UM at S. Utah (Thursday Feb 9th)

[coyote]

Soooooo, from an applicability standpoint, you might as well have been asking why the moon isn't made of cheese.

And I can presume we all agree based on your numbers that this conference is an effing joke.

Yes, outside of Weber this conference's attendance number's are a joke.

I think I'm going to jump into this debate, for better or worse... mainly because I've followed Everett's arguments over the years (most of the arguments with which I agree). I'm not much of a trash talker, so my arguments are not meant as slams (for the record: I've followed Big Sky basketball since its inception and have a high regard for Weber State hoops).

Arguments for/against fan support of school teams MUST be universally considered in any argument. While Weber State men's basketball has the best fan support in the Big Sky by a margin... things change dramatically from there. Fan support for Montana sports -- in raw statistical numbers and in support per citizen averages (school/community etc.) are darn good. Hence, Everett has a pretty solid argument overall. Let's look at some basics:

Men’s Basketball
1. Weber State 59,993 6,666 - 9
2. Montana 41,020 3,729 - 11
3. Montana State 33,487 2,392 - 14
4. North Dakota 20,469 1,861 - 11
5. Southern Utah 20,215 2,022 - 10
6. Eastern Washington 17,876 1,375 - 13
7. Idaho 11,723 977 - 12
8. Idaho State 9,735 1,391 - 7
9. Northern Colorado 9,744 1,083 - 9
10. Northern Arizona 8,804 880 - 10
11. Sacramento State 7,576 756 - 10
12. Portland State 5,511 501 - 11

YEP, Weber State ranks far ahead of the Big Sky. But what about women's basketball?
Big Sky Women’s Basketball Attendance -- 2016-17
1. Montana 34,071 -- 2621
2. North Dakota 19,935 -- 1661
3. Montana State 15,111 -- 1511
4. Weber State 12,217 -- 1018
5. Northern Colorado 12,037 -- 1003
6. Eastern Washington 10,106 -- 856
7. Idaho State 9,619 -- 874
8. Southern Utah 6,751 -- 614
9. Northern Arizona 4,075 -- 370
10. Sacramento State 4,699 -- 492
11. Idaho 3,865 -- 483
12. Portland State 1,874 -- 234
So far this season the results show Montana's averages -- despite its low standing in the Big Sky -- well ahead of every other school in the Big Sky. WHAT IF we combined the averages for women's and men's basketball?

Big Sky Conference 2016-17-- ALL BASKETBALL ATTENDANCE
1. Montana 75,091
2. Weber State 72,210
3. Montana State 45,598
4. North Dakota 40,404
5. Eastern Washington 27,982
6. Southern Utah 26,966
7. Northern Colorado 21,781
8. Idaho 15,588
9. Idaho State 13,600
10. Northern Arizona 12,879
11. Sacramento State 12,275
12. Portland State 7,385

So, am I manipulating statistics unfairly to Montana's advantage? Well, what it shows is that the UM and the city of Missoula support its two basketball teams far better than most other teams in the Big Sky, with Weber State a close second. However, the argument should NOT stop there, if we're comparing how schools and communities support their teams. We could add attendance figures for soccer, women's basketball and softball and I'll bet (couldn't find accurate attendance figures) that Montana would surge even farther ahead of the remainder of the Big Sky (average per. game attendance for UM soccer was 359 per game compared to WSU's 260). I heard, at one point, that UM volleyball attendance was over 400 per game.

Of course, we haven't thrown-in average football attendance figures.

What these stats prove is that the University of Montana -- despite having one of the lowest student enrollments in the Big Sky -- receives overwhelming fan support when compared to the rest of the Big Sky. I also believe that UM, if it joined the Mountain West for instance (I know... a long shot at best) would compete pretty well, on average, in men's and women's basketball. I'm not certain about football. A lot of wild conjecture, but not on one point: Everett has made a strong argument for Montana to consider a move out of the Big Sky over the years. Or, more realistically, the Big Sky Conference should probably look at some form of restructuring in the near future... one that recognizes travel schedule, facilities, fan support, competitiveness. That's my argument.

great post

 

[WILDCATFAN]

Soooooo, from an applicability standpoint, you might as well have been asking why the moon isn't made of cheese.

And I can presume we all agree based on your numbers that this conference is an effing joke.

Yes, outside of Weber this conference's attendance number's are a joke.

I think I'm going to jump into this debate, for better or worse... mainly because I've followed Everett's arguments over the years (most of the arguments with which I agree). I'm not much of a trash talker, so my arguments are not meant as slams (for the record: I've followed Big Sky basketball since its inception and have a high regard for Weber State hoops).

Arguments for/against fan support of school teams MUST be universally considered in any argument. While Weber State men's basketball has the best fan support in the Big Sky by a margin... things change dramatically from there. Fan support for Montana sports -- in raw statistical numbers and in support per citizen averages (school/community etc.) are darn good. Hence, Everett has a pretty solid argument overall. Let's look at some basics:

Men’s Basketball
1. Weber State 59,993 6,666 - 9
2. Montana 41,020 3,729 - 11
3. Montana State 33,487 2,392 - 14
4. North Dakota 20,469 1,861 - 11
5. Southern Utah 20,215 2,022 - 10
6. Eastern Washington 17,876 1,375 - 13
7. Idaho 11,723 977 - 12
8. Idaho State 9,735 1,391 - 7
9. Northern Colorado 9,744 1,083 - 9
10. Northern Arizona 8,804 880 - 10
11. Sacramento State 7,576 756 - 10
12. Portland State 5,511 501 - 11

