Big Sky Champs question

[mslacatfan]

Have the MBB and WBB teams ever been the big sky champs in the same season?

If so, it probably been a very long time...

There is a chance this year.

[Catfanatic84]

Really outstanding year for both teams....looking forward to Boise!

[MSU01]

They were both regular season champions in '01-'02 (women were co-champs with Weber), but of course neither won the conference tournament that year.

[John K]

I understand the reasons for going to a pre-determined neutral site for the conference tourneys, i.e. logisitics, travel, etc. but it does take away some of the importance and meaning of winning the regular season championship, now that the RS champs no longer host the tourney. Don't get me wrong, I'd still love to see both teams win the title, but it would be a lot more significant if that meant Bozeman/MSU would be hosting both tourneys. How awesome would that have been!!

[dwainegf]

We have a ways to go before we get the number one seed in either tournament. I hope the teams continue to play well and continue their improvement as the season continues. Go Cats!!!

[CelticCat]

I understand the reasons for going to a pre-determined neutral site for the conference tourneys, i.e. logisitics, travel, etc. but it does take away some of the importance and meaning of winning the regular season championship, now that the RS champs no longer host the tourney. Don't get me wrong, I'd still love to see both teams win the title, but it would be a lot more significant if that meant Bozeman/MSU would be hosting both tourneys. How awesome would that have been!!

The unbalanced schedule in football and the neutral site tournament in basketball have both taken the shine out of winning the conference. In football you could end up with a higher seed in the playoffs than the conference champ, and in basketball as long as you get a bye there is no difference in seeds really since the winner doesn't host anymore.

[John K]

I understand the reasons for going to a pre-determined neutral site for the conference tourneys, i.e. logisitics, travel, etc. but it does take away some of the importance and meaning of winning the regular season championship, now that the RS champs no longer host the tourney. Don't get me wrong, I'd still love to see both teams win the title, but it would be a lot more significant if that meant Bozeman/MSU would be hosting both tourneys. How awesome would that have been!!

The unbalanced schedule in football and the neutral site tournament in basketball have both taken the shine out of winning the conference. In football you could end up with a higher seed in the playoffs than the conference champ, and in basketball as long as you get a bye there is no difference in seeds really since the winner doesn't host anymore.

There is a slight benefit from being seeded higher, among the top 5 teams that get a bye, since you'd draw a lower seeded/weaker team in the quarterfinals. Being a 1 seed and playing the 8 seed in the 2nd round is generally going to be preferable to being a 5 seed and playing the 4 seed in theQF. Of course that can change, depending upon potential upsets in the 1st round. I don't believe they re-seed going into the 2nd round, or do they?

[aucat]

I understand the reasons for going to a pre-determined neutral site for the conference tourneys, i.e. logisitics, travel, etc. but it does take away some of the importance and meaning of winning the regular season championship, now that the RS champs no longer host the tourney. Don't get me wrong, I'd still love to see both teams win the title, but it would be a lot more significant if that meant Bozeman/MSU would be hosting both tourneys. How awesome would that have been!!

Yeah UM milked this for all it was worth during their men and women runs. What an advantage it was.

[MSU01]

I understand the reasons for going to a pre-determined neutral site for the conference tourneys, i.e. logisitics, travel, etc. but it does take away some of the importance and meaning of winning the regular season championship, now that the RS champs no longer host the tourney. Don't get me wrong, I'd still love to see both teams win the title, but it would be a lot more significant if that meant Bozeman/MSU would be hosting both tourneys. How awesome would that have been!!

The unbalanced schedule in football and the neutral site tournament in basketball have both taken the shine out of winning the conference. In football you could end up with a higher seed in the playoffs than the conference champ, and in basketball as long as you get a bye there is no difference in seeds really since the winner doesn't host anymore.

There is a slight benefit from being seeded higher, among the top 5 teams that get a bye, since you'd draw a lower seeded/weaker team in the quarterfinals. Being a 1 seed and playing the 8 seed in the 2nd round is generally going to be preferable to being a 5 seed and playing the 4 seed in theQF. Of course that can change, depending upon potential upsets in the 1st round. I don't believe they re-seed going into the 2nd round, or do they?

They do not reseed the brackets, so it's entirely possible for the #2 or #3 seed to get an "easier" QF or SF opponent than the #1 if there are upsets early on. It's worth noting that #1 seeds have won 7 of a possible 10 tournament championships since the Big Sky moved to neutral site tournaments, so at least so far the advantage of being #1 doesn't appear to have been lessened too much.

From my own fan perspective I think the neutral site is definitely my preferred option, as I can plan in advance instead of not knowing whether the tournament will be in Bozeman or Ogden or Cedar City or Missoula until three days before it starts. I also know that I can watch both MSU's men's and women's teams play instead of having to pick one or the other, which is great for fans as well as for the teams in terms of having more fan support show up to the tournament games.

[Catlady]

I understand the reasons for going to a pre-determined neutral site for the conference tourneys, i.e. logisitics, travel, etc. but it does take away some of the importance and meaning of winning the regular season championship, now that the RS champs no longer host the tourney. Don't get me wrong, I'd still love to see both teams win the title, but it would be a lot more significant if that meant Bozeman/MSU would be hosting both tourneys. How awesome would that have been!!

The unbalanced schedule in football and the neutral site tournament in basketball have both taken the shine out of winning the conference. In football you could end up with a higher seed in the playoffs than the conference champ, and in basketball as long as you get a bye there is no difference in seeds really since the winner doesn't host anymore.

There is a slight benefit from being seeded higher, among the top 5 teams that get a bye, since you'd draw a lower seeded/weaker team in the quarterfinals. Being a 1 seed and playing the 8 seed in the 2nd round is generally going to be preferable to being a 5 seed and playing the 4 seed in theQF. Of course that can change, depending upon potential upsets in the 1st round. I don't believe they re-seed going into the 2nd round, or do they?

They do not reseed the brackets, so it's entirely possible for the #2 or #3 seed to get an "easier" QF or SF opponent than the #1 if there are upsets early on. It's worth noting that #1 seeds have won 7 of a possible 10 tournament championships since the Big Sky moved to neutral site tournaments, so at least so far the advantage of being #1 doesn't appear to have been lessened too much.

From my own fan perspective I think the neutral site is definitely my preferred option, as I can plan in advance instead of not knowing whether the tournament will be in Bozeman or Ogden or Cedar City or Missoula until three days before it starts. I also know that I can watch both MSU's men's and women's teams play instead of having to pick one or the other, which is great for fans as well as for the teams in terms of having more fan support show up to the tournament games.

Excellent and rational post!