Crazy thought-Big Sky tourney neutral site

[Old Skool Cat]

In order for this to work, you have to have buy-in from each schools' AD. Good luck getting schools like UM and Weber to agree, as they host the tourney on a regular basis, and they are not about to give-up the possibility of losing home-court advantage and the revenue the tournament brings. You might also get a protest from UND. They would probably have the farthest to travel of any BSC school when you start talking neutral sites like Reno, Salt Lake City, Portland, etc. And then there's fact that not many of the schools' fanbase travels well, especially for basketball. UM and MSU travel well for football, but I think a neutral site becomes a money pit for the conference. You're just not going to get many non-BSC fans to attend games at a neutral site, and with very few fans from each school attending, I think you're looking at a money-losing proposition unless you can get some sponsors to throw in some big bucks.

[grizzh8r]

Thanks all for indulging me in this thread. Like I said, the Big Sky probably does it right-considering the nature of the league.

If they were to go to a neutral site I think it would have to be in a decent sized town with a nice, but compact arena, with nothing else going on. The big cities in our footprint won't turn out. Seattle, Spokane, Salt Lake, Portland, San Francisco, Phoenix, Denver-simply won't show for a low major conference like the Big Sky. The Summit League has a lot of big cities in their foot print too, but they go to Sioux Falls. Sioux Falls is a big town but there's no high major teams and no major league teams anywhere close-so they go nuts for the Summit League tournament. It probably also helps that the entire Siouxland area of South Dakota and NW Iowa is hoops crazy.

The new arena in Idaho Falls arena is intriguing, but their airport has limited flights.

Maybe with Idaho coming into the league Boise will want to take another shot at it (lots of UI alums in Boise)-they've got a nice downtown arena of the appropriate size (Idaho Center I think it's called).

Are you thinking of Taco Bell Arena? I think it's on the BSU campus (right next to the smurf turf)

[BelgradeBobcat]

Thanks all for indulging me in this thread. Like I said, the Big Sky probably does it right-considering the nature of the league.

If they were to go to a neutral site I think it would have to be in a decent sized town with a nice, but compact arena, with nothing else going on. The big cities in our footprint won't turn out. Seattle, Spokane, Salt Lake, Portland, San Francisco, Phoenix, Denver-simply won't show for a low major conference like the Big Sky. The Summit League has a lot of big cities in their foot print too, but they go to Sioux Falls. Sioux Falls is a big town but there's no high major teams and no major league teams anywhere close-so they go nuts for the Summit League tournament. It probably also helps that the entire Siouxland area of South Dakota and NW Iowa is hoops crazy.

The new arena in Idaho Falls arena is intriguing, but their airport has limited flights.

Maybe with Idaho coming into the league Boise will want to take another shot at it (lots of UI alums in Boise)-they've got a nice downtown arena of the appropriate size (Idaho Center I think it's called).

Are you thinking of Taco Bell Arena? I think it's on the BSU campus (right next to the smurf turf)

Centurylink Arena in downtown Boise: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CenturyLink_Arena_Boise" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; I saw Idaho play Boise State on TV in this building. It looked pretty nice. It's much smaller than Taco Bell Arena.

[BelgradeBobcat]

http://www.stadiumjourney.com/news/03-1 ... ioux-falls" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A really good article about the Summit League tourney in Sioux Falls. The NDSU coach's comments about the home South Dakota State crowd are interesting.

[griz since earl solo]

Truthfully, I think the Big Sky gets it right having the regular season champ host the Big Sky tournament. If the league thinks they must have a tourament, it's only right that the best team has the best chance to win it and go to the big dance. I know this system is unlikely to change. But...I'm not ready to talk about 2014 football recruits yet so I'm filling space on the basketball board.

I'm watching a lot of these conference basketball tournaments and most of them are at a neutral site. Some are played in very empty arenas, and some are full. But the neutral sites have more of a tournament feel than those played at a home site. The problem with the Big Sky is that it is so far flung and so lightly followed that there is no obvious central location to host the tourney that is close enough for fans to travel to, will generate enough local interest to fill seats yet be neutral enough. A lot of western leagues hold their tournament in Las Vegas, but the Big Sky doesn't have enough fans either that travel or live there to fill a Jr. High gym.

