Crazy thought-Big Sky tourney neutral site

[ilovethecats]

both.

i guess national championships are ALWAYS better than a win or two before losing. although i don't think i agree with the perception of the two from others. of course I WOULD prefer a championship title because i care about the cats and fcs football. but no one else does unless you're like me and have a love for fcs football.

you think more people around the nation remember eastern's national championship a few years ago or vcu making the final four? won of them won the whole thing and the other didn't.

it has always been my opinion that as far as how we are looked at nationally and what could benefit the university the most...i think hoops does more when success is involved. for instance...WE know how good the um football program is and how dominant they were for so long. they even won a couple national championships. but i think winning against nevada was equally valuable and i think had they beat boston college it would have put them on the map. just my opinion of course. i just think if the griz went on a crazy run and made the final four it would put them on the map nationally much more than winning another fcs football championship.

[John K]

Personally, I think they should either do away with the BSC tourney or have every team in it. It's too bad they don't have a realistic division for a national tourney for conferences like the Big Sky. The Big Sky has won more FCS/I-AA/DivII national football titles since 1976 than it has first round NCAA mens bball tourney games. Would you rather have a national title in football or a first round tourney win, which is just going to be written off as a fluke by almost everyone?

I agree completely. I would love to see a separate division created for the "low-majors" of Division I. I believe that's part of the reason why college basketball is so much less popular than college football in Montana...because MSU especially, and even UM to a large degree, can't realistically hope for anything beyond a BSC title (even that seems to be sort of a pipe dream for us these days), and not getting blown out in the first round of the NCAA tourney. Football is so much more interesting since MSU and UM are relevant on a national level. I know that most college football fans in the rest of the country consider the entire FCS subdivision to be irrelevant, but it's not to us.

[John K]

both.

i guess national championships are ALWAYS better than a win or two before losing. although i don't think i agree with the perception of the two from others. of course I WOULD prefer a championship title because i care about the cats and fcs football. but no one else does unless you're like me and have a love for fcs football.

you think more people around the nation remember eastern's national championship a few years ago or vcu making the final four? won of them won the whole thing and the other didn't.

it has always been my opinion that as far as how we are looked at nationally and what could benefit the university the most...i think hoops does more when success is involved. for instance...WE know how good the um football program is and how dominant they were for so long. they even won a couple national championships. but i think winning against nevada was equally valuable and i think had they beat boston college it would have put them on the map. just my opinion of course. i just think if the griz went on a crazy run and made the final four it would put them on the map nationally much more than winning another fcs football championship.

I agree with you in principle, but the key word in your post is "if". MSU in particular, and the entire BSC in general, currently has no better chance of getting a team into the Final Four, than I do of getting a date with Bar Rafiali (sp) or Kate Upton. If the BSC champ truly had a legitimate chance of ever getting to the Final Four, then I would wholeheartedly agree with you. But that's just not ever going to happen, or at least not anytime in the foreseeable future. There's only 2 or 3 conferences in the entire nation that are worse than the BSC this season. The league has won a grand total of 3 tourney games in the past 30 years, and it's also been 30 years since a BSC team has even made it as far as the Sweet 16, let alone the Final Four. The idea of a BSC team going on a run like Butler or VCU have done in the past few years, is simply unrealistic.

[ilovethecats]

both.

i guess national championships are ALWAYS better than a win or two before losing. although i don't think i agree with the perception of the two from others. of course I WOULD prefer a championship title because i care about the cats and fcs football. but no one else does unless you're like me and have a love for fcs football.

you think more people around the nation remember eastern's national championship a few years ago or vcu making the final four? won of them won the whole thing and the other didn't.

it has always been my opinion that as far as how we are looked at nationally and what could benefit the university the most...i think hoops does more when success is involved. for instance...WE know how good the um football program is and how dominant they were for so long. they even won a couple national championships. but i think winning against nevada was equally valuable and i think had they beat boston college it would have put them on the map. just my opinion of course. i just think if the griz went on a crazy run and made the final four it would put them on the map nationally much more than winning another fcs football championship.

