BSC Tournament Set Up

BTBCat · Post by **BTBCat** » Tue Mar 01, 2005 11:45 am

Does anyone else see a problem with the way our conference basketball tournament is set up? It seems like a joke to me. Virtually every other conference in america has a tournament where each game is held i the same venue with all of the tournament teams in the same place. These preliminary games pretty much take the idea of a tournament out of the equation. I think it highly limits the upsets and excitement of the tournament atmosphere.

What do you guys think?

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Mar 01, 2005 11:57 am

I think they were tired of playing the first round games in an empty arena/gym. If this gets more butts in the seats and creates a better game atmosphere, I'll all for it.

BTBCat · Post by **BTBCat** » Tue Mar 01, 2005 12:04 pm

They might as well just take the top two teams and play one extra game to see who goes to the tournament then. There's no point in even having a tournament if it isn't all in one place. That's what makes it fun.

Post by **rtb** » Tue Mar 01, 2005 12:09 pm

I agree that it takes the fun out of the event, but when you are a small conference the most important thing is finding a way to keep things profitable.

I would much rather see the tournament hosted by bid. It seems like that way the tournament would be in a location like Bozeman or Missoula where people are likely to attend the event.

BTBCat · Post by **BTBCat** » Tue Mar 01, 2005 12:25 pm

The only problem with that is that it does not reward the play of the team that performs the best throughout the regular season. And gives an advantage to a team that may not deserve it. But then again I would probably be for anything that restores a full tournament!

Post by **rtb** » Tue Mar 01, 2005 12:29 pm

BTBCat wrote:The only problem with that is that it does not reward the play of the team that performs the best throughout the regular season. And gives an advantage to a team that may not deserve it. But then again I would probably be for anything that restores a full tournament!

I don't disagree, but I look at the major conferences and they play at a neutral site that is determined before the season starts. I wish we had that option so everyone could make plans to go, but where would we play that people would travel to? The only places that could really host the whole tournament and get people in the seats are MSU, UM and Weber.

Just wish the whole tournament was in the same place.

MSU01 · Post by **MSU01** » Tue Mar 01, 2005 12:31 pm

Actually, multiple small conferences such as the Big Sky play early round tournament games on home court sites. I think one or two actually play the entire tournament on the home courts of whoever is the higher seed for each game. I like the idea of the Regular Season champion hosting the tournament. If you watch ESPN's coverage of some of the small conference title games held on neutral courts, you'll see a completely empty arena save for a few hundred fans of each participating school, hardly a good atmosphere. I'm still undecided regarding the first round set up. I think it definitely takes away some of the advantage that the 1 and 2 seeds had over the rest in the old scenario, but then again you aren't playing the first-round games in a empty arena (there was a decent crowd for the 1st round day in 2002 in Bozeman though).

grizbeer · Post by **grizbeer** » Tue Mar 01, 2005 1:47 pm

remember when they let schools bid on the tournament and Boise State was the host and won with a less than 500 record. The regular season winner should host the tournament.

As far as the 1st round games, I like the way they are doing it now. We are talking about the 5th and 6th place finisher going on the road. Compare this to the 3rd place team having to travel for 3 consecutive game to reach the finals. There would be no difference between finishing 3rd in the conference and 6th, as you still have to play 3 games on the road to get to the championship. Plus those 1st round games would be empty.

Post by **kmax** » Tue Mar 01, 2005 2:09 pm

As to the first round games being at the high seed location, I think the simple answer is money. Only one team has to travel, and you actually get some gate revenue rather than having no butts in the seats and all the overhead of running two games, especially in the case of PSU who is having to rent another facility and would have incurred much more expense(not sure how much expense goes to league and how much is PSU) if they had to do two more games.

For the regular season champ hosting, that answer is pretty simple as well. We are lucky if the Sky is even considered a mid-major. We will only get one team into the NCAA's every year, so we want to have the best chance of putting in our best team. So, give the best team home court advantage so you limit the fluke upsets a bit. Pretty much the same answer is given on the BSC website Q&A:

Carin Mateko asks Big Sky Conference :

"Can you tell me the history behind the conference tournament being hosted by the conference regular season champion and not held at pre-determined host site like so many other conferences? It seems to me that more fans of the non-champion schools would travel to the conference tournament if they could plan in advance."

Big Sky Conference responds:

"There have been numerous formats utilized in the history of the Big Sky Conference Basketball Championship, from the site being decided by a bid, or the previous year's champion hosting, etc. The reason the member institutions voted to go to what is used now -- a "hot-team host" format -- is to ensure as much as possible that the conference's best team is the one that advances to the NCAA Championship with the Conference's automatic bid. There were cases in the past where the host institution was the school that submitted the highest bid, but its team might not be one of the best in the conference and due to home court advantage came out as the winner of the tournament. That team would then advance to the NCAAs, where it would of course be given the 16th seed and would have no chance of success. In the scenario of awarding the tournament to the previous season's champion, there were times when the host school wasn't one of the six that qualified for the tournament and attendance was adversely affected (Big Sky members are that not every institution make the tournament). The Big Sky Conference athletic administrators then decided that since the league will more years than not get just one team into the NCAA Tournament field of 65 (its automatic bid), the most logical avenue for advancing the best team and garnering a seed that could provide a better chance for a win would be the current format. In addition, with the current situation where the two teams with the lowest RPIs that qualify for the NCAAs meet in the "play-in" game, the current format helps to avoid that as well. "

