WHO IS FIRED UP FOR BOISE??

[Colter_Nuanez]

There are six games on Wednesday...Montana State's is the last one. The game could start as early as 8 and as late as 10 p.m....

Aren't the men's games in the morning and the women's semi-finals in the evening on Wednesday?
https://downtownboise.org/_files/docs/b ... racket.pdf

From that bracket, it would look like MSU's game should start about 230 or 300 local time. Are they Mountain Time or Pacific? That assumes that game 2 will follow game 1 and then game 3 would be next(us).

I'm an idiot, didn't look at updated schedules. Yes women's semis are tomorrow night. And the men's games start at 9:30 a.m Probably good for the guy covering the tournament to know. Thanks!

[thefrank1]

Great facility. Much better than reno. Girls down 10 start of the 4th.

[Bobcat4Ever]

Great facility. Much better than reno. Girls down 10 start of the 4th.

The first year in Reno, the facility was getting pretty good reviews. Would like to know the differences/improvements that you are finding. Thanks.

[Colter_Nuanez]

Great facility. Much better than reno. Girls down 10 start of the 4th.

The first year in Reno, the facility was getting pretty good reviews. Would like to know the differences/improvements that you are finding. Thanks.

The facility is better in every single way. The set-up, the structure, the amenities, the location, the quality of the lighting, the quality of the court, the number of dressing rooms for the teams, the food, the interview rooms, the concessions, the memorabilia sales areas, the views, the sound system, the replay boards...everything.

[aucat]

Colter, that's great, but you are a sports journalist, and a dang good one. But for the fans, you have to really be motivated
to travel that distance to a neutral site that has zero connections to the Big Sky Conference. I bet no one in Boise could
name half the teams in the Big Sky Conference.

Personally, I would go with the idea of allowing the PREVIOUS year's champ to host the tournament the following year.
For two reasons: 1. It provides a true reward for winning the regular season title, and 2. You are actually playing on a Big Sky
Conference member's campus, so there is a built-in interest and familiarity with the Big Sky teams. I'm glad the facilities are
good and I hope those Bobcat fans that make the journey have a good time. The women are now "one and done," so I hope
the men don't pull that number as well.

[ddlalum]

I bet no one in Boise could name half the teams in the Big Sky Conference.

Having lived in Boise for 20 years I would have to disagree.
With Boise State’s history in the Big Sky, along with the state of Idaho having 2 Big Sky schools I don’t understand why you would think that. It would be like saying, Billings Montana has zero connections to the Big Sky….

It will be interesting to see what attendance is like when it’s all said and done. There has been a real buzz around town, and I think people have been excited about it. I never went to Reno, but I have a hard time believing there was a buzz in Reno.

I guess when Sunday rolls around we can see whether it was a success or not, but so far Boise residents have really enjoyed having the tournament here.

[WalkOn79]

If you hurry you can get a plane ticket for anywhere between 700-1200 or so. Or you can look forward
to driving 9 hours and hope the snow drifts don't engulf you.

As opposed to getting to Moscow, Idaho on less than a week's notice? The men's tournament location wouldn't have been decided until late last night, sending teams scrambling to make travel arrangements and find hotel rooms in Missoula. And then there's the parents and other family members who might want to watch their kid play-what's a plane ticket to Missoula cost on less than week's notice? Would there even be any seats available. I can't imagine what a mess that would be. Sure they pulled it off in the past, but there were the horror stories of teams having to bus for day or more up and back. What kind of a tournament experience is that for the players. WAC, Big West, WCC coaches used that to recruit against Big Sky schools.

If having the chance for a big crowd for the championship game is the most important thing-the the old way is the best way...except of course in those years where the host gets upset in an early round and there's nobody there.

Getting a crowd is important. But it's also about the players and coahces. They work hard all season long. They don't deserve to be put through a planes, trains, and automobiles logistical nightmare to get to the tournament and stay in a mom-and-pop motel in Frenchtown because there's no rooms available in Missoula. And they deserve to have their friends and families there to watch them-which was impossible in many cases under the old system.