I agree with you in principle, but the key word in your post is "if". MSU in particular, and the entire BSC in general, currently has no better chance of getting a team into the Final Four, than I do of getting a date with Bar Rafiali (sp) or Kate Upton. If the BSC champ truly had a legitimate chance of ever getting to the Final Four, then I would wholeheartedly agree with you. But that's just not ever going to happen, or at least not anytime in the foreseeable future. There's only 2 or 3 conferences in the entire nation that are worse than the BSC this season. The league has won a grand total of 3 tourney games in the past 30 years, and it's also been 30 years since a BSC team has even made it as far as the Sweet 16, let alone the Final Four.

i agree and i was using extreme examples to show my point. but winning two games in march madness is not impossible. the griz almost did. i'm just saying that i think a win against boston college for them a few years ago and a trip to the sweet 16 would have doen just as much for them on a national level than winning another fcs championship in football.

[John K]

both.

i guess national championships are ALWAYS better than a win or two before losing. although i don't think i agree with the perception of the two from others. of course I WOULD prefer a championship title because i care about the cats and fcs football. but no one else does unless you're like me and have a love for fcs football.

you think more people around the nation remember eastern's national championship a few years ago or vcu making the final four? won of them won the whole thing and the other didn't.

it has always been my opinion that as far as how we are looked at nationally and what could benefit the university the most...i think hoops does more when success is involved. for instance...WE know how good the um football program is and how dominant they were for so long. they even won a couple national championships. but i think winning against nevada was equally valuable and i think had they beat boston college it would have put them on the map. just my opinion of course. i just think if the griz went on a crazy run and made the final four it would put them on the map nationally much more than winning another fcs football championship.

I agree with you in principle, but the key word in your post is "if". MSU in particular, and the entire BSC in general, currently has no better chance of getting a team into the Final Four, than I do of getting a date with Bar Rafiali (sp) or Kate Upton. If the BSC champ truly had a legitimate chance of ever getting to the Final Four, then I would wholeheartedly agree with you. But that's just not ever going to happen, or at least not anytime in the foreseeable future. There's only 2 or 3 conferences in the entire nation that are worse than the BSC this season. The league has won a grand total of 3 tourney games in the past 30 years, and it's also been 30 years since a BSC team has even made it as far as the Sweet 16, let alone the Final Four.

i agree and i was using extreme examples to show my point. but winning two games in march madness is not impossible. the griz almost did. i'm just saying that i think a win against boston college for them a few years ago and a trip to the sweet 16 would have doen just as much for them on a national level than winning another fcs championship in football.

Again, I would agree with you if the BCS could accomplish that with any regularity. Of course it's not impossible, but 3 tourney wins and zero Sweet 16 appearances in 30 years tells me that it's highly unlikely. If I asked Bar or Kate to go out with me 30 times, and got turned down every time, I'd probably have to accept that she's just not ever going to be the next Mrs. K. But it sounds like "you're telling me there's a chance..."

[[cat_bracket]]

you think more people around the nation remember eastern's national championship a few years ago or vcu making the final four? won of them won the whole thing and the other didn't.

it has always been my opinion that as far as how we are looked at nationally and what could benefit the university the most...i think hoops does more when success is involved. for instance...WE know how good the um football program is and how dominant they were for so long. they even won a couple national championships. but i think winning against nevada was equally valuable and i think had they beat boston college it would have put them on the map. just my opinion of course. i just think if the griz went on a crazy run and made the final four it would put them on the map nationally much more than winning another fcs football championship.

I agree that nationally going to the Final Four would be much more memorable than a FCS title. Even one win at the tourney will get more media attention nationally than a FCS title, but I'm asking would it mean more to you as a MSU fan to have MSU win a first round NCAA bball game and lose the next or win a FCS title.

