Conference Tournament

[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.

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.

It's only analogous if the BSC had multiple divisions. You needed district playoffs because you had teams from different districts who never played one another. That's clearly not the case in the BSC where teams play the same competition for 3 months and play each team twice. By the end of that period, it's usually pretty obvious who the top team is. And what's more, your regular season is important because you had to do well simply to get into the district playoffs. In the BSC, you only have to avoid finishing 9th. As I said: the conference season becomes all but irrelevant.



Ask any BSC player: what's your ultimate dream?


If more of them say, "winning the BSC Tournament" vs " playing in the NCAA Tournament", I'll concede your point.

Until then, I stand by mine. The NCAA Tournament is the gold standard. Everything else is a stepping stone to get to that goal. The best team deserves the best. Three months' work absolutely should be greater than 3 days' work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bobcat80]

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.

It's only analogous if the BSC had multiple divisions. You needed district playoffs because you had teams from different districts who never played one another. That's clearly not the case in the BSC where teams play the same competition for 3 months and play each team twice. By the end of that period, it's usually pretty obvious who the top team is. And what's more, your regular season is important because you had to do well simply to get into the district playoffs. In the BSC, you only have to avoid finishing 9th. As I said: the conference season becomes all but irrelevant.



Ask any BSC player: what's your ultimate dream?


If more of them say, "winning the BSC Tournament" vs " playing in the NCAA Tournament", I'll concede your point.

Until then, I stand by mine. The NCAA Tournament is the gold standard. Everything else is a stepping stone to get to that goal. The best team deserves the best. Three months' work absolutely should be greater than 3 days' work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Seeing your strong stance on this, what do you think about the way the Mountain West does it? The conference tournament is at the Thomas & Mack Center every year. That's hardly a neutral site, being the home arena for UNLV. The winner of the regular season (other than UNLV) really gets screwed over there. Weber has a great facility for basketball, but could you imagine if we had the tournament there every year regardless of where they finished in the standings? It seems a little unfair to me.

[hokeyfine]

i just read where portland state is 9-8 lifetime in big sky tournament games......... i think the athletic department needs to employ a full time staff of sports psychologists for the athletic teams. MSU is not mentally tough.

[SonomaCat]

It's only analogous if the BSC had multiple divisions. You needed district playoffs because you had teams from different districts who never played one another. That's clearly not the case in the BSC where teams play the same competition for 3 months and play each team twice. By the end of that period, it's usually pretty obvious who the top team is. And what's more, your regular season is important because you had to do well simply to get into the district playoffs. In the BSC, you only have to avoid finishing 9th. As I said: the conference season becomes all but irrelevant.

No, actually we had played each team in the district tournament twice during the year. Conference and district are the same thing in that context. We would have a "conference" champion, based on the regular season games against everyone else in the conference/district, and that team would get a trophy and the top seed in the district tournament. The only teams in the district tourament were the teams we had already played twice already in regular season conference play. Then the top two or three (depending on the year) teams from the district tourament would get trophies and advance on to the divisional tournament (which is the first level of touraments where we were likely to play a team we hadn't played already during the regular season).

I never felt for a moment that our conference season was at all irrelevant. Every game still seemed pretty huge in terms of importance.

I would concede that, due to the wide disparity in talent levels in Class C districts, that there didn't tend to be many upsets in the district tournaments. The teams that were at the top from the regular season tended to be the same teams that advanced to divisionals. That said, it didn't always play out that way -- you needed to have a team that could step up their game for tournament time if you wanted to advance to the "bigger dances."

[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.

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.

It's only analogous if the BSC had multiple divisions. You needed district playoffs because you had teams from different districts who never played one another. That's clearly not the case in the BSC where teams play the same competition for 3 months and play each team twice. By the end of that period, it's usually pretty obvious who the top team is. And what's more, your regular season is important because you had to do well simply to get into the district playoffs. In the BSC, you only have to avoid finishing 9th. As I said: the conference season becomes all but irrelevant.



Ask any BSC player: what's your ultimate dream?


If more of them say, "winning the BSC Tournament" vs " playing in the NCAA Tournament", I'll concede your point.

Until then, I stand by mine. The NCAA Tournament is the gold standard. Everything else is a stepping stone to get to that goal. The best team deserves the best. Three months' work absolutely should be greater than 3 days' work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Seeing your strong stance on this, what do you think about the way the Mountain West does it? The conference tournament is at the Thomas & Mack Center every year. That's hardly a neutral site, being the home arena for UNLV. The winner of the regular season (other than UNLV) really gets screwed over there. Weber has a great facility for basketball, but could you imagine if we had the tournament there every year regardless of where they finished in the standings? It seems a little unfair to me.

Yes, as you guessed, I hate that model.

