NIT, here we come! Hard to get excited for that, I know. After taking in a day to soak in the fact that the Gauchos lost (for the third time) to UCI, I finally brought myself to write a little game analysis.
While I've had (and still do) problems with Bob Williams, the blame for the loss falls solely on the players, in my opinion. Not only did the team shoot 16-29 from the free throw line, they also managed to miss at least 6 layups. When you lost by 5 points, and you leave that many points on the table, it's the players fault. The players played tight and looked like they were indifferent to whether they won the game.
Sure, Bob should have laid into them with some intensity and fire. What disappointed me most from a coaching standpoint was Bob's willingness to stick with the same strategy that led UCSB to two losses against UCI. The Gauchos pushed the ball up the court when they got a defensive rebound, but then they allowed UCI to set up their defense while UCSB ran a half court set. That's exactly what UCI wanted to do and you played right into their hands Bob. If you're going into a fight with a guy who wants to stand up and box with you, but your strength is taking the fight to the ground and winning by submission, you don't stand up and box with the guy, you get his ass on the ground and you pound him until he submits.
Unfortunately, the Gauchos, who should have been running and full court pressing the entire time (their strengths) submitted to the will of UCI and did whatever they wanted.
UCSB had one of their best defensive performances of the year against Irvine, holding them to a 84.5 efficiency rating. However, that doesn't do you any good when you register a 76.8 on the efficiency scale (for the record, that is the second worst performance of the season). The Gauchos upped the pace slightly this game, running the game at a 65, but that was too close to UCI's comfort range.
On another note, everytime I watch Brett Lauer I get a good laugh. Not only does he look like one of the shortest players on the court (maybe 5'10" with shoes on), but his player page says that he is 6'1". I don't know why, but I find his dramatic height exaggeration hilarious.
Effective Field Goal Percentage
UCSB: 36.3%
UCI: 50%
The Gauchos shot horribly from the floor. 15-47 overall and 4-17 from the three. Alex Harris, Ivan Elliot and James Powell stunk up the joint going 6-27. That's horrible. Combine that with the missed layups and you've got a problem.
With 5 minutes left in the first half, the Gauchos had only scored 9 points and missed 4 layups. Basically, that sums up the game.
Offensive Rebounding Percentage
UCSB: 19.5%
UCI: 27.4%
When you look at our offensive rebounds on the face of it, we did a decent job. However, when you look at how many defensive rebounds UCI got (31), it's ridiculous that we couldn't get any more rebounds.
The Gauchos managed 19 defensive rebounds. Weak.
Free Throw Rate
UCSB: 61.7
UCI: 52.5
Throw this stat out the window. Prior to this game, UCSB was one of the top 10 free throw shooting teams in the country at about 76%. During the game, UCSB went 16-29 from the line for a paltry 55.2%. If you give the Gauchos a 75% free throw performance in this game, they make 5 more free throws. Combine that with the missed lay-ups and the opportunities were there.
Justin Joyner was the primary offender in this category.
Turnover Percentage
UCSB: 16.9%
UCI: 35.3%
The Gauchos did a great job of forcing UCI into turnovers. However, they didn't convert many of the 23 turnovers into points. That hurts.
That's it for this analysis. Looks like we'll have to wait and see where we're going in the NCAA, I mean, NIT.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Friday, March 14, 2008
Big West Semifinal Preview: UCSB vs. UCI
UCSB Gauchos vs. UCI Anteaters
March 14, 2008 5:30 p.m. (PST)
Whether you fear the Anteaters or not, today is the day of reckoning for the Gauchos. They face the only dragon (or anteater) they've yet to slay this season. UCI beat the Gauchos on January 10, 66-63. The Anteaters beat the Gauchos again, on February 9, 65-59.
This is the ultimate test for the Gauchos. If they want to get into the NCAA Tournament, their mission is simple: win two games and you're in. Therefore, we see how bad the Gauchos want it tonight. Second, we can see if Bob Williams has learned anything from this season's two losses to UCI. Specifically, Bob Williams has allowed his team to play right into the hands of UCI by playing the sloooooowest pace (the pace the Anteaters want).