I don't know how it will go in Boise. It should be better than Reno. At least there's two Idaho schools involved with lots of alumni in that City. My guess is if Boise doesn't work they'll go to a pre-determined campus site. But I think the days of the regular season winner getting to host are over. I don't think the league's athletic directors and coaches will let it go back.

Instead of rehashing this all over for the 1 millionth time, all the arguments for a pre-determined site are well covered in this Q&A between Skyline Sports and former Big Sky deputy Ron Loghry:
http://skylinesportsmt.com/road-to-reno ... hry-part-1

http://skylinesportsmt.com/road-to-reno ... ry-part-2/

This is so spot on. Can we just put this argument to rest once and for all?

[WalkOn79]

When I watch the Lady Cats vs. PSU this Tuesday, I will be sure to compare the attendance to that depicted in the "cover photo."

Come on-that's not really fair. If the first round women's games were in Moscow (the regular season winner) there wouldn't be very many people there.

Exactly!

[WalkOn79]

For just a few years back in the late 80's, the BSC had the previous year's regular season champ host the tourney. I actually sort of like that idea...i'ts sort of a hybrid between the other 2 formats. The champion does get rewarded for winning the conference, even though it's not until the following season, and you have a pre-determined site. If we're going to agree that it's just too difficult logistically not to have a pre-determined site, I like that idea better than any of the other options, i.e a non-BSC city hosting, or bidding it out to a BSC city, or rotating among all the BSC schools. And it's sort of a consolation prize to the regular season champ, if they end up not winning the tourney. That happened to MSU in 1987-1988. We won the regular season title in 1987 but got upset in the 1st round of the tourney, which was hosted by the 1986 regular season champ. Then we hosted the tourney the next year in 1988 and made it to the championship game as the #3 seed. Those may have been the only 2 years the BSC used that format. It's not ideal, but In many ways I think it might be the best option.

So what do you do if Sac State wins the conference? There are other schools with less than stellar facilities a well.

[WalkOn79]

Colter, that's great, but you are a sports journalist, and a dang good one. But for the fans, you have to really be motivated
to travel that distance to a neutral site that has zero connections to the Big Sky Conference. I bet no one in Boise could
name half the teams in the Big Sky Conference.

Personally, I would go with the idea of allowing the PREVIOUS year's champ to host the tournament the following year.
For two reasons: 1. It provides a true reward for winning the regular season title, and 2. You are actually playing on a Big Sky
Conference member's campus, so there is a built-in interest and familiarity with the Big Sky teams. I'm glad the facilities are
good and I hope those Bobcat fans that make the journey have a good time. The women are now "one and done," so I hope
the men don't pull that number as well.

We get it dude!

[BozoneCat]

Great facility. Much better than reno. Girls down 10 start of the 4th.

The first year in Reno, the facility was getting pretty good reviews. Would like to know the differences/improvements that you are finding. Thanks.

The facility is better in every single way. The set-up, the structure, the amenities, the location, the quality of the lighting, the quality of the court, the number of dressing rooms for the teams, the food, the interview rooms, the concessions, the memorabilia sales areas, the views, the sound system, the replay boards...everything.

Totally agree, the facility is pretty awesome, especially for an event like the Big Sky tournament. We go to hockey games there quite often, and it's a great place to watch a game, with tons of great bars & restaurants all within walking distance. It's a little removed from the seats for basketball setup, but playing at a place like BSU's home floor would feel even that much emptier. I think it's a perfect setup. Not sure how it will be received and what attendance will be, but I agree with @ddlalum that it seems like there is a good buzz in town about the tournament. Having a game like MSU vs. Idaho at 2:30 on a Wednesday afternoon won't help, that's the one game that probably would have had a pretty full house if it was an evening game. With MSU's history as of late in the Big Sky tourney, it's not like I'm taking off work to go watch them play today. But I'll be there tomorrow night if we manage to somehow not blow this game!