Barnbat · Post by **Barnbat** » Tue Mar 01, 2005 2:30 pm

The intent is to give the regular season champion an advantage. Idaho state might win in the oldest format. If Montana and SAC Weber and Eastern were playing in Portland it would be a big advantage going into semi final because they would have a tournament game on that court and the bye teams set around and are not ready to go in the semi. Sitting may be a problem in this format but it not as big a deal. Portland losses the court advantage because the have limited seating at home but they do not travel and should be able to form a small crowd. I think Montana and Sac have an advantage in the semi because they are playing instead of waiting with the bye if they win they may be a little tired in the final but if that is the case they should not be there.

GoCats03 · Post by **GoCats03** » Tue Mar 01, 2005 8:58 pm

rtb wrote:
BTBCat wrote:The only problem with that is that it does not reward the play of the team that performs the best throughout the regular season. And gives an advantage to a team that may not deserve it. But then again I would probably be for anything that restores a full tournament!
I don't disagree, but I look at the major conferences and they play at a neutral site that is determined before the season starts. I wish we had that option so everyone could make plans to go, but where would we play that people would travel to? The only places that could really host the whole tournament and get people in the seats are MSU, UM and Weber.

Just wish the whole tournament was in the same place.

I think the METRA in Billings would be a good spot. I am probley biased, but it is a pretty good B-Ball town which would lead to a good crowd for the whole tourny. Downside the METRA can be a huge pain to work with.

BozoneCat · Post by **BozoneCat** » Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:40 am

If you wanted a great venue in probably the most centralized place possible for a league that is pretty spread out, and wanted a place that would be as neutral as possible, I would think that the Pavilion (can't bring myself to call it Taco Bell Arena) in Boise would be a great choice. Salt Lake City would also appear to be a good choice, but that would give Weber too much of a homecourt advantage. Besides, where would we go out drinking after we won?!?!

BelgradeBobcat · Post by **BelgradeBobcat** » Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:44 am

The best place for a Big Sky tourney...Preston, Idaho! Home of Napoleon Dynamite. It's centrally located, the locals would love the novelty of hosting a "big time" tournament, and fans would flock to Preston-just because of the movie.

But in all seriousness, if we're to have the tournament at a neutral site, a City that is somewhat limited in athletic entertainment options might be a good choice, i.e. Great Falls, Helena, Butte, Idaho Falls, Twin Falls, Walla Walla or as Jeff Welsch mentioned in his column-Winnemucca.

Ian · Post by **Ian** » Thu Mar 03, 2005 5:37 pm

i have to go the way of the regular season champ hosting the tournament. they earn the right and it fills up seats on championship night (assuming they don't blow it) when it counts! as far as initial games, though, it seems that moving to the other schools is smart. more attendance, means more. play the semis and the finals in the same place.

mavman · Post by **mavman** » Thu Mar 03, 2005 6:30 pm

hey what article mentioned winnemucca? I would like to read it and as a resident of winnemucca it would be a great place as far as I can see

We did just build a new event center and our new scoreboard will be installed soon.Hell there is a ton of Montanans living here I see bobcat and griz apparell all the time. But seriously the winner should host and all games should be at the same venue.

BelgradeBobcat · Post by **BelgradeBobcat** » Thu Mar 03, 2005 9:51 pm

mavman wrote:hey what article mentioned winnemucca? I would like to read it and as a resident of winnemucca it would be a great place as far as I can see

http://www.bozemanchronicle.com/article ... /01msu.txt

About the 5th paragraph down for the obscure Winnemucca reference.

twentythreeOh4 · Post by **twentythreeOh4** » Sat Mar 05, 2005 11:07 am

For the most part, I like how the Big Sky does its tournament. I like that the regular season winner gets to host the tournament. That's a nice reward for a good season. Letting the 3rd and 4th place teams host the opening round does reduce the tourney feel somewhat, but I think financially it makes a lot more sense as those games draw much better that way.

I also like that not every team makes the tournament. I think there is something to be said about being good enough to make the tournament. It make the regular season more exciting. Would last season have been as fun if everybody was automatically in? I like the fact that there is some win or go home games in the regular season.

The only thing I don't like is how the Big Sky doesn't have a set bracket. For example, I would rather that MSU just play the winner of UM/EWU game and PSU play the winner of the WSU/SAC game. I know the conference is trying to "protect" the top seed by letting them play the lowest remaining seed, but come on, they already have home court isn't that enough of an advantage? I actually think it is a disadvantage that PSU and MSU could potentiall face 3 teams instead of only 2 in their first game. For example, PSU could still face the winner of WSU/SAC, or EWU and MSU could still face UM or the winner of WSU/SAC. I would rather be able to focus on one game and know that my team is going to play the winner of that game. That is the only change I would like to see the Big Sky make to the tournament.