Sac State Hoops

[kalm]

The homerism of Montana State's play by play guys is unbearable.

[Wildcat Ryan]

I'll Play

[SDHornet]

Not exactly destination cities (or second-tier destination city in the case of Reno), especially in the winter months. How would it look for this conference if all these other western conferences (including the WAC—who's worse than the Big Sky—and the Big West—who is generally about the same) are playing in ritzy Vegas while the Big Sky is playing in Reno?

See here is where you and the rest of the “keep it the same” crowd loses me. I’m for keeping it the same just to keep the regular season meaningful and to prevent the BSCT from becoming a, “everyone gets a trophy” event. What I am not buying into is the image argument. NO ONE FUCKING CARES HOW IT MAKES THE CONFERENCES LOOK because the BSC is a 1 bid league! Anyone hung up on appearance needs to have their head checked.

You think people go to the WAC tournament? No they don’t. Ritziness or not leaves the argument when you are playing your tournament games in front of family and friends. The BW Tourney only draws decent numbers because 7 of the 9 members are within a 4 hour drive of their tournament location (Anaheim). It makes no difference what these 1 bid conferences do for their tournament because NO ONE FUCKING CARES and I couldn’t give two fucks about the butthurt from people who are concerned with appearance of the conference tournament. Keep it the same unless there is a place that makes logistical sense (Spokane seems to be the leader in that category).

What the BSC should do is step in and help with the organization and costs of the BSCT and stop having the hosting school foot the bill for everything. That would solve about 90% of the complaints about the current system. If they are unwilling to do that then this neutral location idea makes more sense.

[kalm]

Not exactly destination cities (or second-tier destination city in the case of Reno), especially in the winter months. How would it look for this conference if all these other western conferences (including the WAC—who's worse than the Big Sky—and the Big West—who is generally about the same) are playing in ritzy Vegas while the Big Sky is playing in Reno?

See here is where you and the rest of the “keep it the same” crowd loses me. I’m for keeping it the same just to keep the regular season meaningful and to prevent the BSCT from becoming a, “everyone gets a trophy” event. What I am not buying into is the image argument. NO ONE FUCKING CARES HOW IT MAKES THE CONFERENCES LOOK because the BSC is a 1 bid league! Anyone hung up on appearance needs to have their head checked.

You think people go to the WAC tournament? No they don’t. Ritziness or not leaves the argument when you are playing your tournament games in front of family and friends. The BW Tourney only draws decent numbers because 7 of the 9 members are within a 4 hour drive of their tournament location (Anaheim). It makes no difference what these 1 bid conferences do for their tournament because NO ONE FUCKING CARES and I couldn’t give two fucks about the butthurt from people who are concerned with appearance of the conference tournament. Keep it the same unless there is a place that makes logistical sense (Spokane seems to be the leader in that category).

What the BSC should do is step in and help with the organization and costs of the BSCT and stop having the hosting school foot the bill for everything. That would solve about 90% of the complaints about the current system. If they are unwilling to do that then this neutral location idea makes more sense.

This.

[SDHornet]

http://www.sacbee.com/sports/college/me ... 27373.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Maybe not hosting the conference tournament (if eligible) may get the ball rolling. Missing out on all that $$$?

http://m.kcra.com/news/sacramento-state ... ce=dlvr.it

KJ summed it up perfectly: “Oh we’ll find a venue, don’t worry about it. If they do their part, we the City will do ours.”

This is the same guy that bitch slapped Seattle and wrangled deals to get a downtown arena built that ultimately kept the Kings in Sac. Finding a venue to seat about 5k somewhere in Sac (if we can hang on to 1st) would be a Sunday morning stroll for this guy.

[JALMOND]

http://www.sacbee.com/sports/college/me ... 27373.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Maybe not hosting the conference tournament (if eligible) may get the ball rolling. Missing out on all that $$$?

http://m.kcra.com/news/sacramento-state ... ce=dlvr.it

KJ summed it up perfectly: “Oh we’ll find a venue, don’t worry about it. If they do their part, we the City will do ours.”