Back in the late 80s, early 90s, the BSC went to a similar model where the tournament was held by one of the schools in the conference, which would rotate each year. Guess what happened? The host team won the tournament every year, including one year in which the confernce sent an Idaho State team who was something like 10-20 on the year to the Dance, because they won 3 tourney games at home. After that, the conference realized that was a terrible model and awarded home court to the regular season champion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[John K]

I can understand the rationale for having the tourney at a pre-determined, neutral (or not, in some cases) site. For a one-bid league like the BSC though, I think we should keep the current model. Hosting the tourney is a big reward for the regular season champ. Even though it's been few and far between, I still remember how exciting it was, in those years when MSU won the RS title and hosted the tourney (although I'm starting to wonder if it will ever happen again). I'd hate to see that perk taken away from the RS champ.

[SkyRider]

Yes, as you guessed, I hate that model.

Back in the late 80s, early 90s, the BSC went to a similar model where the tournament was held by one of the schools in the conference, which would rotate each year. Guess what happened? The host team won the tournament every year, including one year in which the confernce sent an Idaho State team who was something like 10-20 on the year to the Dance, because they won 3 tourney games at home. After that, the conference realized that was a terrible model and awarded home court to the regular season champion.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You're actually thinking of Montana State in 1986. The conference website even named it as one of the top 50 moments of the Big Sky:

http://www.bigskyconf.com/news/2013/9/2 ... 32819.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

MSU was the 7th seed, had an 11-16 record, and became the 7th team in history at that point to make the tournament with a losing record. The following year, 1987, Idaho State was a 6th seed (give or take) and won the conference tournament (entering the NCAA tourney with a .500 record).

MSU won in Reno, and ISU won in Flagstaff. During the late 80's, the conference experimented by locating the tournament at the regular season winner from the previous year. MSU and ISU winning both made the 'Sky reconsider and get rid of that tournament model. After that, they experimented with moving the tournament to the highest bidder. BSU "bought" the tournament several times - again, making a situation which wasn't fair.

[Bobcat80]

I get it from a fan standpoint.



Seeing your strong stance on this, what do you think about the way the Mountain West does it? The conference tournament is at the Thomas & Mack Center every year. That's hardly a neutral site, being the home arena for UNLV. The winner of the regular season (other than UNLV) really gets screwed over there. Weber has a great facility for basketball, but could you imagine if we had the tournament there every year regardless of where they finished in the standings? It seems a little unfair to me.

Yes, as you guessed, I hate that model.

Back in the late 80s, early 90s, the BSC went to a similar model where the tournament was held by one of the schools in the conference, which would rotate each year. Guess what happened? The host team won the tournament every year, including one year in which the confernce sent an Idaho State team who was something like 10-20 on the year to the Dance, because they won 3 tourney games at home. After that, the conference realized that was a terrible model and awarded home court to the regular season champion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree with your above statement and I definitely see your point of giving the top seed certain perks for winning the regular season crown. Just to play devil's advocate though using this season as a good example. Most projections have Weber being a 16 seed, either playing in the play in game or going straight to playing a #1 seed. With that being said, does it matter whether the #6 seed or the #1 seed wins the Big Sky tournament? It's not going to make a matter in seeding for the Dance.

[John K]

Yes, as you guessed, I hate that model.

Back in the late 80s, early 90s, the BSC went to a similar model where the tournament was held by one of the schools in the conference, which would rotate each year. Guess what happened? The host team won the tournament every year, including one year in which the confernce sent an Idaho State team who was something like 10-20 on the year to the Dance, because they won 3 tourney games at home. After that, the conference realized that was a terrible model and awarded home court to the regular season champion.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You're actually thinking of Montana State in 1986. The conference website even named it as one of the top 50 moments of the Big Sky:

http://www.bigskyconf.com/news/2013/9/2 ... 32819.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

MSU was the 7th seed, had an 11-16 record, and became the 7th team in history at that point to make the tournament with a losing record. The following year, 1987, Idaho State was a 6th seed (give or take) and won the conference tournament (entering the NCAA tourney with a .500 record).

MSU won in Reno, and ISU won in Flagstaff. During the late 80's, the conference experimented by locating the tournament at the regular season winner from the previous year. MSU and ISU winning both made the 'Sky reconsider and get rid of that tournament model. After that, they experimented with moving the tournament to the highest bidder. BSU "bought" the tournament several times - again, making a situation which wasn't fair.

It was sort of depressing to read that piece about the "good old days", and then to face the reality of the current state of MBB at MSU.

[Hawks86]

11-16 in the reg. season then get on a roll during the tournament.
12-2 in the reg. season and lose in the first round.

[John K]

11-16 in the reg. season then get on a roll during the tournament.
12-2 in the reg. season and lose in the first round.

Unlike the current era of MSU hoops, in which we suck equally during both the regular season and the tourney (if we even make it, unlike this season).