TGM's recipe for sucess is simple. Bob, you need to run the Anteaters out of the gym. I don't care if you're not comfortable with that style. The Gauchos are better suited for that style than the Anteaters.
Why do we make said recommendation? Take a look at the Game Flo, courtesy of midmajority.com, from UCI's match-up with Pacific last night. If you looked at that chart, you'll notice that each half UCI started out very hot and increased their margin of victory. However, what you'll also notice is that the Anteaters flattened out substantially as each half wore on. When a team flattens out like that at the end of each half, I'd say that's a pretty clear indication they were getting tired.
Another reason for the recommendation? UCSB needs to show the Anteaters that the Gauchos will be controlling tonight's game. Mike Tyson once said, "everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face." Never has something so complex been said so simply. We know what Irvine's plan is. They want to walk the ball up the court. Especially since they've played three games in three days. Forcing them to run is the equivalent of punching them in the face. Surely, UCI's coaches know that they dictated the tempo the last two games. It would be foolish to think that they don't believe they can't control the pace this time around. Therefore, the Gauchos need to induce maximum confusion by forcing the tempo. Press, push the ball on offense, etc...
An additional benefit of not letting them walk up the court is that the Anteaters are going to be tired, don't let them regain their energy. Please watch the youtube clip (specifically, the energy bar) to understand what I mean.
Clearly, Alan Beast and Tony Rhodes want to continue punching their guy when his energy is at his lowest. He can't defend himself as well and you're more likely to knock his ass out. If you punch him once, let him recoup, it's like you never punched him at all.
The last benefit of the recommendation is completely psychological. Irvine has beaten the Gauchos twice this season. If you let them stay in the game early, Bob, UCI will get this little thing called confidence. They will believe that they can hang with your team, Bob. The more hope you give them, the less their lack of energy counts. Show them that they can't play with their big bro. Have no mercy.
Now, onto the stats.
Effective Field Goal %
UCSB: 52.7%
UCI: 51.9%
We've already chronicled to death the fact that Irvine wants to play slow. IF UCSB allows UCI to dictate the pace (God help them), they need to make their three point shots to extend the defense. This will open up the post.
Tonight, the post men will be key. Not only do they need to keep Fells in check. But Devine, Elliot and Nedim (no 3's Nedim) need to be a three man wrecking crew. Sprinkle a little Gibb in there and you can make that a 4 man crew.
The key is controlling the pace. Don't play slow. Make UCI play fast. Put the fear into them. They don't want to run, so we want them to run. Make it happen, Bob.
Free Throw Rate
UCSB: 25.7
UCI: 24.7
Bottom line to this: Don't send them to the free throw line. If you do, make sure you get there more than they do. UCI is a great free throw shooting team. They're going to make you pay if you send them to the line. Fouling them in the act = bad idea.
The first game, we did a good job, we sent them to the line 10 times, we went 11. The second game, not so good. They got to the line 22 times, we got to the line 11 times. That very well could have been the game right there, considering they made 8 more free throws than us. Of course, six of those free throws came at the end of the game when we started intentionally fouling.
Offensive Rebounding %
UCSB: 28.8%
UCI: 26.4%
We're not very good here. Just don't give them second chance shots. The last couple times we've match-up, the offensive rebounds have been pretty close. However, defensively, they've cleaned up the glass compared to us.
Turnover Rate
UCSB: 21.3%
UCI: 19.0%
UCSB has one of the highest defensive turnover percentages. To maximize this, push the ball up the court. UCI doesn't turn it over much because they walk the ball up the court. When they are doing this, it's fairly difficult to make a turnover. Force them into playing faster and you might force a couple extra turnovers.