This is the same guy that bitch slapped Seattle and wrangled deals to get a downtown arena built that ultimately kept the Kings in Sac. Finding a venue to seat about 5k somewhere in Sac (if we can hang on to 1st) would be a Sunday morning stroll for this guy.

Encouraging, for sure. Glad to see KJ wearing a Sac State hat when he said that. Sometimes I think Portland officials and NBA personnel here are not aware PSU plays DI basketball, although we have been fortunate to host the tournament in both the Rose Garden and Memorial Coliseum. Mount St. Helens even made ESPN Sportscenter when it made a "burp" during the tournament one year (we of course had nothing to do with that).

[SuperHornet]

I don't know how the Big West Tournament looks now that UOP is gone. I haven't gone since before they moved it from the ACC to The Pond. (I was SoCal based the years I went.) To tell the truth, by far the largest group of fans there was from Utah State. They travelled VERY well. The local teams didn't really show up, at least not in comparison to USU.

That said, the only reason the BWC schedules it there is the very reason SD mentioned: several schools within a very close locus around Anaheim. We really don't have that problem. Reno won't give ANYONE a "home court advantage." The closest school is probably Sac, and we unfortunately don't travel well. That's about a two-hour drive, give or take, all uphill. But there WILL be a good arena with good parking for those schools who DO travel well. I'd go (during the years in which I had the money to do so). SD would likely go, as would some of our other fans on SacBuzz who live in the area. I could easily see just about every western Big Sky school (just about everyone save UND) having the ability to hop on a commuter plane to hang out in a place known for good food and good fun. (For a place to be viable, there HAS to be something to do when games are not going on.) Within the conference footprint, Reno's probably about as good as it's going to get.

[Mvemjsunpx]

See here is where you and the rest of the “keep it the same” crowd loses me. I’m for keeping it the same just to keep the regular season meaningful and to prevent the BSCT from becoming a, “everyone gets a trophy” event. What I am not buying into is the image argument. NO ONE FUCKING CARES HOW IT MAKES THE CONFERENCES LOOK because the BSC is a 1 bid league! Anyone hung up on appearance needs to have their head checked.

You think people go to the WAC tournament? No they don’t. Ritziness or not leaves the argument when you are playing your tournament games in front of family and friends. The BW Tourney only draws decent numbers because 7 of the 9 members are within a 4 hour drive of their tournament location (Anaheim). It makes no difference what these 1 bid conferences do for their tournament because NO ONE FUCKING CARES and I couldn’t give two fucks about the butthurt from people who are concerned with appearance of the conference tournament. Keep it the same unless there is a place that makes logistical sense (Spokane seems to be the leader in that category).

A more enticing location means more people will want to go to it… duh. And you act like attendance doesn't matter. Of course it does—more attendance means more money (one reason why I oppose the neutral site in the first place; it won't be anywhere near as high attendance as a home court deal). My point about comparing it the WAC, etc., is that those conferences already do it badly, and—given the currently discussed locations—the Big Sky product would be destined to be even worse. I wasn't saying a "ritzy" location would be good, just less bad than the listed proposals. It would be a complete disaster, however, if the tournament ended up in a sucky location that nobody wants to travel to with attendance that looked like the Weber/Montana title game 10 years ago where there were about 50 people in the entire Rose Garden. This wouldn't just be for appearance reasons, but also because it might hemorrhage money worse than the current format and everyone would be stuck with it for another 2 years.

And what does being a one-bid league have to do with anything? If anything, that makes the whole tournament more interesting/exciting, not less. It's not like the major conference tournaments where the final 3 rounds are pointless because all 8 teams will make the NCAAs anyway.

What the BSC should do is step in and help with the organization and costs of the BSCT and stop having the hosting school foot the bill for everything. That would solve about 90% of the complaints about the current system. If they are unwilling to do that then this neutral location idea makes more sense.