YEP, Weber State ranks far ahead of the Big Sky. But what about women's basketball?
Big Sky Women’s Basketball Attendance -- 2016-17
1. Montana 34,071 -- 2621
2. North Dakota 19,935 -- 1661
3. Montana State 15,111 -- 1511
4. Weber State 12,217 -- 1018
5. Northern Colorado 12,037 -- 1003
6. Eastern Washington 10,106 -- 856
7. Idaho State 9,619 -- 874
8. Southern Utah 6,751 -- 614
9. Northern Arizona 4,075 -- 370
10. Sacramento State 4,699 -- 492
11. Idaho 3,865 -- 483
12. Portland State 1,874 -- 234
So far this season the results show Montana's averages -- despite its low standing in the Big Sky -- well ahead of every other school in the Big Sky. WHAT IF we combined the averages for women's and men's basketball?

Big Sky Conference 2016-17-- ALL BASKETBALL ATTENDANCE
1. Montana 75,091
2. Weber State 72,210
3. Montana State 45,598
4. North Dakota 40,404
5. Eastern Washington 27,982
6. Southern Utah 26,966
7. Northern Colorado 21,781
8. Idaho 15,588
9. Idaho State 13,600
10. Northern Arizona 12,879
11. Sacramento State 12,275
12. Portland State 7,385

So, am I manipulating statistics unfairly to Montana's advantage? Well, what it shows is that the UM and the city of Missoula support its two basketball teams far better than most other teams in the Big Sky, with Weber State a close second. However, the argument should NOT stop there, if we're comparing how schools and communities support their teams. We could add attendance figures for soccer, women's basketball and softball and I'll bet (couldn't find accurate attendance figures) that Montana would surge even farther ahead of the remainder of the Big Sky (average per. game attendance for UM soccer was 359 per game compared to WSU's 260). I heard, at one point, that UM volleyball attendance was over 400 per game.

Of course, we haven't thrown-in average football attendance figures.

What these stats prove is that the University of Montana -- despite having one of the lowest student enrollments in the Big Sky -- receives overwhelming fan support when compared to the rest of the Big Sky. I also believe that UM, if it joined the Mountain West for instance (I know... a long shot at best) would compete pretty well, on average, in men's and women's basketball. I'm not certain about football. A lot of wild conjecture, but not on one point: Everett has made a strong argument for Montana to consider a move out of the Big Sky over the years. Or, more realistically, the Big Sky Conference should probably look at some form of restructuring in the near future... one that recognizes travel schedule, facilities, fan support, competitiveness. That's my argument.

A good post full of great information. But the argument is based on Men's basketball. I know Montana as a University has a large dedicated fan base which I was not arguing, I was arguing the Men's basketball numbers. I already know that if we threw in Football Montana would just obliterate everyone. But that is beside the point.

Not to be nitpicky, but if you added the averages like you say it would read

Weber State 7,684
Montana 6,350


Overall attendance does favor Montana...right now. Weber's men's team still has 4 home games left and their women's teams still has 2 whereas both Montana's men and women only have 2 each left.

So lets get an estimated finish line by multiplying the averages for each team by how many home games are left for each team.

First the Men's

Weber State - 6,666 x 4 = 26,664
Montana- 3,729 x 2 = 7,458

Now the ladies

Montana- 2,621 x 2 = 5,245
Weber State- 1,018 x 2 = 2,036

Add them together

Weber State- 26,664 + 2,036 = 28,700
Montana- 7,458 + 5245 = 12,703

Now lets add the current totals and our estimated totals together and the final outcome will look something like this


Weber State-100,910
Montana- 87,794




Look the whole reason I posted in the first place was because a few fans were making fun of SUU's crowd or lack thereof. Which I think is hypocritical when the fan base doing the making fun is averaging only 1,707 fans more a game than the team being made fun of.

If you could restructure the Big Sky with the teams that are currently in it, how would you do it? I am genuinely interested.

 

[EverettGriz]

Soooooo, from an applicability standpoint, you might as well have been asking why the moon isn't made of cheese.

And I can presume we all agree based on your numbers that this conference is an effing joke.

Yes, outside of Weber this conference's attendance number's are a joke.

I think I'm going to jump into this debate, for better or worse... mainly because I've followed Everett's arguments over the years (most of the arguments with which I agree). I'm not much of a trash talker, so my arguments are not meant as slams (for the record: I've followed Big Sky basketball since its inception and have a high regard for Weber State hoops).

Arguments for/against fan support of school teams MUST be universally considered in any argument. While Weber State men's basketball has the best fan support in the Big Sky by a margin... things change dramatically from there. Fan support for Montana sports -- in raw statistical numbers and in support per citizen averages (school/community etc.) are darn good. Hence, Everett has a pretty solid argument overall. Let's look at some basics:

Men’s Basketball
1. Weber State 59,993 6,666 - 9
2. Montana 41,020 3,729 - 11
3. Montana State 33,487 2,392 - 14
4. North Dakota 20,469 1,861 - 11
5. Southern Utah 20,215 2,022 - 10
6. Eastern Washington 17,876 1,375 - 13
7. Idaho 11,723 977 - 12
8. Idaho State 9,735 1,391 - 7
9. Northern Colorado 9,744 1,083 - 9
10. Northern Arizona 8,804 880 - 10
11. Sacramento State 7,576 756 - 10
12. Portland State 5,511 501 - 11

YEP, Weber State ranks far ahead of the Big Sky. But what about women's basketball?
Big Sky Women’s Basketball Attendance -- 2016-17
1. Montana 34,071 -- 2621
2. North Dakota 19,935 -- 1661
3. Montana State 15,111 -- 1511
4. Weber State 12,217 -- 1018
5. Northern Colorado 12,037 -- 1003
6. Eastern Washington 10,106 -- 856
7. Idaho State 9,619 -- 874
8. Southern Utah 6,751 -- 614
9. Northern Arizona 4,075 -- 370
10. Sacramento State 4,699 -- 492
11. Idaho 3,865 -- 483
12. Portland State 1,874 -- 234
So far this season the results show Montana's averages -- despite its low standing in the Big Sky -- well ahead of every other school in the Big Sky. WHAT IF we combined the averages for women's and men's basketball?