That's it folks. Like all of you, I'm hoping for the Gauchos to pull it off tonight. If they can beat the Anteaters, then it's one more game and the Gauchos will have made the tournament, so we can start doing this:
March 14, 2008 5:30 p.m. (PST)
Whether you fear the Anteaters or not, today is the day of reckoning for the Gauchos. They face the only dragon (or anteater) they've yet to slay this season. UCI beat the Gauchos on January 10, 66-63. The Anteaters beat the Gauchos again, on February 9, 65-59.
This is the ultimate test for the Gauchos. If they want to get into the NCAA Tournament, their mission is simple: win two games and you're in. Therefore, we see how bad the Gauchos want it tonight. Second, we can see if Bob Williams has learned anything from this season's two losses to UCI. Specifically, Bob Williams has allowed his team to play right into the hands of UCI by playing the sloooooowest pace (the pace the Anteaters want).
TGM's recipe for sucess is simple. Bob, you need to run the Anteaters out of the gym. I don't care if you're not comfortable with that style. The Gauchos are better suited for that style than the Anteaters.
Why do we make said recommendation? Take a look at the Game Flo, courtesy of midmajority.com, from UCI's match-up with Pacific last night. If you looked at that chart, you'll notice that each half UCI started out very hot and increased their margin of victory. However, what you'll also notice is that the Anteaters flattened out substantially as each half wore on. When a team flattens out like that at the end of each half, I'd say that's a pretty clear indication they were getting tired.
Another reason for the recommendation? UCSB needs to show the Anteaters that the Gauchos will be controlling tonight's game. Mike Tyson once said, "everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face." Never has something so complex been said so simply. We know what Irvine's plan is. They want to walk the ball up the court. Especially since they've played three games in three days. Forcing them to run is the equivalent of punching them in the face. Surely, UCI's coaches know that they dictated the tempo the last two games. It would be foolish to think that they don't believe they can't control the pace this time around. Therefore, the Gauchos need to induce maximum confusion by forcing the tempo. Press, push the ball on offense, etc...
An additional benefit of not letting them walk up the court is that the Anteaters are going to be tired, don't let them regain their energy. Please watch the youtube clip (specifically, the energy bar) to understand what I mean.
Clearly, Alan Beast and Tony Rhodes want to continue punching their guy when his energy is at his lowest. He can't defend himself as well and you're more likely to knock his ass out. If you punch him once, let him recoup, it's like you never punched him at all.
The last benefit of the recommendation is completely psychological. Irvine has beaten the Gauchos twice this season. If you let them stay in the game early, Bob, UCI will get this little thing called confidence. They will believe that they can hang with your team, Bob. The more hope you give them, the less their lack of energy counts. Show them that they can't play with their big bro. Have no mercy.
Now, onto the stats.
Effective Field Goal %
UCSB: 52.7%
UCI: 51.9%
We've already chronicled to death the fact that Irvine wants to play slow. IF UCSB allows UCI to dictate the pace (God help them), they need to make their three point shots to extend the defense. This will open up the post.
Tonight, the post men will be key. Not only do they need to keep Fells in check. But Devine, Elliot and Nedim (no 3's Nedim) need to be a three man wrecking crew. Sprinkle a little Gibb in there and you can make that a 4 man crew.
The key is controlling the pace. Don't play slow. Make UCI play fast. Put the fear into them. They don't want to run, so we want them to run. Make it happen, Bob.
Free Throw Rate
UCSB: 25.7
UCI: 24.7
Bottom line to this: Don't send them to the free throw line. If you do, make sure you get there more than they do. UCI is a great free throw shooting team. They're going to make you pay if you send them to the line. Fouling them in the act = bad idea.
The first game, we did a good job, we sent them to the line 10 times, we went 11. The second game, not so good. They got to the line 22 times, we got to the line 11 times. That very well could have been the game right there, considering they made 8 more free throws than us. Of course, six of those free throws came at the end of the game when we started intentionally fouling.
