Conference Tournament

[Bobcat80]

I'm sure this is a subject that's been overdiscussed in the past. I'll go ahead and throw this out anyway. Would anyone be in favor of having the conference tournament at a set, neutral site rather than at the winner's home? Right now there are 3 tournaments (Pac 12, Mountain West and WAC) all going on in Vegas. They are all right along Tropicana Ave. within a total area of under 3 miles. I would love to be there right now to take in as much basketball as I could. I'm not trying to say the Big Sky Conference should hold their tournament in Vegas. There are several locations that I could see as fairly centrally located for the tournament though. Salt Lake City, Boise, Reno, even Billings come to mind. Also, I would love to see the tournament be a true 8 team format as well. I'm curious others thoughts on this.

[allcat]

I'm sure this is a subject that's been overdiscussed in the past. I'll go ahead and throw this out anyway. Would anyone be in favor of having the conference tournament at a set, neutral site rather than at the winner's home? Right now there are 3 tournaments (Pac 12, Mountain West and WAC) all going on in Vegas. They are all right along Tropicana Ave. within a total area of under 3 miles. I would love to be there right now to take in as much basketball as I could. I'm not trying to say the Big Sky Conference should hold their tournament in Vegas. There are several locations that I could see as fairly centrally located for the tournament though. Salt Lake City, Boise, Reno, even Billings come to mind. Also, I would love to see the tournament be a true 8 team format as well. I'm curious others thoughts on this.

We have a tournament?

[SonomaCat]

I think it all comes down to how much attendance a tourney could draw to a neutral site. If the BSC could generate good crowds, I'd be 100% in favor of a neutral site. But absent that, it would probably just lose a ton of money and look horrible on TV (assuming a game or two was on TV).

[allcat]

I actually think Vegas for this would be a good idea. I've also thought why not hold the 4 lower level playoff games the same weekend in Vegas. Everybody can get cheap tickets to Vegas and in football you could take in 4 very good games on a weekend.

[MSU01]

If they were to have a predetermined neutral site tournament, the key to making it work would be to make it a destination for fans of Big Sky teams to plan trips to the tournament in advance. To make this work, they would almost certainly need to include all 11 teams in the tournament, as most conferences already do. It wouldn't be much fun to plan a trip to the tournament, then at the last minute find out that your team isn't even playing there. Then again, I suppose that spending a weekend in Vegas might be a bit more enjoyable if one DIDN'T have to watch the MSU basketball team play as part of it...

[Hawks86]

Vegas would be fun. Attendance would be awful. IMO.

[Bobcat80]

I think it all comes down to how much attendance a tourney could draw to a neutral site. If the BSC could generate good crowds, I'd be 100% in favor of a neutral site. But absent that, it would probably just lose a ton of money and look horrible on TV (assuming a game or two was on TV).

I wouldn't be a bit surprised if that's one of the big reasons that the format has stayed as is....that's if this possibility has even been explored.

[ddlalum]

I like the idea, but I’m sure it would be a financial hit on the conference. I can’t imagine the Big Sky selling enough tickets, TV rights to pay for a neutral location.

I like the idea as long as we are a tournament looser. However, I would love to see the tournament back in Bozeman some day. That would be great times. I will keep dreaming. Evidently, our only goal is the reach the BSC tournament.

[Hawks86]

Just hop over to BigSkyTV and look at the attendance of Sac. State vs. North Dakota. Would it be much better in Vegas?

[Jobu]

I hate the idea.

Not only will attendance be terrible. But more importantly, it would render the entire conference season meaningless. Who cares if you finish 1st or 8th at that point? You'll have just as much opportunity to go to the Dance in either event. Face it, the BSC is a one-bid league, and it should do ALL it can to protect its top seed. As it is now, teams have to win the conference to get the opportunity to host the tournament. Without that carrot, if I were a coach, I'd do all I could to be prepared and focused to win the last 3 games of the year. If that means I go 1-19 in conference play to keep my best players healthy or whatever, that's what I'd do.

Besides, college basketball is just better when played on campus.

The regular seaon conference winner has earned the right to host. Keep it as is.

[SonomaCat]

I hate the idea.

Not only will attendance be terrible. But more importantly, it would render the entire conference season meaningless. Who cares if you finish 1st or 8th at that point? You'll have just as much opportunity to go to the Dance in either event. Face it, the BSC is a one-bid league, and it should do ALL it can to protect its top seed. As it is now, teams have to win the conference to get the opportunity to host the tournament. Without that carrot, if I were a coach, I'd do all I could to be prepared and focused to win the last 3 games of the year. If that means I go 1-19 in conference play to keep my best players healthy or whatever, that's what I'd do.

Besides, college basketball is just better when played on campus.

The regular seaon conference winner has earned the right to host. Keep it as is.

Taking that approach, why have a tournament at all?

[Jobu]

I hate the idea.

Not only will attendance be terrible. But more importantly, it would render the entire conference season meaningless. Who cares if you finish 1st or 8th at that point? You'll have just as much opportunity to go to the Dance in either event. Face it, the BSC is a one-bid league, and it should do ALL it can to protect its top seed. As it is now, teams have to win the conference to get the opportunity to host the tournament. Without that carrot, if I were a coach, I'd do all I could to be prepared and focused to win the last 3 games of the year. If that means I go 1-19 in conference play to keep my best players healthy or whatever, that's what I'd do.

Besides, college basketball is just better when played on campus.

The regular seaon conference winner has earned the right to host. Keep it as is.

Taking that approach, why have a tournament at all?

