Big Sky Tournament

[Cratter]

MODERATOR EDIT: I SPLIT THESE POSTS OUT OF THE DI RECLASSIFICATION THREAD AS THEY FIT BETTER HERE.........

I am very happy we are in the Big Sky vs the Summit.

Watching the Mens Big Sky Championship on ESPN2 has crazy atmosophere (UNC vs Montana) cause the top seed hosts.

Sioux Falls hosts the Mens Summit tournament. While it has SDSU close by, the atmosphere is no where near as good as on campus sites. And without SDSU or USD even worse atmosophere. Word on the street is this years Summit tournament was pretty vanilla.

Kudos to you Big Sky.

Edited April 22, 2011 by bincitysioux

[Herd]

I am very happy we are in the Big Sky vs the Summit.

Watching the Mens Big Sky Championship on ESPN2 has crazy atmosophere (UNC vs Montana) cause the top seed hosts.

Sioux Falls hosts the Mens Summit tournament. While it has SDSU close by, the atmosphere is no where near as good as on campus sites. And without SDSU or USD even worse atmosophere. Word on the street is this years Summit tournament was pretty vanilla.

Kudos to you Big Sky.

I attended the first two rounds in sioux falls, and the atmophere was great. Imo, not holding the tourney at a. Neutral site is bush league. You obviously don't have a product that sells if you can't give your teams am equal shot at a neutral site. The other thing that was clear is that Oakland would mop up in Sky. Clearly more athletes in the summit.

[FargoBison]

I attended the first two rounds in sioux falls, and the atmophere was great. Imo, not holding the tourney at a. Neutral site is bush league. You obviously don't have a product that sells if you can't give your teams am equal shot at a neutral site. The other thing that was clear is that Oakland would mop up in Sky. Clearly more athletes in the summit.

Oakland would mop up on the champs of a lot of leagues.

[FSSD]

I attended the first two rounds in sioux falls, and the atmophere was great. Imo, not holding the tourney at a. Neutral site is bush league. You obviously don't have a product that sells if you can't give your teams am equal shot at a neutral site. The other thing that was clear is that Oakland would mop up in Sky. Clearly more athletes in the summit.

I watched the Championship game and it looked dead - according to ESPN the Aztecs won the girls game and Oakland is in Minnesota not Detroit. Not sure all teams in the Summit League really think SF is a true neutral site. Oakland is a good team wish them the best. How many did they draw for the 14 games? I think the record is 36,000.

[Dagger]

There are quite a few teams in the Summit that don't believe Sioux Falls is a neutral site. According to some reports in South Dakota there were some teams grumbling all ready. (Indiana schools) I am sure there are teams that like the idea of the site being close to some schools locations to help bring a crowd for atmosphere. I am assuming what they are mad about is that the location is a home court to the same teams every year.

[Yote 53]

Well they are really going to be peeved when Sioux Falls becomes the home court for another team, USD.

If the other schools are so upset then maybe they should work with the cities close to them to host the tourney and to actually have fans show up. It can be done. Sioux City, IA annually hosts the NAIA D2 Women's National Tournament and packs the Tyson Center with fans even when Morningside or some other local GPAC school isn't playing (I know, women's basketball). Some schools that regularly make the tournament have been "adopted" by Sioux City fans and they show up to cheer for them, kinda like Omahans (sp???) have adopted certain schools that are College World Series regulars.

Funny thing is that I've heard Sioux City is putting together a package to bid on the Summit League Tourney, and I think they'd do a great job hosting. People would definitely show up and care more than if the Summit were to go to Omaha. Sioux City would be an easy trip for USD fans, SDSU is just a little farther away, and NDSU and UMKC are about the same distance. Nice facility, I think it would work.

Anyplace would be better than Orem, UT. God, what pathetic support. We have a running bet over on the USD board, which will be higher, the attendance or points scored in the game. Hope to meet the Sioux there in what could possibly be our last basketball game ever (Doubtful, but the possiblity exists), at least the last conference game we ever play against each other, unless...

[PhillySioux]

I attended the first two rounds in sioux falls, and the atmophere was great. Imo, not holding the tourney at a. Neutral site is bush league. You obviously don't have a product that sells if you can't give your teams am equal shot at a neutral site. The other thing that was clear is that Oakland would mop up in Sky. Clearly more athletes in the summit.

Bush League?

Its just a different philosophy. Does a conference want its regular season championship worth something beyond seeding or not? Winning the regular season championship is a huge accomplishment in the Big Sky considering the conference tourney setup. I like it. Tell me, what did Oakland really earn by winning the Summit League regular season handily?