Big Sky Conference 2016-17-- ALL BASKETBALL ATTENDANCE
1. Montana 75,091
2. Weber State 72,210
3. Montana State 45,598
4. North Dakota 40,404
5. Eastern Washington 27,982
6. Southern Utah 26,966
7. Northern Colorado 21,781
8. Idaho 15,588
9. Idaho State 13,600
10. Northern Arizona 12,879
11. Sacramento State 12,275
12. Portland State 7,385

So, am I manipulating statistics unfairly to Montana's advantage? Well, what it shows is that the UM and the city of Missoula support its two basketball teams far better than most other teams in the Big Sky, with Weber State a close second. However, the argument should NOT stop there, if we're comparing how schools and communities support their teams. We could add attendance figures for soccer, women's basketball and softball and I'll bet (couldn't find accurate attendance figures) that Montana would surge even farther ahead of the remainder of the Big Sky (average per. game attendance for UM soccer was 359 per game compared to WSU's 260). I heard, at one point, that UM volleyball attendance was over 400 per game.

Of course, we haven't thrown-in average football attendance figures.

What these stats prove is that the University of Montana -- despite having one of the lowest student enrollments in the Big Sky -- receives overwhelming fan support when compared to the rest of the Big Sky. I also believe that UM, if it joined the Mountain West for instance (I know... a long shot at best) would compete pretty well, on average, in men's and women's basketball. I'm not certain about football. A lot of wild conjecture, but not on one point: Everett has made a strong argument for Montana to consider a move out of the Big Sky over the years. Or, more realistically, the Big Sky Conference should probably look at some form of restructuring in the near future... one that recognizes travel schedule, facilities, fan support, competitiveness. That's my argument.

great post

Agree 100%. Spot-on post.

 

[grizzlyjournal]

Soooooo, from an applicability standpoint, you might as well have been asking why the moon isn't made of cheese.

And I can presume we all agree based on your numbers that this conference is an effing joke.

Yes, outside of Weber this conference's attendance number's are a joke.

I think I'm going to jump into this debate, for better or worse... mainly because I've followed Everett's arguments over the years (most of the arguments with which I agree). I'm not much of a trash talker, so my arguments are not meant as slams (for the record: I've followed Big Sky basketball since its inception and have a high regard for Weber State hoops).

Arguments for/against fan support of school teams MUST be universally considered in any argument. While Weber State men's basketball has the best fan support in the Big Sky by a margin... things change dramatically from there. Fan support for Montana sports -- in raw statistical numbers and in support per citizen averages (school/community etc.) are darn good. Hence, Everett has a pretty solid argument overall. Let's look at some basics:

Men’s Basketball
1. Weber State 59,993 6,666 - 9
2. Montana 41,020 3,729 - 11
3. Montana State 33,487 2,392 - 14
4. North Dakota 20,469 1,861 - 11
5. Southern Utah 20,215 2,022 - 10
6. Eastern Washington 17,876 1,375 - 13
7. Idaho 11,723 977 - 12
8. Idaho State 9,735 1,391 - 7
9. Northern Colorado 9,744 1,083 - 9
10. Northern Arizona 8,804 880 - 10
11. Sacramento State 7,576 756 - 10
12. Portland State 5,511 501 - 11

YEP, Weber State ranks far ahead of the Big Sky. But what about women's basketball?
Big Sky Women’s Basketball Attendance -- 2016-17
1. Montana 34,071 -- 2621
2. North Dakota 19,935 -- 1661
3. Montana State 15,111 -- 1511
4. Weber State 12,217 -- 1018
5. Northern Colorado 12,037 -- 1003
6. Eastern Washington 10,106 -- 856
7. Idaho State 9,619 -- 874
8. Southern Utah 6,751 -- 614
9. Northern Arizona 4,075 -- 370
10. Sacramento State 4,699 -- 492
11. Idaho 3,865 -- 483
12. Portland State 1,874 -- 234
So far this season the results show Montana's averages -- despite its low standing in the Big Sky -- well ahead of every other school in the Big Sky. WHAT IF we combined the averages for women's and men's basketball?

Big Sky Conference 2016-17-- ALL BASKETBALL ATTENDANCE
1. Montana 75,091
2. Weber State 72,210
3. Montana State 45,598
4. North Dakota 40,404
5. Eastern Washington 27,982
6. Southern Utah 26,966
7. Northern Colorado 21,781
8. Idaho 15,588
9. Idaho State 13,600
10. Northern Arizona 12,879
11. Sacramento State 12,275
12. Portland State 7,385

So, am I manipulating statistics unfairly to Montana's advantage? Well, what it shows is that the UM and the city of Missoula support its two basketball teams far better than most other teams in the Big Sky, with Weber State a close second. However, the argument should NOT stop there, if we're comparing how schools and communities support their teams. We could add attendance figures for soccer, women's basketball and softball and I'll bet (couldn't find accurate attendance figures) that Montana would surge even farther ahead of the remainder of the Big Sky (average per. game attendance for UM soccer was 359 per game compared to WSU's 260). I heard, at one point, that UM volleyball attendance was over 400 per game.

