re: Mauricio Santos returns to EuroLeague

Again, missed that part of it.

As far as "mix and match" is concerned. I'm not opposed to get some EuroLeague guys.

What I simply mean is that you put too much emphasis on it. Not necessarily about multi-year roster building but more having a level of certainty in an uncertain time. Giving yourself outs as you were putting too much faith that these guys would all get cleared. I'm not entirely certain the others will, unfortunately, even though there is precedent.

So, the alternative? Yeah, maybe we aren't in the National Title hunt year 1 but that was never my expectation. Could we have a fielded a solid team and made the tourney? Yes.

quote:

---

What else was he supposed to do?

---

Why would going all Euros be the only possible thing he could have done?

That makes zero sense.

quote:

---

invested all of our resources into keeping a few guys if we wanted to

---

Why would we want to do that?

Just watch the NCAA approve Musikic, a Serbian professional play for Kansas this year. These rules only apply to no blue blood schools like LSU.
NCAA is corrupt

quote:

---

We had 3 players that transferred to P4 programs, 2 of which went to top 5 programs in the country, the other a better SEC program. So to answer your question, they're good enough, and they're for sure eligible. Why not?

---

Yea let's just keep losing. Things needed a shakeup.

quote:

---

Yea let's just keep losing. Things needed a shakeup.

---

You got what you asked for I suppose.

quote:

---

You got what you asked for I suppose.

---

Keep those guys and be average at best. Or go for big hits and make a run in tourney. If it doesn't work out the results is basically the same as being conservative. But looks like we are going to get everybody eligible but Luis.

quote:

---

2 of which went to top 5 programs in the country

---

The same two who have missed a significant amount of games over the past two years because of injury...their losses being attributed as the reason MM was unable to fulfill his destiny as the best basketball coach in LSU history and had to settle for being the worst major sport coach at the school in at least 50 years.

So is the thought to take a chance on two guys who have shown they can't stay healthy?

Or was it to retain the "bad talent" that caused a great coach in MM to lose...at a historic rate?

Or is it that the talent was not that bad, but MM was just a bad coach? It's hard to keep up with the excuse juxtapositions.

This program was objectively the WORST program in the SEC over the last 4 years. In an era where it is routine for entire rosters to be changed in the course of one offseason, I think most LSU basketball fans are ok with scraping everything (except Kent Lowe) from that miserable era and starting anew...even if there were a few players from last year that might be ok.

If this risky approach doesn't work out and LSU loses this season, so be it. At least trying something different was better than the constant excuse train to the bottom of the league. The good news is a one year "miss" can be immediately fixed the following year.

quote:

---

You know the answer to that.

---

Actually no, I don't. Neither do you lol

quote:

---

So you think that it’s less risky and more beneficial to give money to a guy coming off an Achilles tear and an ACL in subsequent season who hasn’t played a conference game since his freshman year over going for healthy euros like Illinois did?



One way you are guaranteed to suck and likely to lose guys before conference play.

The other you may end up with a sweet 16 team…or end up with not enough guys to play (realistically not going to happen)




I’ll take the latter

---

Lots of assumptions here, but sure

Top 5 Programs wouldn't have added those players if they thought they would contribute to losing. Only you and some others think that way.

The same people will say "well I'm ok with losing because we moved the needle and tried something different". What's the difference?