As far as atmosphere goes its a gamble either way. A neutral site is just that, neutral. There will be some support depending on the geography and demographics of the particular conference always. The champion host format should have great support and a great environment, IF the home team doesn't get knocked out early. If the home team gets upset, Im not sure the championship game would look so hot on ESPN2. I will say that it appears to me that a neutral site for the BigSky tourney is not a viable option. The geography is just too big.

[darell1976]

There are quite a few teams in the Summit that don't believe Sioux Falls is a neutral site. According to some reports in South Dakota there were some teams grumbling all ready. (Indiana schools) I am sure there are teams that like the idea of the site being close to some schools locations to help bring a crowd for atmosphere. I am assuming what they are mad about is that the location is a home court to the same teams every year.

I would think neutral would be more Missouri, or Illinois. I would think KC wouldnbe a good place but the Big 12 tourny plays there every year (to the dislikes of non-Jayhawks fans).

[FargoBison]

I would think neutral would be more Missouri, or Illinois. I would think KC wouldnbe a good place but the Big 12 tourny plays there every year (to the dislikes of non-Jayhawks fans).

Omaha is talking about hosting the tournament, that would be close to right in between Fargo and Tulsa.

[Hansel]

I will say that it appears to me that a neutral site for the BigSky tourney is not a viable option. The geography is just too big.

SLC would be the best option, probably within 500 miles of most Big Sky teams, a direct flight for the rest (except UND - who could fly through Fargo).

[Herd]

Bush League?

Its just a different philosophy. Does a conference want its regular season championship worth something beyond seeding or not? Winning the regular season championship is a huge accomplishment in the Big Sky considering the conference tourney setup. I like it. Tell me, what did Oakland really earn by winning the Summit League regular season handily?

As far as atmosphere goes its a gamble either way. A neutral site is just that, neutral. There will be some support depending on the geography and demographics of the particular conference always. The champion host format should have great support and a great environment, IF the home team doesn't get knocked out early. If the home team gets upset, Im not sure the championship game would look so hot on ESPN2. I will say that it appears to me that a neutral site for the BigSky tourney is not a viable option. The geography is just too big.

Maybe ohio state should host in columbus or missouri state springfield or Kansas in Lawrence? No, its an event that should be at a neutral site. No one would agree that the #1 team should host in the above cases, would you Agree?

The #1 team in summit earns the right to play the #8 team and gets a day of between the quarters and the semis. The #1 seed does not see the #2 or #3 seed until the finals. That's usually a pretty easy ride. That is what they earn.

[dakota fairways]

... Does a conference want its regular season championship worth something beyond seeding or not? ...

...The #1 team in summit earns the right to play the #8 team and gets a day of between the quarters and the semis. The #1 seed does not see the #2 or #3 seed until the finals...

so, what's your point Herd?

[PhillySioux]

Maybe ohio state should host in columbus or missouri state springfield or Kansas in Lawrence? No, its an event that should be at a neutral site. No one would agree that the #1 team should host in the above cases, would you Agree?

The #1 team in summit earns the right to play the #8 team and gets a day of between the quarters and the semis. The #1 seed does not see the #2 or #3 seed until the finals. That's usually a pretty easy ride. That is what they earn.

The Summit and the Big Sky are not the Big Ten or the Big 12 or 10 or whatever they will be called now. Winning the conf tournament in those leagues matters for nothing 90 percent of the time as those teams involved are likely at large bids.

Lets dispense with notion that our respective leagues are anything other than one team autobid leagues. The Conf tournament is EVERYTHING for teams in the Summit and Big Sky.

I wasn't bashing a neutral site tourney. My point was there is a logical and legitimate argument to reward the league Regular Season champ in leagues like the Summit or the BigSky.

[Dagger]

The problem with the Summit league is the same teams have the home court every year. The Big Sky is much better because at least your rewarding a team who earned it during the year.

[Cratter]

I attended the first two rounds in sioux falls, and the atmophere was great. Imo, not holding the tourney at a. Neutral site is bush league. You obviously don't have a product that sells if you can't give your teams am equal shot at a neutral site. The other thing that was clear is that Oakland would mop up in Sky. Clearly more athletes in the summit.

HAHA you clearly have a chip on your shoulder. I know it sucks being in the Summit and all, but we both know even Bison fans admit the atmosphere sucks at Summit Tournament, especially without the Bizon there.

I will take atmosphere over neutrality any day of the week. Makes excellent TV on ESPN2.

[star2city]

The Summit and the Big Sky are not the Big Ten or the Big 12 or 10 or whatever they will be called now. Winning the conf tournament in those leagues matters for nothing 90 percent of the time as those teams involved are likely at large bids.

Lets dispense with notion that our respective leagues are anything other than one team autobid leagues. The Conf tournament is EVERYTHING for teams in the Summit and Big Sky.

I wasn't bashing a neutral site tourney. My point was there is a logical and legitimate argument to reward the league Regular Season champ in leagues like the Summit or the BigSky.