Do the host schools pay for everything? I thought the primary reason for trying to change the system was the expensive travel costs for the visiting teams. Having the host school pay for most everything may actually be better than not doing it that way (kinda like how the FCS playoffs work)… I don't know. And I'm also not sure how much money the conference has beyond its member schools' own finances, so having the league pay for stuff directly might not accomplish much. I guess the BSC could levy an annual "tax" to pay for it, but that may not be too popular.


There's a nice interview about this by Mark Liptak (ISU's WBB radio guy) with Jon Kasper on the Bengal forum. http://www.bigskyfans.com/bengals/viewt ... =13&t=6038. I wasn't aware that Doug Fullerton is actually a big supporter of the current format.

[SDHornet]

See here is where you and the rest of the “keep it the same” crowd loses me. I’m for keeping it the same just to keep the regular season meaningful and to prevent the BSCT from becoming a, “everyone gets a trophy” event. What I am not buying into is the image argument. NO ONE FUCKING CARES HOW IT MAKES THE CONFERENCES LOOK because the BSC is a 1 bid league! Anyone hung up on appearance needs to have their head checked.

You think people go to the WAC tournament? No they don’t. Ritziness or not leaves the argument when you are playing your tournament games in front of family and friends. The BW Tourney only draws decent numbers because 7 of the 9 members are within a 4 hour drive of their tournament location (Anaheim). It makes no difference what these 1 bid conferences do for their tournament because NO ONE FUCKING CARES and I couldn’t give two fucks about the butthurt from people who are concerned with appearance of the conference tournament. Keep it the same unless there is a place that makes logistical sense (Spokane seems to be the leader in that category).

A more enticing location means more people will want to go to it… duh. And you act like attendance doesn't matter. Of course it does—more attendance means more money (one reason why I oppose the neutral site in the first place; it won't be anywhere near as high attendance as a home court deal). My point about comparing it the WAC, etc., is that those conferences already do it badly, and—given the currently discussed locations—the Big Sky product would be destined to be even worse. I wasn't saying a "ritzy" location would be good, just less bad than the listed proposals. It would be a complete disaster, however, if the tournament ended up in a sucky location that nobody wants to travel to with attendance that looked like the Weber/Montana title game 10 years ago where there were about 50 people in the entire Rose Garden. This wouldn't just be for appearance reasons, but also because it might hemorrhage money worse than the current format and everyone would be stuck with it for another 2 years.

And what does being a one-bid league have to do with anything? If anything, that makes the whole tournament more interesting/exciting, not less. It's not like the major conference tournaments where the final 3 rounds are pointless because all 8 teams will make the NCAAs anyway.

Huh? You are all over the place Venus. Neutral locations might be bad for attendance, but there are cases when there was awful attendance in the current format? Which one is it? And the product is the product. Having good or bad attendance doesn’t change the product. It’ll still be the players going out and scrapping for the lone BSC bid.

Now I agree that strong attendance obviously is good for the bottom line, but you seem to be playing both sides. We don’t know how the current BSC will do attendance wise at a neutral location in a destination (or wannabe destination) location. Also how are tickets sold to the current BSCT format? The MWC makes you buy tickets in packages (ie if you want to see the final you have to buy a ticket to the semi-final, etc). Is that sort of a system being used to sell tickets? If so then the PSU BSCT example doesn’t matter since those people who didn’t go probably bought tickets anyways. If not then the BSC needs to be smarter regarding how they market/sell tickets. Either way the argument is moot because that PSU example can happen anywhere in the current format. If anything that is an argument AGAINST keeping it the way it is.

If the BSC having only one bid makes the BSCT more entertaining then we wouldn’t be having this conversation right now.

[SDHornet]

What the BSC should do is step in and help with the organization and costs of the BSCT and stop having the hosting school foot the bill for everything. That would solve about 90% of the complaints about the current system. If they are unwilling to do that then this neutral location idea makes more sense.

