GoldenEagle said:
EverettGriz said:
Well once again this terrific conference of our has screwed the GRIZ and given every favor to their beloved sons of Weber. Two years ago they tired of seeing Weber lose the title game on our floor, so they moved the tournament to Reno. Last year Weber didn't even have to play in Missoula, and this year the bsc brass protects them by giving them an afternoon game on NYE during a period where no students will be in attendance.
Good thing I believe we're the better team.
It's a damn conspiracy! The conference brass will do anything to keep the poor griz down!
I suppose your comment is meant as snark, GoldenEagle, which is ok with me. But a serious response (from me) is to state the obvious points of Everett's post: The Big Sky as a conference is a mess in football and basketball which seems -- by most common views -- to shortchange fans at ALL schools the most. Having most critically observed the current basketball alignment, it's still my view that the BEST thing the Big Sky could have done to invigorate the conference with some sort of cohesive alignment for competition/rivalries, would have been to select Spokane as the site for the Big Sky hoops tourney. Instead, they choose a site whose closest member is Sac State (131 miles) and where the next two (WSU, SUU) are right at 550 miles distant. A tourney site at the excellent Spokane venue (which I suppose EWU could champion as an advantage) situates SEVEN of the current member schools within 400 miles. I realize that there's a kind of logic for the conference to select Reno, but I'd rather consider traveling to Spokane or Ogden (a good venue) than the hard-to-understand option we have now. I know my response brings up a lot of disparate strands, but that's the gist of Everett's issue with the Big Sky, isn't it?