So I got to thinking, is there a place with a decent arena, enough hotels and motels for the teams and fans, and a populace that would attend the games? The answer is Butte! The Civic Center is not too big, but big enough, and I think the people of Butte would go crazy for it. It'd be a ton of fun (who wouldn't have fun partying in Butte?) Butte is a fairly easy drive for MSU, UM, ISU, WSU, EWU and Idaho when they join. The other schools would have to fly in-which is probably the achilles heal of this proposal because Butte's airport doesn't have many flights, but they could always fly into Bozeman or Helena and bus over. The neutral site would be set and fans could plan their spring break around going to the tournament-heck I know I would. I would also have all teams go and give the top teams first round byes. It won't happen I know, but it would be fun.

So...if not Butte, are there any other appropriately sized neutral venues that would work? Billings, Great Falls, Idaho Falls, Salt Lake City, Spokane...etc.

Go back in the hole for six weeks. This is easily the worst thread I've seen on bobcatnation.com. Really...?? You stand by Butte, Montana??? Man, Bozeman is ten times better than Butte. Butte has one of the most dangerous airports in the nation. Early spring traffic on I90 and I15...??? Monida pass to the south, 4th of July pass to the west, and the continental divide to the east. Nice call Zib !

[BelgradeBobcat]

Bozeman is ten times better than Butte.

Agreed, but what part about neutral site don't you understand. Thanks for adding so much to the discussion...and being a douche bag.

[griz since earl solo]

Bozeman is ten times better than Butte.

Agreed, but what part about neutral site don't you understand. Thanks for adding so much to the discussion...and being a douche bag.

"Bozeman is better than Butte"...well I was just trying to be positive about something in the post. Which, as you can tell by the accuracy really wasn't possible. The ONLY possible NEUTRAL site is Las Vegas for obvious reasons. I don't care if another conference is there on the same date it's the only city where you could get bodies in the seats. You could have a championship double header where the BSC plays at 6:00 and the MWAC tips off at 8:30. Airfare is reasonable and companies like Allegiant make it direct. You probably posted because a BSC hoopty being played in Bozeman seems beyond the horizon...So, can the coach like you should and your prospects of it being played in BZN increase exponentially. I'm not here to hate on the cats...my blood cousin is in the top 10 in career pts. at MSU and it pisses me off to see the lack of commitment on upgrading the program. Coach Huse is an awesome human being, but it is beyond his time to go.

[bincitysioux]

I really like the concept of the regular season champ hosting. There is merit to the idea of giving the best team the best chance to win and go on to the NCAA tournament, since they'd be the most likely to get a win in the NCAA tournament. But I do understand it is problematic with scheduling and traveling issues for not only fans but also the teams.

I just think the problem with a neutral site is the expansive geography of the league. I heard that North Dakota had 20-30 fans at the game last night. I doubt SUU or UNC had any more.

All the obvious locations like Vegas, Phoenix, SLC, Denver, etc present the same problems. You may get a few more fans for each school not named Weber or Montana in Denver or Vegas, but you'd get alot less Weber and Griz fans. When Weber or Montana host, chances are good that there will be 6,000-8,000 fans at the title game as long as the host school is participating, as well as strong attendance for the semi-final game that the host school is in. Probably the only other school that could happen at is at Montana St., if MSU and Montana were in the final, but after those 3 scenarios the drop off is going to be huge. I think if it goes to a neutral site they run the risk of cutting potential attendance in half, even though travel would be easier, because travel will still be far, and honestly there doesn't seem to be huge interest in Big Sky basketball outside of Ogden, Missoula, and Bozeman.

Having said that, the idea of Boise is intriguing. Would be decent travel for the two most followed Big Sky schools in Weber and Montana, as well as for MSU, EWU, UI, and ISU.