Do the host schools pay for everything? I thought the primary reason for trying to change the system was the expensive travel costs for the visiting teams. Having the host school pay for most everything may actually be better than not doing it that way (kinda like how the FCS playoffs work)… I don't know. And I'm also not sure how much money the conference has beyond its member schools' own finances, so having the league pay for stuff directly might not accomplish much. I guess the BSC could levy an annual "tax" to pay for it, but that may not be too popular.


There's a nice interview about this by Mark Liptak (ISU's WBB radio guy) with Jon Kasper on the Bengal forum. http://www.bigskyfans.com/bengals/viewt ... =13&t=6038. I wasn't aware that Doug Fullerton is actually a big supporter of the current format.

I saw something in an article that indicated that they do. I am probably wrong. But the host school is definitely left to figure out the logistics. Based on the Kasper interview (great post on the ISU board) the neutral location seems to be two fold: one is the travel costs, the other is logistics. The interview hinted that some teams couldn’t find enough airplane seats because there just aren’t enough scheduled on a daily basis to get a whole team into town. That’s a significant issue since it impacts the integrity of the actual games being played.

Bottom line is if the financials don’t make sense then the format probably isn’t changing. I don’t think neutrality will out-weigh cost effectiveness on the pending vote. There are things I like and dislike about either format so either option will probably be ok with me.

[Mvemjsunpx]

Huh? You are all over the place Venus. Neutral locations might be bad for attendance, but there are cases when there was awful attendance in the current format? Which one is it? And the product is the product. Having good or bad attendance doesn’t change the product. It’ll still be the players going out and scrapping for the lone BSC bid.

Now I agree that strong attendance obviously is good for the bottom line, but you seem to be playing both sides. We don’t know how the current BSC will do attendance wise at a neutral location in a destination (or wannabe destination) location. Also how are tickets sold to the current BSCT format? The MWC makes you buy tickets in packages (ie if you want to see the final you have to buy a ticket to the semi-final, etc). Is that sort of a system being used to sell tickets? If so then the PSU BSCT example doesn’t matter since those people who didn’t go probably bought tickets anyways. If not then the BSC needs to be smarter regarding how they market/sell tickets. Either way the argument is moot because that PSU example can happen anywhere in the current format. If anything that is an argument AGAINST keeping it the way it is.

My point about the Weber/Montana title game being empty was that a neutral site could make every game like that and not just a case where the regular-season champ chokes in the semis (PSU had a good crowd for the semifinal loss, IIRC).

The current format at least has you buy packages for the entire day/round, I believe; I'm not sure if it's for the entire tournament. If you had to buy for the entire thing, that would really make a non-neutral site more lucrative because you'd get a lot more people buying the package—the number of tickets sold would effectively equal the attendance of the most popular game. The hosts of these tournaments seem to always get better attendance than they do for regular-season games, too (I know that's been true in Missoula & Ogden).

If the financials aren't any better for the predetermined site, then the regular-season champ format is clearly the best one. It's the best competitively & protects the regular-season champ well in a way that doesn't make the late regular season pointless for most teams (like not having a tournament at all would). There's a financial incentive in putting a conference's best team in the NCAAs because each team shares in the TV media revenue for each round & that money is divided up among conference members—each NCAA win means a progressively bigger chunk of change for the conference.

[clenz]

The MVC plays neutral site in a 20k seat stadium and fills it over 75-80% full for every game after the 7/10 8/9 PIG round on Thursday night

Surely the Big Sky could find a nice 5-10k seat arena somewhere and fill it regardless who's there...no?

[Mvemjsunpx]

The MVC plays neutral site in a 20k seat stadium and fills it over 75-80% full for every game after the 7/10 8/9 PIG round on Thursday night

Surely the Big Sky could find a nice 5-10k seat arena somewhere and fill it regardless who's there...no?