Exactly - for lower RPI leagues, it is imperative that the highest RPI team makes the NCAA tournament, otherwise the a 3rd or 4th place conference team will be consigned to a 15th or 16th seed in the NCAA. A 15th seed has about a 1% shot at winning, while a 16th seed has essentially none. Going to a neutral site for conferences that will only get one bid is a recipe for NCAA tournament disaster. There should be a reward for winning a conference championship - home court in what is essentially an NCAA play-in game.

The Big Sky some years ago used to play on a neutral floor (Boise). Later, they gave the post-season tournament venue to the winner of the previous years regular season. Neither was fair, and both methods hurt the Big Sky's seedings in the NCAA tournament. With a bad seed, the conference's team can't advance and conference forgoes a shot at even more NCAA money.

The Summit likes the idea of the "neutral" court for three reasons, all monetary: (a) the Summit has cities/corporate bidding for guaranteed money (so even if tickets don't sell, the tournament makes money), (b) the teams going to the tournament can buy super-saver airfare tickets well in advance saving huge $'s, and © most Summit campus locations wouldn't be capable of supporting an ESPN telecast on a week's notice. The Summit simply doesn't have the campus or league or monetary infrastructure to go to a campus location tournament.

[bincitysioux]

Getting back to the conference tourney format, I feel both formats have their merits.............a neutral site probably creates a more fair opportunity for all participants to win the title, makes it easier to secure corporate sponsorship, and allows fans and teams more time and makes it easier for setting travel plans. The the Big Sky's home-host format will often asure a better atmosphere for the championship game unless of course the #1 seed loses in the semis, makes winning the regular season title far more important, and also rewards the #3 and #4 seeds with an extra home game.

Personally, I hope the Big Sky format stays as is as far as the regular season champ hosting. When considering the Big Sky's vast geography, I think the current format is best. For a league like the Summit, with now 5 schools scattered along I-29, the neutral site works well, especially considering how well South Dakotans like their basketball and that the "neutral" site will most likely always be within a couple hour drive of SDSU and USD.

If the Big Sky did go to a neutral site, I'd think it would have to be in SLC due to proximity to Weber St as the Big Sky's biggest draw, and ease of travel. Denver could be the only other realistic option, but UNC could never guarantee as many fans as Weber. I wonder if the Big Sky bracket will be expanded because of the additions of North Dakota and SUU?

[star2city]

If the Big Sky did go to a neutral site, I'd think it would have to be in SLC due to proximity to Weber St as the Big Sky's biggest draw, and ease of travel. Denver could be the only other realistic option, but UNC could never guarantee as many fans as Weber. I wonder if the Big Sky bracket will be expanded because of the additions of North Dakota and SUU?

Actually, I think Las Vegas and/or Phoenix would be more likely than either SLC or Denver. With Allegiant and other discount airlines flying there from most Big Sky cities and with many Big Sky fans wanting an escape to warmer weather, those two cities have strong merits. But that said, hope the Big Sky keeps the final four at campus locations.

[Teeder11]

Getting back to the conference tourney format, I feel both formats have their merits.............a neutral site probably creates a more fair opportunity for all participants to win the title, makes it easier to secure corporate sponsorship, and allows fans and teams more time and makes it easier for setting travel plans. The the Big Sky's home-host format will often asure a better atmosphere for the championship game unless of course the #1 seed loses in the semis, makes winning the regular season title far more important, and also rewards the #3 and #4 seeds with an extra home game.

Personally, I hope the Big Sky format stays as is as far as the regular season champ hosting. When considering the Big Sky's vast geography, I think the current format is best. For a league like the Summit, with now 5 schools scattered along I-29, the neutral site works well, especially considering how well South Dakotans like their basketball and that the "neutral" site will most likely always be within a couple hour drive of SDSU and USD.

If the Big Sky did go to a neutral site, I'd think it would have to be in SLC due to proximity to Weber St as the Big Sky's biggest draw, and ease of travel. Denver could be the only other realistic option, but UNC could never guarantee as many fans as Weber. I wonder if the Big Sky bracket will be expanded because of the additions of North Dakota and SUU?

What happens if the Big Sky keeps it current tourney format, and at some time in the future, UND wins the league, and by virtue, is awarded host status? Would it be able to host under the threatened sanctions of the NCAA due to the nickname and logo? And if not, where would the tourney be held in those years? Would the Big Sky have to always have a neutral site contingency plan for UND? Seems like a bit of a headache for the Big Sky if that would be the case. Might this be what Fullerton was alluding to when he was saying that the Big Sky was watching the nickname legislation carefully?

I know these are a lot of questions and it may not be something to worry about for a while, but I am wondering if anyone has pondered these scenarios. I would love the feedback. Sorry if this has been hashed and re-hashed already. I missed it, if it was.