I don't think it's reasonable to think a BSC team is going to get to the Sweet 16. It's not impossible, but it would take a lot of luck. A Sweet 16 would be much better nationally than a FCS title, but as far as I'm concerned I'd probably go with the FCS title. A Sweet 16 would give you nearly a full week of 24-7 chatter on ESPN, CBS, etc. and that would be huge, and nationally a much bigger deal than a FCS title.

[ilovethecats]

it's tough for me to say. that's why i said both.

as a fan national championships mean the most. but the cats have done that already in my life. and i suspect i'll see them do it again at some point.

truthfully i think i would appreciate a sweet 16 appearance because i have never seen a big sky team do that. i have seen eastern washington win a championship. i have seen the griz win a couple. i have seen the cats win one. to me making the sweet 16 not only puts us ona national map but it seems harder to do.

that said, even though i have never seen it done, i don't look at making the sweet 16 as nearly impossible. it's 2 wins. but as we've talked about...history says it IS nearly impossible.

[BelgradeBobcat]

I would love to see a separate division created for the "low-majors" of Division I.

I would emphatically disagree with this-though I understand the sentiment.

Let's just call it 1-AA for basketball for purposes of discussion:

Where would you create the division and what would be the criteria to determine if a team or conference were in D-1A or D-1AA? In football the divisions are clearly separated by the number of scholarships allowed (63 for FCS and 85 for FBS). It's a lot harder to create a clear separation in basketball. But once a division is established-watch all the teams jump over the line to be D-1A. It would be worse than football.

[oedipuss]

I would emphatically disagree with this-though I understand the sentiment.

Let's just call it 1-AA for basketball for purposes of discussion:

Where would you create the division and what would be the criteria to determine if a team or conference were in D-1A or D-1AA? In football the divisions are clearly separated by the number of scholarships allowed (63 for FCS and 85 for FBS). It's a lot harder to create a clear separation in basketball. But once a division is established-watch all the teams jump over the line to be D-1A. It would be worse than football.

I think it's probably going to occur like Coach Boeheim said in an interview - where the top 5 "BCS" conferences will eventually ask themselves "why are we splitting money with teams like Iona and Florida Gulf Coast when we can keep all of it or more to ourselves and play by our own rules if we separate from the NCAA?" That's probably not going to happen soon but I think as the ink dries on the football TV contracts - the desire to find revenue streams from Oly sports and basketball is going to create discussion and ideas of separation.

[BelgradeBobcat]

I think it's probably going to occur like Coach Boeheim said in an interview - where the top 5 "BCS" conferences will eventually ask themselves "why are we splitting money with teams like Iona and Florida Gulf Coast when we can keep all of it or more to ourselves and play by our own rules if we separate from the NCAA?" That's probably not going to happen soon but I think as the ink dries on the football TV contracts - the desire to find revenue streams from Oly sports and basketball is going to create discussion and ideas of separation.

Yeah I can see something like that happening. But that's where a team like Gonzaga getting the number 1 seed really gums up the works.

[bincitysioux]

I was just looking at attendance numbers for the Big Sky tourney, although I can't find the figure for two of the games: Weber v. UND and Weber v. NAU.

Weber v. Montana: 7,172
Montana v. Northern Colorado: 6,919
Montana St. v. Northern Colorado: 3,333
North Dakota v. SUU: 1,737

I'm just going to use the number from the SUU game (1,737) for Weber's quarterfinal game and the number from the MSU game for the Weber-UND semi-final (3,333). Should be fairly close judging from watching the games.

Total attendance: 24,181
Avg per game: 4,030

I would bet those numbers would be fairly similar, give or take, if the Tourney were held in Ogden or Bozeman.

Now the question is if the current 7 team format remains, will 24,000 people show up at a neutral site? I personally don't think they would, except maybe if the site was SLC where Weber's fan base could converge.