Of course, we haven't thrown-in average football attendance figures.

What these stats prove is that the University of Montana -- despite having one of the lowest student enrollments in the Big Sky -- receives overwhelming fan support when compared to the rest of the Big Sky. I also believe that UM, if it joined the Mountain West for instance (I know... a long shot at best) would compete pretty well, on average, in men's and women's basketball. I'm not certain about football. A lot of wild conjecture, but not on one point: Everett has made a strong argument for Montana to consider a move out of the Big Sky over the years. Or, more realistically, the Big Sky Conference should probably look at some form of restructuring in the near future... one that recognizes travel schedule, facilities, fan support, competitiveness. That's my argument.

A good post full of great information. But the argument is based on Men's basketball. I know Montana as a University has a large dedicated fan base which I was not arguing, I was arguing the Men's basketball numbers. I already know that if we threw in Football Montana would just obliterate everyone. But that is beside the point.

Not to be nitpicky, but if you added the averages like you say it would read

Weber State 7,684
Montana 6,350


Overall attendance does favor Montana...right now. Weber's men's team still has 4 home games left and their women's teams still has 2 whereas both Montana's men and women only have 2 each left.

So lets get an estimated finish line by multiplying the averages for each team by how many home games are left for each team.

First the Men's

Weber State - 6,666 x 4 = 26,664
Montana- 3,729 x 2 = 7,458

Now the ladies

Montana- 2,621 x 2 = 5,245
Weber State- 1,018 x 2 = 2,036

Add them together

Weber State- 26,664 + 2,036 = 28,700
Montana- 7,458 + 5245 = 12,703

Now lets add the current totals and our estimated totals together and the final outcome will look something like this


Weber State-100,910
Montana- 87,794




Look the whole reason I posted in the first place was because a few fans were making fun of SUU's crowd or lack thereof. Which I think is hypocritical when the fan base doing the making fun is averaging only 1,707 fans more a game than the team being made fun of.

If you could restructure the Big Sky with the teams that are currently in it, how would you do it? I am genuinely interested.

I don't think I can readily answer your question, Wildcatfan. There are major roadblocks. For instance:
1. North Dakota gave the Big Sky a gift by pulling out, for many logical reasons.
2. Which leaves 11 remaining. I believe the Big Sky should be a 10-team conference, which would once again make for common sense scheduling.
3. Do you boot any schools which do not accommodate the olympic sports? If so, that includes Montana State, and the Montana Board of Regents will not allow the two schools to be in different conferences.
4. Arguments can be made (travel) for excluding UNC, NAU and SUU.... OR SAC and PSU. Arguments can be made for keeping them as well (SAC & PSU in particular).
5. A couple of years past I made three separate conference alignments and ... trashed em. Pure whimsy on my part.

In the meantime, a huge issue may well soon arise as a challenge to Weber State and Montana. Neither school can schedule home-and-home non-conf games in men's basketball with good D1 programs in the west in upcoming seasons. WCC? WAC? MWC? --- Not a chance. What about the Big West? Not against the Wildcats or the Griz. All those schools will play us on their home courts, but won't play in Missoula.

That means the teams will have to travel to tourneys or play money games at major conf. schools. The Wildcats have it better than the Griz, because they're mandated (by Utah regents, I presume) to play home & home games against Utah, USU, UVU, & SUU. In Montana, it's just the Griz & Cats.

I've heard that the Big Sky might be considering two separate divisions... but I presume that's a wild rumor. In the meantime, both schools are faced with scheduling lower division one schools on their home courts because they can't find D1 schools willing to play home & home schedules.

 

[WILDCATFAN]

Yes, outside of Weber this conference's attendance number's are a joke.

I think I'm going to jump into this debate, for better or worse... mainly because I've followed Everett's arguments over the years (most of the arguments with which I agree). I'm not much of a trash talker, so my arguments are not meant as slams (for the record: I've followed Big Sky basketball since its inception and have a high regard for Weber State hoops).

Arguments for/against fan support of school teams MUST be universally considered in any argument. While Weber State men's basketball has the best fan support in the Big Sky by a margin... things change dramatically from there. Fan support for Montana sports -- in raw statistical numbers and in support per citizen averages (school/community etc.) are darn good. Hence, Everett has a pretty solid argument overall. Let's look at some basics:

Men’s Basketball
1. Weber State 59,993 6,666 - 9
2. Montana 41,020 3,729 - 11
3. Montana State 33,487 2,392 - 14
4. North Dakota 20,469 1,861 - 11
5. Southern Utah 20,215 2,022 - 10
6. Eastern Washington 17,876 1,375 - 13
7. Idaho 11,723 977 - 12
8. Idaho State 9,735 1,391 - 7
9. Northern Colorado 9,744 1,083 - 9
10. Northern Arizona 8,804 880 - 10
11. Sacramento State 7,576 756 - 10
12. Portland State 5,511 501 - 11

YEP, Weber State ranks far ahead of the Big Sky. But what about women's basketball?
Big Sky Women’s Basketball Attendance -- 2016-17
1. Montana 34,071 -- 2621
2. North Dakota 19,935 -- 1661
3. Montana State 15,111 -- 1511
4. Weber State 12,217 -- 1018
5. Northern Colorado 12,037 -- 1003
6. Eastern Washington 10,106 -- 856
7. Idaho State 9,619 -- 874
8. Southern Utah 6,751 -- 614
9. Northern Arizona 4,075 -- 370
10. Sacramento State 4,699 -- 492
11. Idaho 3,865 -- 483
12. Portland State 1,874 -- 234
So far this season the results show Montana's averages -- despite its low standing in the Big Sky -- well ahead of every other school in the Big Sky. WHAT IF we combined the averages for women's and men's basketball?