[Hawks86]

The big difference is that they were extremely fun to watch play. Win or lose the fans had a great time.

[John K]

The big difference is that they were extremely fun to watch play. Win or lose the fans had a great time.

You're right...that's a huge difference. I also found their comments interesting, about how Starner adapted their style of play to better fit their personnel.

Brad...did you learn anything from those comments that might be helpful?

[ilovethecats]

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.

you seem to be putting a LOT of emphasis on home court advantage and very little on the actual teams competing. especially in a conference like the big sky where even the best fanbases like weber and um are not exactly scary to play in. weber had a great year and no doubt playing at home is nice for them. but so is getting a 1 seed meaning they get to play the worst team in the tourney.

I follow big ten basketball closely as I'm a sad gophers fan. they play their tourney every year in Indianapolis. Michigan had a hell of a season and is the one seed this year. sure, they'd be really good playing at home. but I bet they loved getting a bye, and playing the winner of Illinois and Indiana. the Illinois team Michigan just beat by thirty was the winner.

sure, the big sky is not the big ten. that's not the case I'm making. I maintain that seeding and matchups are more important than tournament sites. and I think players and coaches agree.

[Jobu]

I've just got to disagree, ILTC. I think home court advantage is HUGE in the BSC. One glance at the regular season records will confirm that.

As for seeding, other than the one seed this year, you could have thrown a blanket over the next 8 teams. I don't know that Weber gets any clear advantage playing any particular team. Yes, they got a bye this year. But that goes away next year.

I like the idea of a neutral site for fans and planning and marketing. But unless the conference winner gets byes into the title game, it doesn't make sense for the BSC. The conference has to do all it can to ensure its best team advances to the Dance. The opportunities for wins are rare, and the conference can't afford to have 9th seeded, 11-21 Eastern Washington going to the NCAAs.

[ilovethecats]

I've just got to disagree, ILTC. I think home court advantage is HUGE in the BSC. One glance at the regular season records will confirm that.

As for seeding, other than the one seed this year, you could have thrown a blanket over the next 8 teams. I don't know that Weber gets any clear advantage playing any particular team. Yes, they got a bye this year. But that goes away next year.

I like the idea of a neutral site for fans and planning and marketing. But unless the conference winner gets byes into the title game, it doesn't make sense for the BSC. The conference has to do all it can to ensure its best team advances to the Dance. The opportunities for wins are rare, and the conference can't afford to have 9th seeded, 11-21 Eastern Washington going to the NCAAs.

I agree with much of what you say. just not the idea that if a team doesn't host a tourney they may as well not play a regular season. as I said home-court is very good for teams. but I don't think home court advantage ever trumps seeding and matchups. nearly every major conference hosts tournies on neutral sites and if home court was so important these coaches would be throwing fits. but it's not. the purpose of winning the regular season is not to play more games at home, it's to set your team up for success and that means getting a great seed, sometimes a bye, and the luxury of playing a weaker team in the beginning.

but like I said, my whole argument was on the comment that if you play a tourney at a neutral site it means the regular season was pointless.

[Jobu]

Not many one-bid leagues play at neutral sites. That's one of my primary arguments. It's fine for the Pac12. Arizona is dancing even if they lose in the first round. In one-bid leagues like the BSC, I contend you need to give the best team the best chance to advance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ilovethecats]

Not many one-bid leagues play at neutral sites. That's one of my primary arguments. It's fine for the Pac12. Arizona is dancing even if they lose in the first round. In one-bid leagues like the BSC, I contend you need to give the best team the best chance to advance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

and I agree with that as well. where we disagree is you seem to think home court advantage gives a team the best chance to move on and I think seeding gives a team the best chance to move on. this year the conference as a whole was terrible so it becomes blurry. but what if every team made the conference tourney? and weber got to pick between playing at home but they had to open with UM or NAU or playing at a neutral site but they got to play southern Utah first and the winner of Idaho state and Montana state next? I know what every coach would pick.

fans put a lot of stock in home court crowds and loudness. players and coaches put more stock into matchups and who they get to play then where the game is actually played.

but I think we both agree that in a conference like ours doing what we can to ensure the best team represents us in march is important. however, one could make the case that even that isn't that big of a deal as no matter who we send is likely getting beat and beat pretty handidly.

[BelgradeBobcat]

Winning the league regular season is not all-for-not if you lose in the tourney. For the last several years, the league regular season winner gets an auto bid to the NIT if they don't win the tourney. In the Big Sky-any post-season opportunity is huge.

MSU took advantage back in 2002 when we beat Utah State in the opening round of the NIT. That really saved that great season.

[Jobu]

where we disagree is you seem to think home court advantage gives a team the best chance to move on

Yes I do.

Weber was 9-1 at home. They were 5-5 on the road, against those teams they'd be seeded against. Certainly seeding helps. But it's not as important as home court.