The MVC's home attendance average is 5079. The Big Sky's is 1903. The MVC Tournament is also in a major metropolitan area while it sounds like that has basically no chance of happening with the Big Sky Tournament.

[clenz]

The MVC plays neutral site in a 20k seat stadium and fills it over 75-80% full for every game after the 7/10 8/9 PIG round on Thursday night

Surely the Big Sky could find a nice 5-10k seat arena somewhere and fill it regardless who's there...no?

The MVC's home attendance average is 5079. The Big Sky's is 1903. The MVC Tournament is also in a major metropolitan area while it sounds like that has basically no chance of happening with the Big Sky Tournament.

5k average can fill 12k-15k for a tournament.
I have a hard time believing 2K can't get to 5k with that many schools involved.

The MVC runs this way

Thursday night - Session 1 - "Play In Games"...PIG as we call it...or Drake night since Drake has been in it something like 11 of 12 years
6:05 PM #7 v #10
8:35 PM #8 v #9
Probably draws 4-7K for the session

Friday - Quarters
Session 2
12:05 PM #1 v 8/9 winner
2:35 #4 V #5

Session 3
6:05 PM #2 v 7/10 winner
8:35 PM #3 V #6

Probably average 10-12k per session

Saturday - Semis
1:35 PM Session 2 winners
4:05 PM Session 3 winners

Probably average 10-15k per game

Sunday - Title
1:05 PM Semi #1 winner v Semi #2 winner

Probably 10-15k for this game.



Need a ticket for each session. Can buy an All Session pass for about $150



This in an average non-WSU or non-UNI game


WSU will bring 7-10k for their games only
UNI this year will probably bring 5-7K for UNI games
SIU, when good, will bring 5-8K
The attendance took a hit when Creighton left and was replaced with Loyola-Chicago. A team that brought 7-10k to a team that brings 1-2k


No reason a decent 5-7k neutral arena can't work...unless the Big Sky really doesn't give a damn about basketball.

[SDHornet]

You have to remember that a sprawling metropolitan in the eyes of the BSC is 160k…which is why Billings is being considered.

I don’t know how a “neutral” location in Spokane or Reno (both with way better logistics) loses to Billings unless Billings is cutting the BSC a fat check to host. And I agree with clenz about filling a 5-7k arena in a neutral location; the BSC “should” be able to do that. I would definitely consider going if the tournament is held in a city that offers something to do other than cow tipping when not watching hoops.

[Grizalltheway]

Would you mind telling the rest of the residents of that shithole that there's nothing to do here but tip cows? Much abliged.

[clenz]

You have to remember that a sprawling metropolitan in the eyes of the BSC is 160k…which is why Billings is being considered.

I don’t know how a “neutral” location in Spokane or Reno (both with way better logistics) loses to Billings unless Billings is cutting the BSC a fat check to host. And I agree with clenz about filling a 5-7k arena in a neutral location; the BSC “should” be able to do that. I would definitely consider going if the tournament is held in a city that offers something to do other than cow tipping when not watching hoops.

MVC metros
Bradley - Peoria, IL 115k - Peoria MSA 345K
Drake - Des Moines, IA 200k - Des Moines MSA 719K
Evansville - Evansville IN 110K - Evansville MSA 310K
Loyola -Chicago - Chicago, IL - 2.6m - Chicago MSA 9.5M
Illinois State - Normal, IL 54k - Bloomington/Normal MSA 170K
Indiana State - Terra Haute, IN 60K - Terra Haute MSA 170k
Missouri State - Springfield, MO 150k - Springfield MSA 320K
Northern Iowa - Cedar Falls 40k - Cedar Falls/Waterloo MSA 164k
Southern Illinois - Carbondale, IL 25K - Carbondale MSA 126k
Wichita State - Wichita, KS 380k - Wichita MSA 630K


DDrake, Bradley, Evansville and Loyola are all in major areas but have enrollments under 7K...or well under in some cases.