Big Sky Conference 2016-17-- ALL BASKETBALL ATTENDANCE
1. Montana 75,091
2. Weber State 72,210
3. Montana State 45,598
4. North Dakota 40,404
5. Eastern Washington 27,982
6. Southern Utah 26,966
7. Northern Colorado 21,781
8. Idaho 15,588
9. Idaho State 13,600
10. Northern Arizona 12,879
11. Sacramento State 12,275
12. Portland State 7,385

So, am I manipulating statistics unfairly to Montana's advantage? Well, what it shows is that the UM and the city of Missoula support its two basketball teams far better than most other teams in the Big Sky, with Weber State a close second. However, the argument should NOT stop there, if we're comparing how schools and communities support their teams. We could add attendance figures for soccer, women's basketball and softball and I'll bet (couldn't find accurate attendance figures) that Montana would surge even farther ahead of the remainder of the Big Sky (average per. game attendance for UM soccer was 359 per game compared to WSU's 260). I heard, at one point, that UM volleyball attendance was over 400 per game.

Of course, we haven't thrown-in average football attendance figures.

What these stats prove is that the University of Montana -- despite having one of the lowest student enrollments in the Big Sky -- receives overwhelming fan support when compared to the rest of the Big Sky. I also believe that UM, if it joined the Mountain West for instance (I know... a long shot at best) would compete pretty well, on average, in men's and women's basketball. I'm not certain about football. A lot of wild conjecture, but not on one point: Everett has made a strong argument for Montana to consider a move out of the Big Sky over the years. Or, more realistically, the Big Sky Conference should probably look at some form of restructuring in the near future... one that recognizes travel schedule, facilities, fan support, competitiveness. That's my argument.

A good post full of great information. But the argument is based on Men's basketball. I know Montana as a University has a large dedicated fan base which I was not arguing, I was arguing the Men's basketball numbers. I already know that if we threw in Football Montana would just obliterate everyone. But that is beside the point.

Not to be nitpicky, but if you added the averages like you say it would read

Weber State 7,684
Montana 6,350


Overall attendance does favor Montana...right now. Weber's men's team still has 4 home games left and their women's teams still has 2 whereas both Montana's men and women only have 2 each left.

So lets get an estimated finish line by multiplying the averages for each team by how many home games are left for each team.

First the Men's

Weber State - 6,666 x 4 = 26,664
Montana- 3,729 x 2 = 7,458

Now the ladies

Montana- 2,621 x 2 = 5,245
Weber State- 1,018 x 2 = 2,036

Add them together

Weber State- 26,664 + 2,036 = 28,700
Montana- 7,458 + 5245 = 12,703

Now lets add the current totals and our estimated totals together and the final outcome will look something like this


Weber State-100,910
Montana- 87,794




Look the whole reason I posted in the first place was because a few fans were making fun of SUU's crowd or lack thereof. Which I think is hypocritical when the fan base doing the making fun is averaging only 1,707 fans more a game than the team being made fun of.

If you could restructure the Big Sky with the teams that are currently in it, how would you do it? I am genuinely interested.

I don't think I can readily answer your question, Wildcatfan. There are major roadblocks. For instance:
1. North Dakota gave the Big Sky a gift by pulling out, for many logical reasons.
2. Which leaves 11 remaining. I believe the Big Sky should be a 10-team conference, which would once again make for common sense scheduling.
3. Do you boot any schools which do not accommodate the olympic sports? If so, that includes Montana State, and the Montana Board of Regents will not allow the two schools to be in different conferences.
4. Arguments can be made (travel) for excluding UNC, NAU and SUU.... OR SAC and PSU. Arguments can be made for keeping them as well (SAC & PSU in particular).
5. A couple of years past I made three separate conference alignments and ... trashed em. Pure whimsy on my part.

In the meantime, a huge issue may well soon arise as a challenge to Weber State and Montana. Neither school can schedule home-and-home non-conf games in men's basketball with good D1 programs in the west in upcoming seasons. WCC? WAC? MWC? --- Not a chance. What about the Big West? Not against the Wildcats or the Griz. All those schools will play us on their home courts, but won't play in Missoula.

That means the teams will have to travel to tourneys or play money games at major conf. schools. The Wildcats have it better than the Griz, because they're mandated (by Utah regents, I presume) to play home & home games against Utah, USU, UVU, & SUU. In Montana, it's just the Griz & Cats.

I've heard that the Big Sky might be considering two separate divisions... but I presume that's a wild rumor. In the meantime, both schools are faced with scheduling lower division one schools on their home courts because they can't find D1 schools willing to play home & home schedules.

Utah stopped playing us as soon as they went to the Pac 12, and have said they wont travel to Ogden in the foreseeable future. They also ended the H&H series with Utah State, ending two long standing rivalries.

However Utah did agree to participate in a top of Utah tournament known as the Beehive Classic in Salt Lake City in the Vivint Smart Center (or whatever they are calling it these days) involving Weber State, BYU, Utah State and Utah. Starting next season the 4 schools will play one game against one other school. It's a three year deal but will probably continue for a few years if it's successful.

