re: LSU Basketball Recruiting Thread: 2024 (And Beyond)

quote:

---

how?

---

McMahon has had issues with lineups and rotations. I've talked ad nauseum about this the past two years I've been on TD. I felt as if McMahon had poor game feel and played inferior players to fit his scheme rather than putting the best 5 on the court and adapting his scheme. Although I still think this is largely true, the scholarship situation answered my questions as to why Baker played over Dean. We all could see Dean was better and provided more. You said yourself that "shouldn't the best players play" and yes, I think they should. Dean was better than Baker but played less. At that point you have to ask why.

Scheme wise with a stretch 5, Dean could shoot just as well if not better than Baker but yet wasn't allowed to take these shots. The stretch five argument starts to fall flat when you accept the fact Dean could shoot in addition to providing more.

The explanation that McMahon is dumb might appeal to madking and some others but I'd personally like to give McMahon the benefit of the doubt. I have no doubt in my mind he eventually realized that Dean provided more. I don't think McMahon is an idiot.

When you look at the bigger picture there HAS to be a reason as to why Dean hardly played. In my opinion the only logical reason is that Dean was not on scholarship. This has an impact on team morale, locker room chemistry, and so much more. A player that was recruited to essentially fill a roster spot taking over a player who was supposed to be a focal point would not sit well with said player. I've seen Baker's ego first hand. Every athlete is competitive.

It's not so much about the bursar's office and finances as you're claiming. It's more so about the IMPLICATION of being scholarship vs non-scholarship. It's not about the money. That's not what I'm claiming. My apologies for expecting you had the brain capacity to realize that's not what I meant. The implication of being a scholarship athlete in ANY sport is that you were deemed valuable enough by the coaching staff to take one of the limited spots (more so for LSU when we were restricted). Dean was clearly not valued as highly as Baker (or any other player on the roster minus walk ons) which is why he did not receive a scholarship. It's not about the bursars office. It's about the implication of being scholarship vs non-scholarship and what that role on the team entails.

This, in turn, had a direct impact on his minutes and what he was allowed to do. After he hit a three in one of the later games in the season, McMahon remarked in a press conference that he looked towards the coaching staff in a way as to say "I should be allowed to shoot more". I don't personally think it's a logical stretch to say if he was recruited more heavily and given a scholarship (not for the money but for what that implies to your role on the team) he would be allowed to shoot more. It is abundantly clear Dean was never supposed to be an important player. He likely would have barely played had Collins not had disciplinary issues.

quote:

---

you have asserted that McMahon will purposely play inferior players because of something to do with how various players are paying tuition. he would be risking wins and losses and his own career prospects because player X pays for school with NIL and player Y has it paid more directly. makes no sense. no one told you this you just appear to have invented it.

---

I came to this conclusion because Dean is a better player than Baker. Dean could do everything Baker could do and more so.

quote:

---

baker wasn't as good as expected. couldn't rebound vs good athletes. its not some mystery we need to imagine its to do with who is paying what over at the bursars office or whatever

---

So then what is the explanation for why he played more??? You've still yet to answer this question.