fact I am pretty sure ISU's alternate facility might be a better basketball environment than the dome at least that is what my friends in the area tell me. Not sure about UND but it might be close in that regard. NAU rep is well earned for its 350 people in a 15,000 person barn.

I get the frustration. I really do, because it doesn't reflect well on SS or the BSC.

 

[GrizLA]

Lots of bs for a tourney site that few will even recall less than 5 minutes after it ends. The Big Sky Conf. is so bad this year, that this might be the best time to have a team like Sacto in the NCAA...the usual 16 seed playing the number one seed. The only real shot they might have is if they actually do make the tourney, they are matched against Gonzaga...a beatable team. I hope UM wins out but have no illusions for the Griz this year. After all, they are in a rebuilding mode and were picked 8th...Now, next year might be an entirely different story.

 

[GrizLA]

I think you guys are missing the Hornet's point -- Sac is selling out its home games this year. They are playing very well at home. And 1,100 Sac fans in a gym that seats 1,100 fans equates to a much better home court advantage than, say, 3,500 Griz fans in a facility that seats 7,000 fans.

You are missing their point. They were saying Sac's home record means they have a home court advantage. This is illogical as explained above.

To address your point (which, again, is completely different than the Sac fans' point that you incorrectly accused us of missing), it wouldn't be 1,100 Sac fans because they would have to allocate tickets to the visiting team per BSC conference tournament rules. Even if it was 1,100 Sac fans, which it wouldn't be, it wouldn't be loud or hostile enough to constitute a home court advantage markedly different than a neutral site. I've been to plenty of games in volleyball gyms, and they do not confer a home court advantage.

Look at this hostile environment! What an absolute joke.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4vHkFFcWwA[/youtube]

I don't think Fullerton cares one bit about improving facilities in the Big Sky. Frankly because several schools have low rate high school facilities in several sports. I think he cared more about markets (PSU and Sac State) rather than facilities that would compete at the D1 level.

At this point I think it is water under the bridge, because as long as we are talking about this at this point, the BSC didn't seem all the interested in back up their bluster about arenas or the penalty for not having adequate facilities for post season tournaments.

Sac State would have gotten something done had the BSC made it clear their is no chance in holding a post season tournament with a guarantee of a tournament grade facility prior to the start of the season. I just don't think that existed at any point.

As for environment there are several facilities in the BSC that probably rate lower as a fan environment that SS. The three domes probably are close to the top of the list and probably throw in the Stott Center as well. I have been to UofI and ISU for games and frankly they are abjectly terrible fan environments. In fact I am pretty sure ISU's alternate facility might be a better basketball environment than the dome at least that is what my friends in the area tell me. Not sure about UND but it might be close in that regard. NAU rep is well earned for its 350 people in a 15,000 person barn.

I get the frustration. I really do, because it doesn't reflect well on SS or the BSC.

I think the enormous blowouts of the Griz in their last two NCAA appearances speak more of the conference than the gym at Sacramento....Coach Travis is succeeding in winning and recruiting in spite of probably two of the most embarrassing losses in recent UM history.

 

[EverettGriz]

Sac is selling out its home games this year. They are playing very well at home. And 1,100 Sac fans in a gym that seats 1,100 fans equates to a much better home court advantage than, say, 3,500 Griz fans in a facility that seats 7,000 fans.

Ahhh, the ol' msu argument: "We fill 99% of our stadium, while you GRIZ only fill 98% of yours, so we have a better crowd and better attendance". Discounting that WaGriz still draws 7,000 more every week.

And frankly, who cares whether sac has a home court advantage in a gym they cannot use?? It's completely pointless.

 

[EverettGriz]

Sac State would have gotten something done had the BSC made it clear their is no chance in holding a post season tournament with a guarantee of a tournament grade facility prior to the start of the season. I just don't think that existed at any point.

24, as I stated before, the BSC made it clear to both PSU and sac that they couldn't hold tournament games in their gyms at the time they were admitted to the conference. Here's some information from the Sacremento Bee about that:

Sacramento State’s arena problem didn’t crop up overnight. When Sacramento State joined the conference in 1996, it explicitly agreed that it would find an alternative site if it ever got to host the conference tournament. “They knew they could never host the men’s basketball championship there,” Kasper said. “They’ve always known that.”

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/sports/college/mens-basketball/article8527373.html#storylink=cpy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So while the BSC brass doesn't come out smelling pretty here, the real stink is on Sac and their leadership group.

Incidentally, when PSU won the regular season 5 or 6 years ago, they also couldn't play in their home gym, and moved the Tournament to the Rose Garden.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

Everybody knows the tournament is not going to be played in the Nest because it's not big enough. But your insistence that Sac State doesn't have a home court advantage there defies logic. They're selling out the place now, they're winning, and nobody in the conference has been able to get a W there.