In a conference like the BSC, I'd love it if there was no tournament. But since it's all about money, that ship has sailed.

Given that, I think you need to do all you can to make the regular season relevant. In most conferences, teams are playing for at-larges during the regular season. In the BSC, all you're playing for is the right to host.

I guess I'd ask the question, if you're going to have a tournament at a neutral site, why have a regular season at all?

[BelgradeBobcat]

In a conference like the BSC, I'd love it if there was no tournament. But since it's all about money, that ship has sailed.

I think that is a valid solution. I doubt having a tournament is all about money-as any given year the tournament must be a huge money loser-especially when all the last minute travel arrangements are factored in. I would guess the reason we have a tournament is because everybody else has one? And it's our only chance to have a game on national TV. Even if that game is on ESPN 8 and there are approximately 65 people watching.

Having the tournament at the league champion works well when Weber hosts (which they do about every other year), with SLC fairly close by it's easier to get in and out of there on short notice. But Idaho is joining the league, and Idaho will probably be a league power. They draw about 1000 fans per game and Moscow is a "you can't there from here" kind of place. Travel logistics will interesting, especially if they clinch on the last weekend of the regular season.

My guess is they'll keep going with what they've been doing-for better or for worse.

[SonomaCat]

I hate the idea.

Not only will attendance be terrible. But more importantly, it would render the entire conference season meaningless. Who cares if you finish 1st or 8th at that point? You'll have just as much opportunity to go to the Dance in either event. Face it, the BSC is a one-bid league, and it should do ALL it can to protect its top seed. As it is now, teams have to win the conference to get the opportunity to host the tournament. Without that carrot, if I were a coach, I'd do all I could to be prepared and focused to win the last 3 games of the year. If that means I go 1-19 in conference play to keep my best players healthy or whatever, that's what I'd do.

Besides, college basketball is just better when played on campus.

The regular seaon conference winner has earned the right to host. Keep it as is.

Taking that approach, why have a tournament at all?

In a conference like the BSC, I'd love it if there was no tournament. But since it's all about money, that ship has sailed.

Given that, I think you need to do all you can to make the regular season relevant. In most conferences, teams are playing for at-larges during the regular season. In the BSC, all you're playing for is the right to host.

I guess I'd ask the question, if you're going to have a tournament at a neutral site, why have a regular season at all?

So people from around the conference could make travel plans well in advance so they could afford to attend (as buying plane tickets on short notice -- which is necessary for most places within the conference footprint -- is cost prohibitive). I see your point and I agree to some degree (we don't want to be sending our #7 seed to the dance unless its MSU) ... but there are also ways to stack the deck in favor of conference champions by way of first round byes, seeding, etc. So it wouldn't invalidate the regular season -- there would still be a lot to play for.

[Jobu]

I get it from a fan standpoint.

But I still argue it makes the entire season essentially meaningless.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SonomaCat]

I get it from a fan standpoint.

But I still argue it makes the entire season essentially meaningless.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I guess the analogy I would come up with is high school basketball. Does the fact that all of the tournaments are on neutral courts make those regular seasons worthless? Maybe they do, to some degree, but it didn't seem to take away from the intensity of the regular season.

[SkyRider]

Attendance for the WAC tournament in Vegas has been bad. However, when they made the decision to bring the tournament there, the Orleans Hotel & Arena made them a sweet deal. The Orleans paid a guarantee plus travel/hotel/food costs. The Orleans kept all revenue from tickets and concessions. I'm not sure if they're still under the same deal, but attendance becomes less of an issue for the conference (other than looking bad on TV). It's my understanding that the South Point Hotel & Arena in Las Vegas had sent out "feelers" in the past to the Big Sky. It might be worth looking at there or elsewhere.

[Jobu]

I get it from a fan standpoint.

But I still argue it makes the entire season essentially meaningless.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I guess the analogy I would come up with is high school basketball. Does the fact that all of the tournaments are on neutral courts make those regular seasons worthless? Maybe they do, to some degree, but it didn't seem to take away from the intensity of the regular season.

Not an apples to apples comparison. There isn't anything for the teams or the conference to aspire to AFTER the high school tournament In college basketball, there is.

If there wasn't a bid to the Dance on the line, I'd be fine with a neutral location. But when one BSC team spends 3 months being the best in the conference, they deserve every advantage to get them to the NCAA tournament. Anything can happen in a 3 day tournament. I prefer a 3 month body of work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SonomaCat]

I get it from a fan standpoint.

But I still argue it makes the entire season essentially meaningless.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I guess the analogy I would come up with is high school basketball. Does the fact that all of the tournaments are on neutral courts make those regular seasons worthless? Maybe they do, to some degree, but it didn't seem to take away from the intensity of the regular season.

Not an apples to apples comparison. There isn't anything for the teams or the conference to aspire to AFTER the high school tournament In college basketball, there is.

I played in Class C. We had a regular season (and each game was considered huge), and then a district tournament (the equivalent of the BSC tournament in this analogy). If we finished high enough in that tournament we moved on to the divisional tournament. If we finished high enough in that, we moved on to state (which was a huge accomplishment in itself - only 8 of the 120 or so teams in the state each year made it).

So it seems pretty apples to apples in that regard.

[BLACKnBLUEnGOLD]

the tournament must be a huge money loser-especially when all the last minute travel arrangements are factored in.

The schools lose money on it, but they're also not the ones organizing it. The tournament exists because it makes money for the conference itself. They're not the ones who have to pay all those last-minute fares for a basketball team plus coaches and training staff.