Weber is scheduled to play BYU next season, Utah State in 2018 and Utah in 2019.

http://www.standard.net/Sports/2016...u-weber-state-college-basketball-vivint-arena

Weber State and Utah Valley have started a pretty good series over the last few years and I can see that series continuing for a long time.

Weber State, Utah State and BYU will continue to schedule each other H&H's around the event.

Utah said they will only continue H&H's with BYU.

SUU is of course in the Big Sky so Weber and SUU will play at least once every year.


I'm pretty sure if it weren't for this event it would have been some time before Utah played either Weber or Utah State. They tried ending the series with BYU but received so much backlash from it that they put them back on the schedule. And after Weber sent Utah home with a 30 point loss the last time they played Coach K said he could care less if Utah ever played Weber again. The very next year both Weber State and Utah State were left off of Utah's schedule. I know Coach K is highly regarded up here in Montana, but outside of the UoU in Utah he is known as Coach Koward. And is vehemently disliked.


Aside from the other instate schools it is very difficult for Weber to schedule solid Div 1 home games. And because of that we spend like 80 percent of our OOC on the road. Wish it could be different but it's not gonna change anytime soon unfortunately as long as the big boys can continue to buy an OOC full of home games.

 

[grizzlyjournal]

"Aside from the other instate schools it is very difficult for Weber to schedule solid Div 1 home games. And because of that we spend like 80 percent of our OOC on the road. Wish it could be different but it's not gonna change anytime soon unfortunately as long as the big boys can continue to buy an OOC full of home games." -- WILDCATFAN

With this last statement of yours, WILDCATFAN, you have tidily wrapped up the quandary. I think the argument can -- as Everett has frequently stated -- be expanded to the larger structural problems of the Big Sky conference. BUT, let's focus specifically on basketball... Weber State... and Montana.

BECAUSE: They are the only two schools in the Big Sky with 1. a demonstrated history of D1 excellence, 2. Excellent D1 facilities, 3. Loyal and supportive fan bases (though Montana's been diluted a bit over the years, I admit, but also believe can/will return). 4. Outstanding consistent coaching, and 5. The willingness to play any opponent, anywhere, anytime. 6. Oh yeah, over the past 20 years, the two schools have more combined NCAA appearances than all other schools combined over the history of the Big Sky (I haven't checked the accuracy of that last statement, but I think it's true).

AS A RESULT: Neither school has a ghost of a chance to play home-and-home schedules against equal D1 foes in the west. NO one will play in Missoula (there are a few scant exceptions). Of course, that hurts the fan base because they'll come out to watch tough foes as preferred to the NAIA school that's looking for a money game.

Weber State actually has it good, if what you say about the Beehive invite is true. Montana would probably love to compete in a pre-season tourney like that which included schools within a 5-700 mile radius.

Some how, some way, the Big Sky Conference needs to address some of these issues. I realize that football seems to take precedence. If given a chance to schedule recognizable opponents on a home and home basis, I believe a core group of Big Sky schools could become far more recognized and respected in this region.

Which, ironically (not really) harkens back to the points that Everett keeps repeating. There's logic in the proposal that Montana look to a conference alignment that allows it to play tough regional opponents. I think about how the original Skyline Conference functioned. I do believe an 8-10 team regional conference (which I believe the WAC missed out on building) that allows Montana to build an identity, is something that should be considered. (I left Weber State out of my final sentence, because I don't know how folks in Ogden regard the issue...).

P. S. I left Larry Krystkowiak out of this for personal reasons. I was a teacher at the High School where he was an outstanding student; I interviewed him for the local newspaper, and I've followed his esteemed career. I don't know him all that well personally, but highly respect him as a man of principle, integrity and competitive fire.

 

[WILDCATFAN]

"Aside from the other instate schools it is very difficult for Weber to schedule solid Div 1 home games. And because of that we spend like 80 percent of our OOC on the road. Wish it could be different but it's not gonna change anytime soon unfortunately as long as the big boys can continue to buy an OOC full of home games." -- WILDCATFAN

With this last statement of yours, WILDCATFAN, you have tidily wrapped up the quandary. I think the argument can -- as Everett has frequently stated -- be expanded to the larger structural problems of the Big Sky conference. BUT, let's focus specifically on basketball... Weber State... and Montana.

BECAUSE: They are the only two schools in the Big Sky with 1. a demonstrated history of D1 excellence, 2. Excellent D1 facilities, 3. Loyal and supportive fan bases (though Montana's been diluted a bit over the years, I admit, but also believe can/will return). 4. Outstanding consistent coaching, and 5. The willingness to play any opponent, anywhere, anytime. 6. Oh yeah, over the past 20 years, the two schools have more combined NCAA appearances than all other schools combined over the history of the Big Sky (I haven't checked the accuracy of that last statement, but I think it's true).

AS A RESULT: Neither school has a ghost of a chance to play home-and-home schedules against equal D1 foes in the west. NO one will play in Missoula (there are a few scant exceptions). Of course, that hurts the fan base because they'll come out to watch tough foes as preferred to the NAIA school that's looking for a money game.

Weber State actually has it good, if what you say about the Beehive invite is true. Montana would probably love to compete in a pre-season tourney like that which included schools within a 5-700 mile radius.

Some how, some way, the Big Sky Conference needs to address some of these issues. I realize that football seems to take precedence. If given a chance to schedule recognizable opponents on a home and home basis, I believe a core group of Big Sky schools could become far more recognized and respected in this region.

