- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: John Brady compared to Matt McMahon
Posted on 12/9/23 at 5:52 pm to doubleb
Posted on 12/9/23 at 5:52 pm to doubleb
I don’t know where to start with this post.
1. There are no “looming sanctions”. They’ve already been given. In essence, the sanctions are the loss of ONE scholarship for each of the next two seasons. That’s it.
2. Brady did not have the transfer rules available now. That severely limited his ability to build a roster quickly. He was left with just JUCO and HS signee avenues.
I don’t think some comprehend how quickly a program can be rebuilt with the transfer rules today. Look no further than the program LSU lost to today. Last year their HC inherited a roster with LESS returning players than McMahon had last season. And those players weren’t leftovers from a NCAAT team. They were leftovers from a program that had not had a winning season in three years. Yet, through transfers the team was completely rebuilt to the point where they were an eyelash away from the Final Four last season.
So save the BS that enough time hasn’t passed to judge McMahon. Patience is not a virtue in this new eras of college basketball and his team is not only losing l, but is among the bottom 25% of power conference programs.
He is going to have to rebuild a roster again next season. Thus far, he has not proven he can in two tries. So why will next year be better?
1. There are no “looming sanctions”. They’ve already been given. In essence, the sanctions are the loss of ONE scholarship for each of the next two seasons. That’s it.
2. Brady did not have the transfer rules available now. That severely limited his ability to build a roster quickly. He was left with just JUCO and HS signee avenues.
I don’t think some comprehend how quickly a program can be rebuilt with the transfer rules today. Look no further than the program LSU lost to today. Last year their HC inherited a roster with LESS returning players than McMahon had last season. And those players weren’t leftovers from a NCAAT team. They were leftovers from a program that had not had a winning season in three years. Yet, through transfers the team was completely rebuilt to the point where they were an eyelash away from the Final Four last season.
So save the BS that enough time hasn’t passed to judge McMahon. Patience is not a virtue in this new eras of college basketball and his team is not only losing l, but is among the bottom 25% of power conference programs.
He is going to have to rebuild a roster again next season. Thus far, he has not proven he can in two tries. So why will next year be better?
This post was edited on 12/9/23 at 5:53 pm
1
Posted on 12/9/23 at 6:18 pm to Alt26
quote:
1. There are no “looming sanctions”. They’ve already been given. In essence, the sanctions are the loss of ONE scholarship for each of the next two seasons. That’s it.
Your reading comprehension is poor. Here is what I posted.
quote:
Both coached took over in bad situations. Both were left with very poor rosters and looming NCAA sanctions
I was posting about the situation when both coaches were hired.
You retorted:
quote:
2. Brady did not have the transfer rules available now. That severely limited his ability to build a roster quickly. He was left with just JUCO and HS signee avenues.
I said the same thing in my post and added in the NIL.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News