Still, I think the Big Sky is doing it right under the circumstances. Hosting a tournament is a huge advantage for the #1 seed, and that is usually who has the best chance to get a win in the Dance which translates to dollars for the whole conference.

[BelgradeBobcat]

The Big Sky TV guys, who may or may not know anything, said that the Big Sky has some decisions to make with Idaho joining the league. They said a lot of Big Sky schools want the tournament at a pre-determined site. Weber and Montana might not get to host this thing forever. North Dakota, with their great facilities and their location in the midwest will become a perinial challenger to the league title. But with all due respect to UND, I don't think any other Big Sky school wants to try to arrange travel to Grand Forks on a week's notice-and what if the Sioux hockey team is in town on that weekend? Everybody will have to stay in Fargo and shuttle over. And Idaho will also be a league contender like they always were before. Moscow is not easy to get to and there's not a lot of motels in the greater Pullman-Moscow metorpolitan area.

Vegas might be a possibility. The WAC is pretty much dissolving so that would open a spot.

I wonder about Boise. I know Fullerton wanted Idaho in the league-badly. Was there a back room promise to put the tourney in Boise, where most Vandal alums live, as an enticement to getting them back in the league? It wouldn't surpirse me. And Boise is easy to get to, along with the schools bincitysioux mentioned, Boise is also a pretty easy drive for Portland State-so that's a bus trip for at least 7 of the league's teams-and Sac State and SUU might bus there as well.

[allcat]

I think that moving the tournament around would be a good thing, but I really don't like the neutral site idea. I would like to see something along the idea of a point system to determine the host site. If you take the last 5 years resultsand give 5 points for 1st and 1 for 5th. You would then have the most successful programs from the past eligable to host the tourney. You could then say that you can only host every third year. You could also factor in attendance figures to make the most successful tourneys by attendance. obviously an idea like this would have to be fleshed out. Ijust don't see big attendance numbers at a neutral site to watch Bib Sky basketball.

[bincitysioux]

Before someone here mentioned Boise, the only neutral site that I consider realistically feasible is Salt Lake City. It would be a short drive for Weber, ISU, and SUU, maybe even MSU would bus there. And as a major airport hub, would provide easy air travel for the rest of the schools. It's proximity to Weber would help with attendance.

I personally think that Boise and SLC are the only viable options for a neutral site.

Boise: 5 schools within 400 miles, 2 in-state Big Sky schools, slightly more difficult air travel for the rest of the schools

SLC: 4 schools within 400 miles, 2 in-state Big Sky schools, easy air travel for the rest of the schools

Either are probably decent options. But I think SLC would have a substantial attendance advantage due to Weber's fan base.

I don't blame anybody for not wanting to travel to Grand Forks on a week's notice. But it is really the same all around the league. Sac and Portland are probably the only real easy places to go on short notice like that.

Next year though, you'll be able to make travel plans in plenty of time, as I expect North Dakota to have home court wrapped up by the end of January.

[SkyRider]

This was from the Las Cruces Sun-News:

Last look at WAC as we know it: It's unclear at this point where next year's tournament will be held or what format the tournament will follow. NMSU and Idaho are the only current teams that will return to the WAC next season as the other eight programs head for more established conferences. Some schools like Utah State and San Jose State are longer tenured than the one-year stay by other institutions. This is the third year the Orleans Arena has hosted the tournament and, while the Orleans enjoys hosting the event, more costs have fallen on the WAC as the tournament has progressed in Las Vegas. Average attendance dropped from 3,518 in 2011 to 1,870 last year, as total attendance was cut almost in half from 14,075 to 7,482. Coaches will always want a neutral-site tournament, but it will be interesting when athletics directors meet later this spring whether paying for a near-empty arena is better than moving the tournament back to campus sites.

http://www.lcsun-news.com/ci_22773339/p ... n-news.com

Last year, the championship WAC game had an attendance of approximately 1,400. Nevada was the biggest draw in the tournament, and its semi-final loss drew around 2,400 fans. Even worse, the 2012 WAC women's championship game drew a whopping 617 people! In comparison, the Big Sky men's championship game in Missoula drew over 7,000; further, the Big Sky women's championship in Pocatello drew about 2,200. Granted, the 'Sky's attendance numbers were helped with the home team competing in the championship game.