Which, ironically (not really) harkens back to the points that Everett keeps repeating. There's logic in the proposal that Montana look to a conference alignment that allows it to play tough regional opponents. I think about how the original Skyline Conference functioned. I do believe an 8-10 team regional conference (which I believe the WAC missed out on building) that allows Montana to build an identity, is something that should be considered. (I left Weber State out of my final sentence, because I don't know how folks in Ogden regard the issue...).

P. S. I left Larry Krystkowiak out of this for personal reasons. I was a teacher at the High School where he was an outstanding student; I interviewed him for the local newspaper, and I've followed his esteemed career. I don't know him all that well personally, but highly respect him as a man of principle, integrity and competitive fire.

It's just one game a year, not a round robin and in the first two years Weber will have played two teams they would have played anyway. The only thing it is good for is exposure because they are trying to get the games on National Television.... which I doubt will happen.

Because of this tournament Weber will miss out on a quality home game every year, as an example Weber was supposed to host Utah State and BYU next year but will lose the home game against BYU because we will be playing them in Salt Lake City. Of course Utah refuses to play in Ogden so nothing lost there.

Aside from the games we played @ BYU, @ USU and home to UVU the only other Div 1 home game we were able to get was Denver's return trip. We did start a H&H this year with Pepperdine but after that our schedule home schedule was incredibly sad.

You say no one will come to Montana but both Montana and Montana State did a solid job at bringing in DI competition this year.

look at some of the teams the two Montana Schools brought in

Wyoming
Pepperdine
San Jose State
Wisc-Milwaukee
Louisiana Lafayette
James Madison
Delaware State
South Dakota
and Central Michigan

That list might not look great to Montana fans (I don't know if they do), but as a Weber State fan I would salivate at the idea of being able to get a Wyoming, Central Michigan or even Eastern teams like ULL, Wisc-Mil, or James Madison to come to the Dee. Instead of the 2-3 lower level games we get at home a year.

If it wasn't for the other instate schools, Weber's schedules would be pretty bad year in and year out.

 

[grizzlyjournal]

"Aside from the other instate schools it is very difficult for Weber to schedule solid Div 1 home games. And because of that we spend like 80 percent of our OOC on the road. Wish it could be different but it's not gonna change anytime soon unfortunately as long as the big boys can continue to buy an OOC full of home games." -- WILDCATFAN

With this last statement of yours, WILDCATFAN, you have tidily wrapped up the quandary. I think the argument can -- as Everett has frequently stated -- be expanded to the larger structural problems of the Big Sky conference. BUT, let's focus specifically on basketball... Weber State... and Montana.

BECAUSE: They are the only two schools in the Big Sky with 1. a demonstrated history of D1 excellence, 2. Excellent D1 facilities, 3. Loyal and supportive fan bases (though Montana's been diluted a bit over the years, I admit, but also believe can/will return). 4. Outstanding consistent coaching, and 5. The willingness to play any opponent, anywhere, anytime. 6. Oh yeah, over the past 20 years, the two schools have more combined NCAA appearances than all other schools combined over the history of the Big Sky (I haven't checked the accuracy of that last statement, but I think it's true).

AS A RESULT: Neither school has a ghost of a chance to play home-and-home schedules against equal D1 foes in the west. NO one will play in Missoula (there are a few scant exceptions). Of course, that hurts the fan base because they'll come out to watch tough foes as preferred to the NAIA school that's looking for a money game.

Weber State actually has it good, if what you say about the Beehive invite is true. Montana would probably love to compete in a pre-season tourney like that which included schools within a 5-700 mile radius.

Some how, some way, the Big Sky Conference needs to address some of these issues. I realize that football seems to take precedence. If given a chance to schedule recognizable opponents on a home and home basis, I believe a core group of Big Sky schools could become far more recognized and respected in this region.

Which, ironically (not really) harkens back to the points that Everett keeps repeating. There's logic in the proposal that Montana look to a conference alignment that allows it to play tough regional opponents. I think about how the original Skyline Conference functioned. I do believe an 8-10 team regional conference (which I believe the WAC missed out on building) that allows Montana to build an identity, is something that should be considered. (I left Weber State out of my final sentence, because I don't know how folks in Ogden regard the issue...).

P. S. I left Larry Krystkowiak out of this for personal reasons. I was a teacher at the High School where he was an outstanding student; I interviewed him for the local newspaper, and I've followed his esteemed career. I don't know him all that well personally, but highly respect him as a man of principle, integrity and competitive fire.

It's just one game a year, not a round robin and in the first two years Weber will have played two teams they would have played anyway. The only thing it is good for is exposure because they are trying to get the games on National Television.... which I doubt will happen.

Because of this tournament Weber will miss out on a quality home game every year, as an example Weber was supposed to host Utah State and BYU next year but will lose the home game against BYU because we will be playing them in Salt Lake City. Of course Utah refuses to play in Ogden so nothing lost there.

Aside from the games we played @ BYU, @ USU and home to UVU the only other Div 1 home game we were able to get was Denver's return trip. We did start a H&H this year with Pepperdine but after that our schedule home schedule was incredibly sad.

You say no one will come to Montana but both Montana and Montana State did a solid job at bringing in DI competition this year.

look at some of the teams the two Montana Schools brought in

Wyoming
Pepperdine
San Jose State
Wisc-Milwaukee
Louisiana Lafayette
James Madison
Delaware State
South Dakota
and Central Michigan

That list might not look great to Montana fans (I don't know if they do), but as a Weber State fan I would salivate at the idea of being able to get a Wyoming, Central Michigan or even Eastern teams like ULL, Wisc-Mil, or James Madison to come to the Dee. Instead of the 2-3 lower level games we get at home a year.