Prediction Machine, an on-line betting site that uses real data to assist in its picks, notes the average "home court advantage" in college basketball is about 4 points. But it rates the home court advantages of all 350 Division I teams and puts Sac States at 123. (As compared, for example, to Montana's, at 135). So not only is Sac State's court worth the average 4-point advantage, it's probably worth a point or two more.

http://www.predictionmachine.com/conference-nfl-review" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Look, i don't have a problem with you. I only pointed out that the Sac fans' statements that home W-L equates to a home court advantage defy all logic. Did the Dallas Cowboys have an "away field advantage" this season? Dumb.

Now, my original statement was that they do not have "much of a home court advantage." Sac State, playing in that shit hole of a gym, does not have a much of a home court advantage. "A point or two" over the default 4 is not much of a home court advantage. Sorry, it's just not.

If you don't have much of a home court advantage (which you and I agree, Sac does not), why embarrass the whole conference by holding a conference tournament next to the rock climbing wall and stairmasters in the student rec center? That's all I'm getting at.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

Sac State would have gotten something done had the BSC made it clear their is no chance in holding a post season tournament with a guarantee of a tournament grade facility prior to the start of the season. I just don't think that existed at any point.

24, as I stated before, the BSC made it clear to both PSU and sac that they couldn't hold tournament games in their gyms at the time they were admitted to the conference. Here's some information from the Sacremento Bee about that:

Sacramento State’s arena problem didn’t crop up overnight. When Sacramento State joined the conference in 1996, it explicitly agreed that it would find an alternative site if it ever got to host the conference tournament. “They knew they could never host the men’s basketball championship there,” Kasper said. “They’ve always known that.”

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/sports/college/mens-basketball/article8527373.html#storylink=cpy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So while the BSC brass doesn't come out smelling pretty here, the real stink is on Sac and their leadership group.

Incidentally, when PSU won the regular season 5 or 6 years ago, they also couldn't play in their home gym, and moved the Tournament to the Rose Garden.

But, now, if Sac St. wins, we will get to play in between a spin class and a youth basketball camp.

 

[EverettGriz]

But it has a cool name like "WELL", so....

 

[SDHornet]

Regarding logic, please see my previous post. Assuming that a good home record implies the existence of a home court advantage is actually a logical flaw.

I saw you guys in Spokane this season. I think your players learned what a home court advantage is. Ask them if your arena compares.

So you’re not basing home court advantage on the only thing that matters (wins) but rather an arbitrary “lick your finger and stick it in the air” sense of what you think home court advantage is. Mmmm….okay…. :lol: :lol: :lol:

BTW if EWU’s home court advantage was so huge, then we wouldn’t have been able to come back from a huge deficit and almost pull out the win right? Quick, lick your finger and stick it in the air and tell us how that example devalues (or improves?!?) their home court advantage. :? :lol:

Wow…just wow…this place is pure comedic gold.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
:clap: :clap:

 

[CDAGRIZ]

Regarding logic, please see my previous post. Assuming that a good home record implies the existence of a home court advantage is actually a logical flaw.

I saw you guys in Spokane this season. I think your players learned what a home court advantage is. Ask them if your arena compares.

So you’re not basing home court advantage on the only thing that matters (wins) but rather an arbitrary “lick your finger and stick it in the air” sense of what you think home court advantage is. Mmmm….okay…. :lol: :lol: :lol:

BTW if EWU’s home court advantage was so huge, then we wouldn’t have been able to come back from a huge deficit and almost pull out the win right? Quick, lick your finger and stick it in the air and tell us how that example devalues (or improves?!?) their home court advantage. :? :lol:

Wow…just wow…this place is pure comedic gold.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
:clap: :clap:

You've convinced me. An arena with 5 people sitting on their hands is a great home court advantage as long as the team is 10-0 at home. Much better than an arena of 13,000 screaming fans when the team is 8-2 at home.

 

[mtgrizrule]

Regardless of attendance, location, and capacity playing at home is always an advantage, compared to playing no the road. Yes, when Sac State has it sold out at, with it's small capacity, it can be more of an advantage for them. Compared to most seasons, at least this season, the place has looked pretty full, and it has been louder.

As for the issue at hand, I am disappointed Sac State has had how long to prepare for this, and still is not up to par??? They have been allotted plenty of time to take care of this. It would serve them justice to have a conference tournament elsewhere than on campus. In my opinion, this is 100% on the powers to be at Sac State. No, I am not saying this to mess with Sac State's fan base. I actually like the few Sac State fans that post here.

This is not an issue if the GRIZ win out, and Sac State loses 1, which I think they will lose 1 of their remaining 3 road games. The GRIZ have 3 tough road games left as well. I am hoping the GRIZ host. If the GRIZ cannot win it, I'd prefer NAU (if it is possible), then EWU for hosting the tournament.

 

[EverettGriz]

Wow…just wow…this place is pure comedic gold

Ohhhh the irony.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

I saw something saying SAC is above .500 for the first time in forever this year. So the arena magically became a place that gives a home court advantage out of the blue, or Sac just happens to be good this year? Hmm . . .