As I recall, the South Point Arena (http://www.southpointarena.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) in Las Vegas has reached out to the Big Sky in the past about hosting the event. Perhaps if the host arena made some concessions, it would make financial sense. Otherwise, it seems like a bigger money loser than it probably already is.

[BelgradeBobcat]

Great stuff Skyrider! I doubt the Big Sky would fare any better than the WAC in Vegas-though it would a good place for Bobcat fans as there's a lot to do after the Bobcats inevitably get dumped in the first round.

Another reason I think the Big Sky might go to a pre-determined, if not neutral, site in the future is because after Idaho joins in 2014 the Big Sky will likely not play a full round robin home and away schedule-thus it will be harder to determine a clear cut No. 1 after the regular season.

[DicTater]

After reading this article in the Missoulian: http://missoulian.com/sports/college/bi ... f887a.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, I think the conference will give Vegas a shot, for at least a couple of yrs. It is just so tough to get to some of the small towns that host BSC teams on short notice. I would plan on a Vegas trip, but I probably would never go to SL, UT. Terrible beer and I won't tour the tabernacle.

There will be 7000 people at tonight's championship game, but how many would there be if there were a couple of upsets and the final was UND and NCU? Couple hundred, maybe?

Vegas has no connection to the Big Sky, but it has no connection to the WCC and they sell out every year. Vegas has no connection to the Pac 12or WAC either. For all the MSU alums throughout the West, it would be a heckuva lot easier to get to Vegas than Missoula, Bozeman, Grand Forks, Pocotello, or flagstaff.

[grizzh8r]

After reading this article in the Missoulian: http://missoulian.com/sports/college/bi ... f887a.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, I think the conference will give Vegas a shot, for at least a couple of yrs. It is just so tough to get to some of the small towns that host BSC teams on short notice. I would plan on a Vegas trip, but I probably would never go to SL, UT. Terrible beer and I won't tour the tabernacle.

There will be 7000 people at tonight's championship game, but how many would there be if there were a couple of upsets and the final was UND and NCU? Couple hundred, maybe?

Vegas has no connection to the Big Sky, but it has no connection to the WCC and they sell out every year. Vegas has no connection to the Pac 12or WAC either. For all the MSU alums throughout the West, it would be a heckuva lot easier to get to Vegas than Missoula, Bozeman, Grand Forks, Pocotello, or flagstaff.

I watched part of that WAC Championship game. There may have been 3500 fans there, most of them NM St. fans. You MIGHT get half of that for the BSC final if anyone besides Weber was in it, or possibly NAU. I think it would be utterly stupid to change the structure now. I like the way it's set up now. Gives the host team the best chance of winning.

[SkyRider]

The student newspaper from Sac State actually had a pretty good article on this.

“We have schools in our conference that struggle to put a thousand people in their own basketball arenas,” (Big Sky assistant commissioner) Kasper said. “There are schools that can’t get people to drive five miles to watch their teams play. They aren’t going to travel in droves just because the tournament is in Las Vegas.”

Three years ago, the WAC moved from playing at conference-affiliated arenas like the University of Nevada and New Mexico State University to the Orleans Arena in Las Vegas, which is located 508 miles from its closest member.

“Our basketball coaches were very supportive of going to neutral sites,” said conference commissioner Jeff Hurd. “They didn’t like the idea of playing at someone else’s home court for something as important as an NCAA Tournament bid.”

Hurd said the conference has played on different university sites since 1984, but with advantages also come disadvantages.

“Economically, we have not have been successful in Las Vegas,” Hurd said. “The geography is also a challenge, because most fans in the WAC who go to Vegas have to fly to get there. It makes it much more difficult to draw the crowds you want.”