If it wasn't for the other instate schools, Weber's schedules would be pretty bad year in and year out.

I am NOT a Montana sports insider; I have no access to insider info. I'm just a longtime fan. So, with that in mind, two things:
1. The best way for UM and MSU to schedule good opponents in hoops, is to work together (and there are signs that that has been done with some scheduling).
2. Unfortunately, this season's schedule for Montana, I hear, was an anomaly. It is my opinion that this coaching staff has worked extremely hard to schedule good opponents. But success is has been a huge challenge. It's been far easier to schedule those tough opponents on the road or in pre-season tourneys.

It boils down to Montana and Weber State to hope for some scheduling help from the Big Sky. But, as you've read on eGriz, many posters are somewhat cynical (I'm not there yet, but I understand why posters like Everett ARE) about the conference being capable or interested in helping out with attracting quality opponents.

 

[WILDCATFAN]

"Aside from the other instate schools it is very difficult for Weber to schedule solid Div 1 home games. And because of that we spend like 80 percent of our OOC on the road. Wish it could be different but it's not gonna change anytime soon unfortunately as long as the big boys can continue to buy an OOC full of home games." -- WILDCATFAN

With this last statement of yours, WILDCATFAN, you have tidily wrapped up the quandary. I think the argument can -- as Everett has frequently stated -- be expanded to the larger structural problems of the Big Sky conference. BUT, let's focus specifically on basketball... Weber State... and Montana.

BECAUSE: They are the only two schools in the Big Sky with 1. a demonstrated history of D1 excellence, 2. Excellent D1 facilities, 3. Loyal and supportive fan bases (though Montana's been diluted a bit over the years, I admit, but also believe can/will return). 4. Outstanding consistent coaching, and 5. The willingness to play any opponent, anywhere, anytime. 6. Oh yeah, over the past 20 years, the two schools have more combined NCAA appearances than all other schools combined over the history of the Big Sky (I haven't checked the accuracy of that last statement, but I think it's true).

AS A RESULT: Neither school has a ghost of a chance to play home-and-home schedules against equal D1 foes in the west. NO one will play in Missoula (there are a few scant exceptions). Of course, that hurts the fan base because they'll come out to watch tough foes as preferred to the NAIA school that's looking for a money game.

Weber State actually has it good, if what you say about the Beehive invite is true. Montana would probably love to compete in a pre-season tourney like that which included schools within a 5-700 mile radius.

Some how, some way, the Big Sky Conference needs to address some of these issues. I realize that football seems to take precedence. If given a chance to schedule recognizable opponents on a home and home basis, I believe a core group of Big Sky schools could become far more recognized and respected in this region.

Which, ironically (not really) harkens back to the points that Everett keeps repeating. There's logic in the proposal that Montana look to a conference alignment that allows it to play tough regional opponents. I think about how the original Skyline Conference functioned. I do believe an 8-10 team regional conference (which I believe the WAC missed out on building) that allows Montana to build an identity, is something that should be considered. (I left Weber State out of my final sentence, because I don't know how folks in Ogden regard the issue...).

P. S. I left Larry Krystkowiak out of this for personal reasons. I was a teacher at the High School where he was an outstanding student; I interviewed him for the local newspaper, and I've followed his esteemed career. I don't know him all that well personally, but highly respect him as a man of principle, integrity and competitive fire.

It's just one game a year, not a round robin and in the first two years Weber will have played two teams they would have played anyway. The only thing it is good for is exposure because they are trying to get the games on National Television.... which I doubt will happen.

Because of this tournament Weber will miss out on a quality home game every year, as an example Weber was supposed to host Utah State and BYU next year but will lose the home game against BYU because we will be playing them in Salt Lake City. Of course Utah refuses to play in Ogden so nothing lost there.

Aside from the games we played @ BYU, @ USU and home to UVU the only other Div 1 home game we were able to get was Denver's return trip. We did start a H&H this year with Pepperdine but after that our schedule home schedule was incredibly sad.

You say no one will come to Montana but both Montana and Montana State did a solid job at bringing in DI competition this year.

look at some of the teams the two Montana Schools brought in

Wyoming
Pepperdine
San Jose State
Wisc-Milwaukee
Louisiana Lafayette
James Madison
Delaware State
South Dakota
and Central Michigan

That list might not look great to Montana fans (I don't know if they do), but as a Weber State fan I would salivate at the idea of being able to get a Wyoming, Central Michigan or even Eastern teams like ULL, Wisc-Mil, or James Madison to come to the Dee. Instead of the 2-3 lower level games we get at home a year.

If it wasn't for the other instate schools, Weber's schedules would be pretty bad year in and year out.

I am NOT a Montana sports insider; I have no access to insider info. I'm just a longtime fan. So, with that in mind, two things:
1. The best way for UM and MSU to schedule good opponents in hoops, is to work together (and there are signs that that has been done with some scheduling).
2. Unfortunately, this season's schedule for Montana, I hear, was an anomaly. It is my opinion that this coaching staff has worked extremely hard to schedule good opponents. But success is has been a huge challenge. It's been far easier to schedule those tough opponents on the road or in pre-season tourneys.

It boils down to Montana and Weber State to hope for some scheduling help from the Big Sky. But, as you've read on eGriz, many posters are somewhat cynical (I'm not there yet, but I understand why posters like Everett ARE) about the conference being capable or interested in helping out with attracting quality opponents.

I think a lot of it boils down to the schools in the conference forking over the cash to get these teams to play in our venues. Including Weber. The Big Sky as a conference can only do so much, most of it lies heavily on the schools themselves and the effort (and money) they put into it.