The MVC isn't in major urban areas outside of Loyola or Drake

[dbackjon]

The MVC plays neutral site in a 20k seat stadium and fills it over 75-80% full for every game after the 7/10 8/9 PIG round on Thursday night

Surely the Big Sky could find a nice 5-10k seat arena somewhere and fill it regardless who's there...no?

The MVC's home attendance average is 5079. The Big Sky's is 1903. The MVC Tournament is also in a major metropolitan area while it sounds like that has basically no chance of happening with the Big Sky Tournament.

In addition, all the MVC schools are only a few hours from St. Louis, driving-wise. Only 3 are over 5 hours away, with many 3 hours or under.


No location for the Big Sky could get more than a few with-in 5 hours - Pokey maybe 3?

[clenz]

Bradley - 2 hr 30 min
Drake - 5 hr 30 min
Evansville - 2 hr 40 min
Loyola - 5 hrs even
Illinois State - 2 hrs 30 min
Indiana State - 2 hrs 35 min
Missouri State - 3 hr 20 min
Northern Iowa - 5 hr 20 min
Southern Illinois - 1 hr 54 min
Wichita State - 6 hr 38 min

Creighton was 6 hr 22 min


The biggest crowds come from WSU, UNI and MSU. When SIU was good they brought a ton...still do if they manage to make Friday or Saturday because of the short drive.

I expect WSU and UNI to each have over 6K there this year.
I think Indiana State and Illinois State will have good crowds.
Missouri State and Evansville are up in the air. They are both really falling apart right now and fighting a PIG battle
Loyola and Drake may shock some with what they bring..maybe...
SIU will be either boom or bust.


But yes, it's a much smaller geo foot print

[clenz]

A large part of it with the MVC though is the conference, city, hotels and teams make it a complete get away attraction.

Team hotels are decked top to bottom in that schools colors and logos. Staff wearing that schools shirts.
Banners all over downtown
Marketing like crazy
Conference giving away fan experience trips
The bar district buying and and making it like a college/party atmosphere

The MVC tournament is about WAY more than just the games.

The Big Sky could do something similar on a smaller scale. Make it a celebration of the conference/season/teams. Hosting on a campus is a great way to kill the energy and excitement of going for any non-host school. You can't plan the trip MONTHS in advance like we do for the MVC tourney.

Give it a shot for about 6 or 7 years. Let some excitement build around it. I'd bet you'd be shocked by what could/might happen

[SDHornet]

The MVC's home attendance average is 5079. The Big Sky's is 1903. The MVC Tournament is also in a major metropolitan area while it sounds like that has basically no chance of happening with the Big Sky Tournament.

In addition, all the MVC schools are only a few hours from St. Louis, driving-wise. Only 3 are over 5 hours away, with many 3 hours or under.


No location for the Big Sky could get more than a few with-in 5 hours - Pokey maybe 3?

5 are within 6 hours of Spokane (rounded times, source: the Google):

• • 0.5 hrs to Cheney (EWU)
  • 1.5 hrs to Moscow (Idaho)
  • 3.25 hrs to Missoula (UM)
  • 5.5 hrs to Portland (PSU)
  • 6 hrs to Bozeman (MSU)
  • 8.5 hrs to Pocatello (ISU, hobo cheap so they would probably bus it)
  • 10 hrs to Ogden (WSU, would probably fly)

So half of the conference could bus to Spokane, everyone else is flying. SLC might be the next city “closest” to a good number of BSC members but they didn’t bid.

The bids are for 3 years and like clenz said, if these cities truly want the BSCT then I would hope that they rally around this thing. It would be nice if a true fan experience was generated around this event, and that is something the current format will never offer.