During the first two years, the WAC Tournament in Vegas filled 58 percent of the Orleans Arena in 2011 and last year only 1,405 people attended, which is roughly 18 percent.

http://www.statehornet.com/sports/big-s ... f6878.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Check out some of the box scores for this year's WAC tournament. Many were under 1,000, and the most attended game was just over 1,200 (featuring Utah State). The championship game featuring New Mexico State listed attendance at just over 1,100.

http://www.wacsports.com/fls/10100/stat ... M_ID=10100" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I agree that the three most neutral sites would be Salt Lake City, Boise, and Las Vegas. The problem with Salt Lake is that there aren't any small to medium size arenas. The Maverik Center (West Valley City) would be the smallest option, and it's still around 10,000 seats. Boise has the downtown arena, but it also hosts minor league hockey and an NBA D-League team. I don't see Boise coming out in droves to support the Big Sky, either. Las Vegas is problem the best bet, but I think you'd be looking at WAC type attendance numbers at best.

[John K]

I've been giving this a lot of thought, and have enjoyed reading everyone's thoughts on this subject. I really think the current format is the best solution though, for a league like the BSC. I understand the obvious issues with making travel arrangements on short notice, sometimes to cities located in remote areas, that may be hard to get to (and expensive) by air. But I think the attendance would be even worse than it is already, if the tourney was conducted at a neutral site. I also believe it's really important to give the regular season champ every possible advantage, so as to give the BSC representative the best possible chance at winning a game in the Big Dance.

[BelgradeBobcat]

I agree-great comments on this thread. I've really enjoyed it.

Why does the Big Sky, or any low-major league, have a conference tournament? They're notorious money losers. I would assume, one of the reasons is to keep interest in the league games right to the end. Even in the Big Sky, there was great drama on the last weekend as teams worked for seeding or just to get in. Also, they want that championship game on ESPN-for many low major leagues it's their only national exposure.

If the Big Sky wants to have a great looking championship game every year in front of a big crowd-they should just have 1 vs 2 and call it good. Why risk sending a lower seed to the tournament?

The current format works well when the host has a decent arena, draws well, and makes the final. But remember how it looked when PSU hosted? Memorial Coliseum was a ghost town. And when the host gets beat it's rough too like when we played PSU in an empty Dee Events Center in 2009.

There's no prefect solution. But as I mentioned earlier: When the Big Sky adds Idaho there likely won't be a full round robin home and away schedule anymore. Determining a regular season champion will be more difficult in some years and probably won't be very fair. So the Big Sky may be more likely to go to a pre-determined site in 2014.

We'll see what the AD's come up with at their May meetings.

[DicTater]

After reading this article in the Missoulian: http://missoulian.com/sports/college/bi ... f887a.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, I think the conference will give Vegas a shot, for at least a couple of yrs. It is just so tough to get to some of the small towns that host BSC teams on short notice. I would plan on a Vegas trip, but I probably would never go to SL, UT. Terrible beer and I won't tour the tabernacle.

There will be 7000 people at tonight's championship game, but how many would there be if there were a couple of upsets and the final was UND and NCU? Couple hundred, maybe?

Vegas has no connection to the Big Sky, but it has no connection to the WCC and they sell out every year. Vegas has no connection to the Pac 12or WAC either. For all the MSU alums throughout the West, it would be a heckuva lot easier to get to Vegas than Missoula, Bozeman, Grand Forks, Pocotello, or flagstaff.

I watched part of that WAC Championship game. There may have been 3500 fans there, most of them NM St. fans. You MIGHT get half of that for the BSC final if anyone besides Weber was in it, or possibly NAU. I think it would be utterly stupid to change the structure now. I like the way it's set up now. Gives the host team the best chance of winning.

I'm not saying they should move the tourney, I'm just saying that the ADs are likely to move it because of the cost of getting to a lot of the home sites. I certainly don't want it in SL,UT because of the beer and because Weber would have a huge advantage. If you're going to have a neutral site, make it neutral. Part of the problem with the WAC attendance was that most of the WAC this year was a bunch of Texas - something teams that aren't going to be there next year.

[[cat_bracket]]

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?