Conference Realignments

[ShilohSioux]

For a one-berth conference, I say give the regular season champ the home court advantage. Otherwise, the entire season is played just for seeding in the conference tournament. They should earn something, even an "unfair advantage." Also, I'm guessing attendance will be better this way.

I am not sure about your definition of tournament bust based on the attendance of one game.

Year - Conference - Tournament Avg Att..

2009 - BS - 3,714

2009 - SL - 4,421

2010 - BS - 4,156

2010 - SL - 3,574

2010 Data Source

http://www.ncaa.org/...8b6be967b4a3893

2009 Data Source

http://ncaabbs.com/s....php?tid=375643

In reference to your comments about the structure of the conference tournaments between Big Sky and SL. I think both have pros and cons:

NOTE: I understand that the Big Sky could change how the tournament works going forward with the addition of teams. It would be a good question to the fans. What is your preferred approach for conference tournaments - central location or host school?

Hosted by Regular Season Champ

Pro: Nice reward to individual school, helps to build local support, and typically has solid attendance. I also like the fact that only 6 teams make the conference post season. It makes the regular season more meaningful. In addition, I like first round games being hosted by the 3 and 4 seeds. So, the reward of hosting post season is shared by multiple schools.

Cons: too much of a home court advantage, short notice travel plans for fans.

Central Host:

Pro: Set location and date makes it more of a planned event. If planned correctly it can continue to grow on annual basis.

Cons: too much of neutral court -if the game continues in SF will they alienate schools on the edges of the conference ie SL - Oakland and ORU.

[bincitysioux]

I do like the idea that the regular season champ hosts the basketball tournament.........................just a nice reward for solid play throughout the season.

However, given the vast geography of the league, a central location would have its merits as well. I don't know for sure, but it would seem that the Big Sky would be one of the few NCAA conferences that does not have a set location for its basketball tournament?

Using the "neutral site hosted by a close proximity school" plan, either Salt Lake City or Denver would make great centralized locations for the tourney, as travel would be relatively easy to either locale.

Salt Lake would be the obvious choice given the fact that it is close to Weber, which is the biggest drawing school in the conference.

[FSSD]

joe blow from maine would most likely say the MVC because of basketball

Actually joe blow from Maine would say Missouri Valley Conference has football?!?!?!?

[ShilohSioux]

This would give Weber a huge advantage. What if the Sioux won the regular season and Weber finished second, but when the two played for the NCAA tournament there were 8,000 pro-Weber fans and 250 UND fans there for the game that matters most. I say let the regular season winner host -- at least the final two rounds.

As for most conferences having a neutral site, that makes sense if you're the Big Ten, SEC, Pac-10, etc... when the regular season champ can be assured an at-large bid and high seed even if they stumble at the conference tournament. When only one berth is on the line, the one who guts it out in the regular season earns the right to host IMHO.

P.S. Weber has the highest attendance now because they are successful. Both the Montana schools can pack them in when they're winning.

I do like the idea that the regular season champ hosts the basketball tournament.........................just a nice reward for solid play throughout the season.

However, given the vast geography of the league, a central location would have its merits as well. I don't know for sure, but it would seem that the Big Sky would be one of the few NCAA conferences that does not have a set location for its basketball tournament?

Using the "neutral site hosted by a close proximity school" plan, either Salt Lake City or Denver would make great centralized locations for the tourney, as travel would be relatively easy to either locale.

Salt Lake would be the obvious choice given the fact that it is close to Weber, which is the biggest drawing school in the conference.

[supersioux]

but a predetermined site makes it an event....much like the WCHA Final 5, it certainly give Minny an advantage but its a great event to attend and anchoring a site for a number of years builds tradition. The MVC has theirs in St. Louis and I think most conferences prefer a predetermined site because of thier ability to solicite bids, I believe the SF put forth a healty bid package to land the Summit League tourney which again helps the conference as a whole, much like the revenue from the WCHA final 5.

[supersioux]

here's a thought....how about Vegas? Great destination city in the center of the Big Sky footprint and for the most part a true neutral court.

[ShilohSioux]

here's a thought....how about Vegas? Great destination city in the center of the Big Sky footprint and for the most part a true neutral court.

How about in Grand Forks after UND wins the regular season?

[FSSD]

Well, just make sure that we go on full thread drift mode. I looked at all the BSC basketball facilities - most schools could host the conference tournament. The only schools that would be limited are PSU, Sac St. and UNC. But, I am sure the PSU and Sac St have other options within the community. I am not sure what UNC would do..

Ranking

1. Weber St - capacity approx. - 12,000 - Wow impressive - basketball only

http://www.weberstatesports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?SPSID=39740&SPID=3486&temp_site=NO&DB_OEM_ID=8600&ATCLID=1206048

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dee_Events_Center

UND - capacity approx - Ralph 11,500

http://www.fightingsioux.com/ViewArticle.dbml?&&DB_OEM_ID=13500&ATCLID=736148

UM - capacity approx. - 7,500 - very nice

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahlberg_Arena

http://www.montanagrizzlies.com/pages/?p=72&m=68

MSU - capacity approx. - 7,250

http://www.msubobcats.com/sports/2009/9/20/Facilities.aspx?

SUU - capacity approx. - 5,300 - I can see the SUU program pick up with a new conference rival in Weber St. They have a nice facility.

http://www.suutbirds.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=20100&KEY=&ATCLID=1302653

EWU - capacity approx. - 6,000

http://www.goeags.com/facilities/ewas-reesecourt.html

UNA - capacity approx. - 7,000 - Dome

http://www.nauathletics.com/information/facilities/skydome

ISU - capacity approx. - 8,000 - Dome

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holt_Arena

new court - http://www.isubengals.com/index.aspx?path=mbball

UNC - capacity approx. - 2,734

http://uncbears.com/information/facilities/athletic_facilities

PSU - capacity approx. - 1,500

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Stott_Center

Sac St. - capacity approx. - 1,200

http://www.hornetsports.com/sports/wbball/Arena.asp

[FargoBison]

I am not sure how much of the Missouri Valley brand has carried over on a national level for football because the MVFC conference plays at the FCS level. I would say that Missouri Valley Football and Big Sky are peer conferences in football.

I would agree that the Missouri Valley brand has greater national recognition than the Big Sky and Summit in basketball. Hey - how do you guys feel about the name "Summit League". It has always seemed strange to me kind of like the Big Ten using Legends and Leaders. Something just seems off with the name.. I wonder with the recent dumping of Cent C, Chicago St. and SUU and addition of USD if they will rethink the name?

They are peers, I got a little carried away with what I was trying to say. I do agree the Summit name isn't the best, would love to see something like the Grain Belt conference or Badlands conference.