Offensive Rebounding %
UCSB: 28.8%
UCI: 26.4%
We're not very good here. Just don't give them second chance shots. The last couple times we've match-up, the offensive rebounds have been pretty close. However, defensively, they've cleaned up the glass compared to us.
Turnover Rate
UCSB: 21.3%
UCI: 19.0%
UCSB has one of the highest defensive turnover percentages. To maximize this, push the ball up the court. UCI doesn't turn it over much because they walk the ball up the court. When they are doing this, it's fairly difficult to make a turnover. Force them into playing faster and you might force a couple extra turnovers.
That's it folks. Like all of you, I'm hoping for the Gauchos to pull it off tonight. If they can beat the Anteaters, then it's one more game and the Gauchos will have made the tournament, so we can start doing this:
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Big West Semis Are Set: UCSB vs. UCI Tomorrow
Irvine has beaten Pacific 57-56. You know what that means - the Gauchos will face off with Irvine tomorrow at 5:30 p.m.
The Gauchos have some demons to excise in this game. Irvine has beat them twice this season. Third time is a charm. I like the Gauchos. They appear to be playing well. Tomorrow, we'll post an analysis on the game for your enjoyment.
Also, check the post below that looks at the factors that correlated most with Gaucho victories.
Season Stats
At the end of the regular season, I wanted to examine UCSB's season long performance and see what factors were most indicative of success in the Gaucho's games. As a regular reader of Sunday Morning Quarterback, a college football blog, I like the idea they do in the off-season of the Stats Relevance Watch which can be found here.
The purpose of the Stats Relevance watch is to see what stats most correlate with winning during the previous season. In the link above, SMQ looks at the Big 12. In each comparison, SMQ uses 13 team stats. SMQ records its ranking this way: If the winning team outgained its opponent in total yards, that category was marked as a "victory" for the winning team. Conversely, if the winning team is outgained by the losing team in total yards, it's marked as a "loss" for the winning team.
What I did was go through the Gauchos games and look separately at the games they won and the games they lost. As most of you know, TGM mainly utilizes the "new age" stats from places like kenpom.com, however, this time we looked at 17 plain vanilla team stats (no percentages or anything crazy, just from the boxscore). As you'll see below, I decided what stat was better in a category (less fouls is better than more fouls) and used that stat as the barometer. If UCSB was the "better" team in that category, I gave them a yes (which is the equivalent of a "win"). I eliminated ties, so not all categories are equal. Enjoy.
Category W-L %
More Assists 21-2 91.3%
Halftime Lead 19-2 90.5%
Higher Field Goal % 19-3 86.4%
More Field Goals Made 18-3 85.7%
Fewer Turnovers 15-4 78.9%
More Made 3 Pointers 14-6 70.0%
More Free Throws Made 14-8 63.6%
More Defensive Rebounds 14-8 63.6%
More Players with Playing Time 8-5 61.5%
More Steals 12-8 60.0%
Fewer Fouls 12-9 57.1%
More Total Rebounds 12-9 57.1%
More Free Throw Attempts 11-10 52.4%
More Field Goal Attempts 10-11 47.6%
More Blocked Shots 8-10 44.4%
More Offensive Rebounds 6-15 28.6%
More 3 Point Attempts 5-17 22.7%
The most interesting stats in this whole project were the bottom ones. For the whole season, I've been harping on the Gauchos to shoot more three pointers and get to the free throw line more often. Of course, the stats aren't lying. Those stats had very little to do with the Gauchos winning.
I don't know what to make of the stats at the top. However, it seems to suggest that when the team is passing the ball to their open teammates, they have more success. Also, halftime lead seems to be a big indicator of success for the Gauchos this year. Make what you want of these stats, they are here for your enjoyment. Spread the word if you like.
Below, you will find the stats and rankings from the 7 losses the Gauchos endured (not the best sample size, but that's a good thing, right?). Same rules as above. I didn't flip the stats around. If the Gauchos had fewer turnovers, it was marked as a yes (and consequently, a "victory"). The only difference is that we started these stats from the bottom up.