[John K]

For just a few years back in the late 80's, the BSC had the previous year's regular season champ host the tourney. I actually sort of like that idea...i'ts sort of a hybrid between the other 2 formats. The champion does get rewarded for winning the conference, even though it's not until the following season, and you have a pre-determined site. If we're going to agree that it's just too difficult logistically not to have a pre-determined site, I like that idea better than any of the other options, i.e a non-BSC city hosting, or bidding it out to a BSC city, or rotating among all the BSC schools. And it's sort of a consolation prize to the regular season champ, if they end up not winning the tourney. That happened to MSU in 1987-1988. We won the regular season title in 1987 but got upset in the 1st round of the tourney, which was hosted by the 1986 regular season champ. Then we hosted the tourney the next year in 1988 and made it to the championship game as the #3 seed. Those may have been the only 2 years the BSC used that format. It's not ideal, but In many ways I think it might be the best option.

So what do you do if Sac State wins the conference? There are other schools with less than stellar facilities a well.

That's easy. Just set some minimum standards that have to be met in order to host the tourney. If the school's home venue doesn't meet those standards, they could possibly host it at another venue in the same area. If that isn't an option, then the 2nd place team would host.

[ilovethecats]

For just a few years back in the late 80's, the BSC had the previous year's regular season champ host the tourney. I actually sort of like that idea...i'ts sort of a hybrid between the other 2 formats. The champion does get rewarded for winning the conference, even though it's not until the following season, and you have a pre-determined site. If we're going to agree that it's just too difficult logistically not to have a pre-determined site, I like that idea better than any of the other options, i.e a non-BSC city hosting, or bidding it out to a BSC city, or rotating among all the BSC schools. And it's sort of a consolation prize to the regular season champ, if they end up not winning the tourney. That happened to MSU in 1987-1988. We won the regular season title in 1987 but got upset in the 1st round of the tourney, which was hosted by the 1986 regular season champ. Then we hosted the tourney the next year in 1988 and made it to the championship game as the #3 seed. Those may have been the only 2 years the BSC used that format. It's not ideal, but In many ways I think it might be the best option.

So what do you do if Sac State wins the conference? There are other schools with less than stellar facilities a well.

That's easy. Just set some minimum standards that have to be met in order to host the tourney. If the school's home venue doesn't meet those standards, they could possibly host it at another venue in the same area. If that isn't an option, then the 2nd place team would host.

Totally agree. we have much bigger issues as a conference if we have members that wouldn't be able to use their facilities or at the very least find a facility nearby. I just think we're really overthinking the regular season champ being given the opportunity to host. It worked forever.

I'll concede I'll withhold final judgement until after this weekend. Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised!

[thefrank1]

As a humble fan, I like the intimacy of of the arena. Not a bad seat and the crowd noise can actually be heard. The convention center in Reno was too cavernous. The seats were too far from from the floor. Outside, Boise is much cleaner and newer than Reno and lots of eating and drinking options near the arena.

Regarding the question of the regular season champ hosting, playing on a neutral court is more important and representative of a real conference championship.

[ilovethecats]

Regarding the question of the regular season champ hosting, playing on a neutral court is more important and representative of a real conference championship.

But that's just the thing...for a conference such as ours it's NOT. Many mid-majors and smaller conference reward the regular season champ with hosting the tourney. It makes way more sense for schools our size. I've been watching all the championship games on ESPN going back to last weekend and nearly every one of them was hosted by the regular season champ. Hell, even the WCC should do it except for the fact that Gonzaga would host it 100 years in a row...

Aside from the argument that travel could be difficult with such short notice, I really can't think of another pro in this debate. I think the Big Sky tourney needs to do everything in its power to ensure the best team represents us on the biggest stage. Rewarding these teams with homecourt advantage is just good sense in my opinion. Go take a peak at the home records and road records of every team in the league this season. They're staggering. Other than UNC and the griz who's road records were simply ok....every other team was just garbage on the road.

Reward a team for winning the conference. Let their fans pack their arenas; big or small. Get that excitement that March is known for. And give our best team in the league the best chance to represent the Big Sky in the Dance.