[star2city]

What happens if the Big Sky keeps it current tourney format, and at some time in the future, UND wins the league, and by virtue, is awarded host status? Would it be able to host under the threatened sanctions of the NCAA due to the nickname and logo? And if not, where would the tourney be held in those years? Would the Big Sky have to always have a neutral site contingency plan for UND? Seems like a bit of a headache for the Big Sky if that would be the case. Might this be what Fullerton was alluding to when he was saying that the Big Sky was watching the nickname legislation carefully?

I know these are a lot of questions and it may not be something to worry about for a while, but I am wondering if anyone has pondered these scenarios. I would love the feedback. Sorry if this has been hashed and re-hashed already. I missed it, if it was.

Big Sky tournament hosting is not affected by the NCAA rule. Neither is WCHA hosting affected. Both conferences would have to institute some type of similar rule to bar UND from hosting conference playoffs - like this weekends series against Tech. Three schools in the WCHA are very antagonist against the Sioux nickname (UM, UW, SCSU, while UMD's President is outspoken against it too): none of the Big Sky schools have similar policies. Moreover, no school in the West (even Cal) or the South has ever come out with a policy against Indian nicknames. Only uber liberal schools in the upper Midwest and among eastern "elite" schools have adopted such policies.

[GeauxSioux]

What happens if the Big Sky keeps it current tourney format, and at some time in the future, UND wins the league, and by virtue, is awarded host status? Would it be able to host under the threatened sanctions of the NCAA due to the nickname and logo? And if not, where would the tourney be held in those years? Would the Big Sky have to always have a neutral site contingency plan for UND? Seems like a bit of a headache for the Big Sky if that would be the case. Might this be what Fullerton was alluding to when he was saying that the Big Sky was watching the nickname legislation carefully?

I know these are a lot of questions and it may not be something to worry about for a while, but I am wondering if anyone has pondered these scenarios. I would love the feedback. Sorry if this has been hashed and re-hashed already. I missed it, if it was.

UND would be able to host, as it would be a conference tournament. If they win the conference and move on to the Big Dance, the hosting part doesn't become a concern, but they couldn't have Sioux or the logo on the uniforms. I don't think they have them now anyway.

The hardest hit by being put back on the list would be football, as they would be the only ones who would be able to host an NCAA post season event that I can think of.

[Teeder11]

UND would be able to host, as it would be a conference tournament. If they win the conference and move on to the Big Dance, the hosting part doesn't become a concern, but they couldn't have Sioux or the logo on the uniforms. I don't think they have them now anyway.

The hardest hit by being put back on the list would be football, as they would be the only ones who would be able to host an NCAA post season event that I can think of.

Thanks for the clarification on that. Phew! That's great to hear (for basketball, anyway)!

[ShilohSioux]

Actually, I think Las Vegas and/or Phoenix would be more likely than either SLC or Denver. With Allegiant and other discount airlines flying there from most Big Sky cities and with many Big Sky fans wanting an escape to warmer weather, those two cities have strong merits. But that said, hope the Big Sky keeps the final four at campus locations.

It won't be Las Vegas. Sin City already hosts three post-season conference tournaments. They don't have the venues or desire to host a fourth.

[star2city]

It won't be Las Vegas. Sin City already hosts three post-season conference tournaments. They don't have the venues or desire to host a fourth.

Missoulian: Could the Big Sky find it's basketball tournament in Las Vegas?

"I would love to go through the exercise with the conference," said Stallworth, the general manager of the South Point Arena. "I'd be thrilled to do that. I haven't talked to (Big Sky commissioner) Doug (Fullerton) in a couple of years and they've made no overtures to me. If there's a buzz, I'd love to call them. I'd love them to know we're an option."

If all nine schools (11 in 2012 when North Dakota and Southern Utah join the Big Sky ranks) are invited to the tournament, though, fans can make plans to attend well in advance. Allegiant Air, which promotes discounted airfare and hotel packages to Las Vegas, serves six Big Sky cities.

Would prefer campus sites, or even Phoenix (where more alums live and Allegiant flies there too).

An end to Big Sky on-campus tournaments?

It's no wonder, then, that there was quite a bit of talk in Greeley about changing the format of the league tournament, possibly switching to a predetermined, neutral site a la the West Coast Conference or the WAC.

"I think it's something that we're going to have to take a look at," Montana athletic director Jim O'Day said. "A lot of it is driven by the economy, just the cost factor of moving teams around, especially as spread out as the Big Sky Conference is."

"There have been some preliminary talks," O'Day said. "People have looked at a place like Spokane, or a place like Salt Lake City, or would Phoenix be interested. You have to look at the facilities and the venues that are available and see if there's any interest in those places. It's time to explore all the options."

[darell1976]

Vegas baby!!!!!