Category
Higher Field Goal % 1-6 14.3%
More Free Throws Made 1-6 14.3%
More Free Throw Attempts 1-6 14.3%
More Defensive Rebounds 1-6 14.3%
More Total Rebounds 1-6 14.3%
Fewer Fouls 1-5 16.7%
More Field Goals Made 1-4 20.0%
Halftime Lead 2-5 28.5%
More Assists 2-4 33.3%
More Players in the Game 2-4 33.3%
More Offensive Rebounds 3-3 50%
More Blocked Shots 3-3 50%
More Steals 3-3 50%
More 3 Pointers Made 4-3 57.1%
Fewer Turnovers 5-2 71.4%
More Field Goal Attempts 5-2 71.4%
More 3 Point Attempts 6-1 85.7%
Read into these stats what you want. I'm not quite sure what to make of them. However, it's interesting to see what stats were most indicative of a Gaucho win and which were most indicative of a Gaucho loss.
The purpose of the Stats Relevance watch is to see what stats most correlate with winning during the previous season. In the link above, SMQ looks at the Big 12. In each comparison, SMQ uses 13 team stats. SMQ records its ranking this way: If the winning team outgained its opponent in total yards, that category was marked as a "victory" for the winning team. Conversely, if the winning team is outgained by the losing team in total yards, it's marked as a "loss" for the winning team.
What I did was go through the Gauchos games and look separately at the games they won and the games they lost. As most of you know, TGM mainly utilizes the "new age" stats from places like kenpom.com, however, this time we looked at 17 plain vanilla team stats (no percentages or anything crazy, just from the boxscore). As you'll see below, I decided what stat was better in a category (less fouls is better than more fouls) and used that stat as the barometer. If UCSB was the "better" team in that category, I gave them a yes (which is the equivalent of a "win"). I eliminated ties, so not all categories are equal. Enjoy.
Category W-L %
More Assists 21-2 91.3%
Halftime Lead 19-2 90.5%
Higher Field Goal % 19-3 86.4%
More Field Goals Made 18-3 85.7%
Fewer Turnovers 15-4 78.9%
More Made 3 Pointers 14-6 70.0%
More Free Throws Made 14-8 63.6%
More Defensive Rebounds 14-8 63.6%
More Players with Playing Time 8-5 61.5%
More Steals 12-8 60.0%
Fewer Fouls 12-9 57.1%
More Total Rebounds 12-9 57.1%
More Free Throw Attempts 11-10 52.4%
More Field Goal Attempts 10-11 47.6%
More Blocked Shots 8-10 44.4%
More Offensive Rebounds 6-15 28.6%
More 3 Point Attempts 5-17 22.7%
The most interesting stats in this whole project were the bottom ones. For the whole season, I've been harping on the Gauchos to shoot more three pointers and get to the free throw line more often. Of course, the stats aren't lying. Those stats had very little to do with the Gauchos winning.
I don't know what to make of the stats at the top. However, it seems to suggest that when the team is passing the ball to their open teammates, they have more success. Also, halftime lead seems to be a big indicator of success for the Gauchos this year. Make what you want of these stats, they are here for your enjoyment. Spread the word if you like.
Below, you will find the stats and rankings from the 7 losses the Gauchos endured (not the best sample size, but that's a good thing, right?). Same rules as above. I didn't flip the stats around. If the Gauchos had fewer turnovers, it was marked as a yes (and consequently, a "victory"). The only difference is that we started these stats from the bottom up.