[Kadeezy]

CBS 13 in Sacramento is reporting that Sac State have selected the Reno Events Center as the alternate BSC Tourney location should Sac State win the regular season title. This of course is the kiss of death for Hornet hoops as I now fully expect the season to spiral out of control in true SAC fashion. If by some miracle we do host, it could be a good dry run for the Conference should Reno become the fixed tourney location.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno_Events_Center" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[SuperHornet]

CBS 13 in Sacramento is reporting that Sac State have selected the Reno Events Center as the alternate BSC Tourney location should Sac State win the regular season title. This of course is the kiss of death for Hornet hoops as I now fully expect the season to spiral out of control in true SAC fashion. If by some miracle we do host, it could be a good dry run for the Conference should Reno become the fixed tourney location.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno_Events_Center" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Well, at least it wasn't Delta, as one guy at SacBuzz posited. A JC with a gym that's on par with The Nest and is only the third best option in Stockton?

Reno is MUCH better, but it COULD have been done at Sleep Train if schedules could have been coordinated with the Kings....

[kalm]

In addition, all the MVC schools are only a few hours from St. Louis, driving-wise. Only 3 are over 5 hours away, with many 3 hours or under.


No location for the Big Sky could get more than a few with-in 5 hours - Pokey maybe 3?

5 are within 6 hours of Spokane (rounded times, source: the Google):

• • 0.5 hrs to Cheney (EWU)
  • 1.5 hrs to Moscow (Idaho)
  • 3.25 hrs to Missoula (UM)
  • 5.5 hrs to Portland (PSU)
  • 6 hrs to Bozeman (MSU)
  • 8.5 hrs to Pocatello (ISU, hobo cheap so they would probably bus it)
  • 10 hrs to Ogden (WSU, would probably fly)

So half of the conference could bus to Spokane, everyone else is flying. SLC might be the next city “closest” to a good number of BSC members but they didn’t bid.

The bids are for 3 years and like clenz said, if these cities truly want the BSCT then I would hope that they rally around this thing. It would be nice if a true fan experience was generated around this event, and that is something the current format will never offer.

Spokane has a good track record with hosting events. It's home to the largest foot race in the world (Bloomsday), largest 3 on 3 hoops tournament in the world (Hoopfest) and has hosted several NCAA tournament pods. Loads of lodging and downtown right across the river from the Arena.

[SDHornet]

Sac Bee article claiming Reno is the place if we hang on:

http://www.sacbee.com/sports/college/me ... 00892.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

“At this point, unless something comes up between now and then ... Reno is the one in play,” Big Sky Senior Associate Deputy Commissioner Ron Loghry said Tuesday.

Sophia said Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson has gotten involved in the search for an alternative, and university officials said they’re anxious to keep the tournament in the area.

“We’re going to try to find a solution that works locally,” said Bill Macriss, interim athletic director at CSUS . “That’s the best option for our student-athletes ... and our fans.”

The final outcome could depend on the Hornets’ on-court performance; if the Hornets don’t win the regular season title, the tournament automatically goes elsewhere and the issue becomes moot. But even though the team has seven games left, and the regular season doesn’t end until March 7, the clock is winding down quickly on CSUS . Loghry said Big Sky officials need to know within 10 days or so which venue the university has designated for hosting the tournament.

“We’re trying to give them as much leeway as possible,” Loghry said. If the Hornets win the regular season but can’t or won’t host the tournament, the team that finishes second would take over.

Macriss said CSUS President Alexander Gonzalez’s plan is to have the university host the tournament, “regardless of where that would be.”

Even if the games are played in Reno, being the home team might still give the Hornets a better chance of winning the tournament – and catapulting the Hornets into their first-ever spot in the NCAA basketball tournament. Reno is a two-hour drive, close enough that CSUS fans could attend.

Macriss said a Sacramento-area location obviously would be preferable to taking the games outside the region.

“Knowing we still have some time, we haven’t stopped the process,” he added.

Sounds like the search isn't over yet. No mention of the wild card in any articles...that being the Well. Still a lot of games left so all this speculation might be pointless anyways.