The reason I keep coming back to SLC is because of my personal experience with the WCHA Final Five, which is the conference hockey tournament that North Dakota participates in. It is held in St. Paul, within spitting distance of the University of Minnesota, which is a big reason games usually draw 15,000+ spectators. Yes it gives the Gophers a huge advantage, but I guess that is one of the trade-offs that is made to have an outstanding event, which it is.

Personally, if the site were Vegas, I would make plans to attend it because there is cheap direct flights from Grand Forks. Would be a fun little get-a-way. But I seriously doubt there are enough hard-core fans like me from every fan-base to offset the loss of the casual home-team fans that will show up if the tourney were in Missoula, Ogden, or even Bozeman.

On the other hand, IMO attendance would be and has been terrible compared to this season and last if the tourney is hosted by any school other than Weber, UM, or MSU. My guess is that UND would put on the best tourney after those 3, and at best I think we could hope for only about 15,000 total attendance, and they'd mostly be locals. We will find out next year, because North Dakota will be hosting it!

It seems to be kind of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" type of situation.

[BelgradeBobcat]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Sky_Co ... Tournament" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

By my quick count-it looks like there have been 37 Big Sky Conference men's basketball tournaments. All of the tournaments have been in Big Sky cities. It looks like the host school played in the title game in 27 of those tournaments (again a real quick count so I may be off a tad). With few execeptions, when the host school is in the title game, the attendance was very good and the game looked good on national TV. One exception was Portland State who hosted the 2008 tournament in the Rose Garden (home of the NBA Blazers). They had a crowd of about 4000 in the final, which is huge for PSU, but that crowd was swallowed up in the cavernous 20,000 seat Rose Garden.

When the host school did not make the final, the championship game was lightly attended. This happend in Missoula, Bozeman, Portland, and Ogden in the 2000's.

In the 80's and 90's the Big Sky experimented. In th mid-80's the regular season winner got to host the tournament the following season. MSU won the regular season in 1987 and hosted the tournament in 1988. Boise State was the regular season winner in 1988, but Montana State had a great team as well and Bobcat basketball was a huge deal in Bozeman at that time. The arena was full for all sessions (I think it was four nights as every team went to the tourney) and I think that tournament set a Big Sky attendance record that may still stand today (not sure about that, Boise or Weber may have broken it with their bigger arenas). Boise State, led by Chris Childs-who had a nice NBA career, ended up winning the championship game over MSU by 2 points. This plan was also a colossal failure when NAU won the regular season in 1986 so hosted in 1987. NAU didn't make the final and Nevada played Idaho State in an empty Skydome (I remember that game-it looked terrible on TV).

In 1990 Boise bought the tournament. But I think that idea (the tournament going to the highest bidder) only lasted one season. That year Idaho won the tournament and Boise didn't make the final (I think they got beat by EWU).

Since the early 1990's the tournament (at least the semi final and final) have been at the regular season winner.

If they go to a neutral site, no matter where, the crowds will probably be small. If they go to a pre-determined site in a Big Sky city it had a chance to be a big event if the host school gets to the final. But a pre-determined site gives the host school a huge advantage that they may not deserve. Other leagues don't seem to have a problem with this. The Mountain West has their tournament on UNLV's home court, but the Mountain West regular season champ is going to the NCAA's no matter what so it's not a big risk for them as opposed to a one-bid league like the Big Sky.

[John K]

I sort of like the idea of going back to having the champ from the previous season host the tourney. It gives them a reward for winning the title, even if it doesn't come until the next season, and that way you have a pre-determined site in a BSC city. I know there are some flaws with this solution, but there are flaws with all of the other options as well. If having a pre-determined site is that important, I think this is the best way to determine it. I like the idea of the host city "earning" that role, even if they earned it the previous season, rather than just awarding it to some city on the basis of a bidding system, or whatever. And I do think that attendance would suffer dramatically if it was held in a non-BSC city.