Category
Higher Field Goal % 1-6 14.3%
More Free Throws Made 1-6 14.3%
More Free Throw Attempts 1-6 14.3%
More Defensive Rebounds 1-6 14.3%
More Total Rebounds 1-6 14.3%
Fewer Fouls 1-5 16.7%
More Field Goals Made 1-4 20.0%
Halftime Lead 2-5 28.5%
More Assists 2-4 33.3%
More Players in the Game 2-4 33.3%
More Offensive Rebounds 3-3 50%
More Blocked Shots 3-3 50%
More Steals 3-3 50%
More 3 Pointers Made 4-3 57.1%
Fewer Turnovers 5-2 71.4%
More Field Goal Attempts 5-2 71.4%
More 3 Point Attempts 6-1 85.7%
Read into these stats what you want. I'm not quite sure what to make of them. However, it's interesting to see what stats were most indicative of a Gaucho win and which were most indicative of a Gaucho loss.
Big West Tournament: Day Two
We have our first final from tonight's two games in Anaheim. Fullerton beat Riverside 81-69. That means that the Gauchos will face the winner of the 8:30pm match-up between Pacific and Irvine. Tomorrow, CSUN and CSUF will match-up at 8:00pm.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Big West Tournament; Day One
Day One of the Big West Tournament is in the books, folks. In Game 1, Irvine beat LBSU 77-63. In Game 2, Riverside took out Cal Poly.Tomorrow, CSUF will take on Irvine in the early game at 6:00 p.m. Pacific will take on Riverside at 8:30 p.m.
The Gauchos play Friday at 5:30 p.m. against the lowest remaining seed. The seedings of the teams playing tomorrow is below.
#3 CSUF
#4 Pacific
#5 Irvine
#7 Riverside
For those of you wondering, UCSB swept Fullerton and Riverside in conference play. The Gauchos got swept by Irvine and split the series with Pacific (UCSB won the away game). As a result, most people probably don't want to see the Anteaters on Friday and I don't blame them. However, one truism that I believe is true (uhh...is that a truism?) is that it is very difficult to beat a team three times in one season. In high school I saw it happen in two different Section Championships with the same teams in two consecutive years. The Section winner was swept in the regular season by the Section loser, so read into that what you may. Also, the Super Bowl Champion, NY Giants? They lost to the Dallas Cowboys twice in the regular season before beating them in Dallas during the playoffs. What does that mean? I don't know, but I suspect that the losing team has two tapes to see what they did wrong and then they can learn not to do anything bad they did in either game.
Honestly, TGM is rooting for a Riverside victory tomorrow, but that isn't likely. Why? Pacific has beaten them twice this year. I forgot to caveat my three times rule. It only applies to good teams, which I assume UCSB is. Riverside is not. I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing for the Gauchos to face the Anteaters. At this point, it's balls to the wall baby. You're the number one seed for a reason and you need to play like it.
In fact, the team I'm most scared about playing is Pacific. I don't know why, but those Tigers scare me.
So folks, pick your poison. There's only three teams we can possibly face, UCI, UCR and Pacific. Pick who you like us to beat and root for them in tomorrows quarterfinals.
Also, I'm working on an excel spreadsheet to release tomorrow or early Friday morning on the Gauchos season. So check back early and often starting tomorrow, I promise it's going to contain some good information that you might actually find useful, unlike the rest of this blog.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
The Gaucho Invitational?
Every once in a while I get a really good idea. This morning, it just so happened that an idea came to me regarding Gaucho basketball.
A while back, I posted a dream schedule. The goal of the schedule was to give us enough quality non-conference games to (1) help us recruit better; (2) give us a shot at an at-large tourney berth if we don't win the Big West Tourney; and (3) give us some exposure. The plan was that we could schedule just enough "big boys" and some of the better mid-majors to give us a shot at improving our lot in the basketball world.
Now, back to my idea. If you recall, one of my suggestions was to make sure the Gauchos attend at least tournament in the pre-season because a tournament counts as one game, no matter how many you play. The idea dawned on me: UCSB should put on a Gaucho Invitational each year. Hey, if Chaminade (Maui is nice, but so is SB) and University of Alaska can do it, why can't the Gauchos?