[Grizaddict]

Regarding the question of the regular season champ hosting, playing on a neutral court is more important and representative of a real conference championship.

But that's just the thing...for a conference such as ours it's NOT. Many mid-majors and smaller conference reward the regular season champ with hosting the tourney. It makes way more sense for schools our size. I've been watching all the championship games on ESPN going back to last weekend and nearly every one of them was hosted by the regular season champ. Hell, even the WCC should do it except for the fact that Gonzaga would host it 100 years in a row...

Aside from the argument that travel could be difficult with such short notice, I really can't think of another pro in this debate. I think the Big Sky tourney needs to do everything in its power to ensure the best team represents us on the biggest stage. Rewarding these teams with homecourt advantage is just good sense in my opinion. Go take a peak at the home records and road records of every team in the league this season. They're staggering. Other than UNC and the griz who's road records were simply ok....every other team was just garbage on the road.

Reward a team for winning the conference. Let their fans pack their arenas; big or small. Get that excitement that March is known for. And give our best team in the league the best chance to represent the Big Sky in the Dance.

Couldn’t agree more. Look at what just happened in the summit. Neutral court in Sioux Falls and SDSU lost out early and the number 5 team in the conference, NDSU, wins it all and has an overall record of 17-15. NDSU goes dancing and will probably get beat by 35 points. SDSU who would beat NDSU 9 out of 10 matchups stays home all together. I don’t like it.

[ilovethecats]

Regarding the question of the regular season champ hosting, playing on a neutral court is more important and representative of a real conference championship.

But that's just the thing...for a conference such as ours it's NOT. Many mid-majors and smaller conference reward the regular season champ with hosting the tourney. It makes way more sense for schools our size. I've been watching all the championship games on ESPN going back to last weekend and nearly every one of them was hosted by the regular season champ. Hell, even the WCC should do it except for the fact that Gonzaga would host it 100 years in a row...

Aside from the argument that travel could be difficult with such short notice, I really can't think of another pro in this debate. I think the Big Sky tourney needs to do everything in its power to ensure the best team represents us on the biggest stage. Rewarding these teams with homecourt advantage is just good sense in my opinion. Go take a peak at the home records and road records of every team in the league this season. They're staggering. Other than UNC and the griz who's road records were simply ok....every other team was just garbage on the road.

Reward a team for winning the conference. Let their fans pack their arenas; big or small. Get that excitement that March is known for. And give our best team in the league the best chance to represent the Big Sky in the Dance.

Couldn’t agree more. Look at what just happened in the summit. Neutral court in Sioux Falls and SDSU lost out early and the number 5 team in the conference, NDSU, wins it all and has an overall record of 17-15. NDSU goes dancing and will probably get beat by 35 points. SDSU who would beat NDSU 9 out of 10 matchups stays home all together. I don’t like it.

Exactly. And using that same example...if teams are able to go into a hostile environment and beat a quality team on their own floor that's all well and fine. That will happen from time to time. Would have made way more sense to reward SDSU for winning the regular season title.

You know how adamant I am about this because I am fully aware that the Griz would be hosting this thing about every other the year the way it's been going. But I don't care if it's the Griz, UNC, PSU or fricken Idaho State.....if you prove to be the best team all year long you should have your fans behind you when you're trying to win a few more to make the Dance.

[Bobcat4Ever]

Just checked watchbigsky.com to see if our game was getting ready to start. That site has the women's game scheduled for 5:30 p.m. (probably correct) and our men's game for 5:59 p.m. (highly doubtful).

[catatac]

Just checked watchbigsky.com to see if our game was getting ready to start. That site has the women's game scheduled for 5:30 p.m. (probably correct) and our men's game for 5:59 p.m. (highly doubtful).

?? - I saw it listed somewhere starting at 4:30 Eastern.....

[John K]

Just checked watchbigsky.com to see if our game was getting ready to start. That site has the women's game scheduled for 5:30 p.m. (probably correct) and our men's game for 5:59 p.m. (highly doubtful).

?? - I saw it listed somewhere starting at 4:30 Eastern.....

It started at 2:30 MDT.