What better way to excite the student body than to invite some of the big boys to the Gaucho Invitational? If you invite 7 of the top teams in the country and have an 8 team tournament (and give each team 3 games), the student body would be stoked. Can you imagine if the likes of UCLA, Kansas, Duke, Gonzaga, Pittsburgh, Florida, Texas, Michigan State, etc... showed up at the Thunderdome? The place would be nuts!
I realize that UCSB probably wouldn't be able to get all those teams, every year. However, I bet a lot of the Midwest and East Coast teams would be dying for a trip out to Santa Barbara. It's cold out there and it's mild here in October (or whenever the tournament would be held).
A second advantage (I alluded to above) is that a tournament field with those teams would ensure student interest in the team. If you get the ball rolling early in the season, you can energize the fan base and keep them coming back. Besides, who wouldn't want to see a team play that has national championship potential? The Gauchos could rig the schedule, so they get the weakest team in the first round (just kidding). Regardless, I think this idea is terrific.
The third major advantage I can see to hosting a tournament is money. That's the name of the game, right? The tournament surely would generate television fees, advertising fees, ticket sales and concessions. Not to mention that the whole Santa Barbara economy would benefit. A lot of the more popular teams (see: UNC, Duke) have a loyal fan base who will travel to see their team play. This is money that the athletic department could use to finance other teams, better locker rooms, more recruiting, the list goes on and on.
I don't know much about hosting an event of this magnitude, except for a couple of parties my roommates and I threw back in the day, so I don't know about how hard and what negatives there are to an event like this. However, it sure seems like the positives outweigh any negatives.
If anyone familiar with the workings of such an event knows why or why not an event of this size could happen, I'd love to hear from you. Leave a comment.
A while back, I posted a dream schedule. The goal of the schedule was to give us enough quality non-conference games to (1) help us recruit better; (2) give us a shot at an at-large tourney berth if we don't win the Big West Tourney; and (3) give us some exposure. The plan was that we could schedule just enough "big boys" and some of the better mid-majors to give us a shot at improving our lot in the basketball world.
Now, back to my idea. If you recall, one of my suggestions was to make sure the Gauchos attend at least tournament in the pre-season because a tournament counts as one game, no matter how many you play. The idea dawned on me: UCSB should put on a Gaucho Invitational each year. Hey, if Chaminade (Maui is nice, but so is SB) and University of Alaska can do it, why can't the Gauchos?
What better way to excite the student body than to invite some of the big boys to the Gaucho Invitational? If you invite 7 of the top teams in the country and have an 8 team tournament (and give each team 3 games), the student body would be stoked. Can you imagine if the likes of UCLA, Kansas, Duke, Gonzaga, Pittsburgh, Florida, Texas, Michigan State, etc... showed up at the Thunderdome? The place would be nuts!
I realize that UCSB probably wouldn't be able to get all those teams, every year. However, I bet a lot of the Midwest and East Coast teams would be dying for a trip out to Santa Barbara. It's cold out there and it's mild here in October (or whenever the tournament would be held).
A second advantage (I alluded to above) is that a tournament field with those teams would ensure student interest in the team. If you get the ball rolling early in the season, you can energize the fan base and keep them coming back. Besides, who wouldn't want to see a team play that has national championship potential? The Gauchos could rig the schedule, so they get the weakest team in the first round (just kidding). Regardless, I think this idea is terrific.
The third major advantage I can see to hosting a tournament is money. That's the name of the game, right? The tournament surely would generate television fees, advertising fees, ticket sales and concessions. Not to mention that the whole Santa Barbara economy would benefit. A lot of the more popular teams (see: UNC, Duke) have a loyal fan base who will travel to see their team play. This is money that the athletic department could use to finance other teams, better locker rooms, more recruiting, the list goes on and on.
I don't know much about hosting an event of this magnitude, except for a couple of parties my roommates and I threw back in the day, so I don't know about how hard and what negatives there are to an event like this. However, it sure seems like the positives outweigh any negatives.
If anyone familiar with the workings of such an event knows why or why not an event of this size could happen, I'd love to hear from you. Leave a comment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
