re: MBB SEC preseason predictions

Better back court

Unsure on the front court

Good news is that outside of this past year because of Edey, you don't need great bigs to be competitive in the NCAAt

quote:

---

Translation - “recruiting rankings matter when I need them to for my arguments and they don’t matter when they go against my arguments.”

---

No, it's just common sense that you don't point out Collins being a 5 star injured on our bench, Knecht being a zero star on Tennessee, then say "See how much more talent McMahon is working with?!?"

As usual you’re being dishonest, I never said anything even resembling that comparison or denial about Knecht. What you’ve done is try to backpedal and redefine what you said all season which was “recruiting ranking don’t matter”. What you do is in the offseason praise the recruiting then in the regular season blame everything on a lack of talent. Thats why you invented the qualifier you did but even that conflicts because those players won’t be in HS next season so using their HS ranking goes against your own argument which again was invented long after your hypocrisy was exposed.

quote:

---

Translation - “recruiting rankings matter when I need them to for my arguments and they don’t matter when they go against my arguments.”

---

Rankings aren't 100% predictors of success. But they are not "nothing" either. They are a tool to get a general consensus of how good evaluators think players are.

On that note, (using On3) LSU's transfer class is currently ranked 10th nationally. The HS signing class is currently ranked 15th. In an analysis where volume can often override quality (i.e. a team that signs 8 players avg/slightly above avg players can be ranked higher than a team that signs only 3 really good players), the fact that LSU is ranked in the top 15 in both despite only having a 3 man HS class and 3 man transfer class seems to suggest there are some quality players here.

If you take the name off the front of the jersey an just look at the raw numbers I think every fan would say "that looks pretty good". Now, combine that with LSU returning 4 players who were top 100 recruits coming out of HS and it is really hard to make the argument this team "doesn't have talent". So NOW it is time for McMahon to start doing something with it. No, the expectations aren't SEC champs or Final Four run. But if this team is struggling to get into the NCAA Tournament conversation I don't think you can use the "lack of talent" excuse any longer.

quote:

---

We're wasting our time with McMahon nice guy but SEC is not for him

---

I know we have (dwindling) few who will disagree, but this season should give us a pretty clear picture. Either produce good results (top 1/2 - 1/3 of the SEC and a NCAA Tournament appearance) or move on. There is ZERO reason LSU can't achieve a similar level of success as programs like Auburn, Tennessee, Alabama, Florida, etc. The resources are there IF you have the right guy leading the program.

quote:

---

Rankings aren't 100% predictors of success. But they are not "nothing" either. They are a tool to get a general consensus of how good evaluators think players are.

---

They are good evaluations of how good players are coming out of high school. There is a reason the Transfer rankings are based on updated player rankings and they don't use the high school rankings.

quote:

---

On that note, (using On3) LSU's transfer class is currently ranked 10th nationally. The HS signing class is currently ranked 15th. In an analysis where volume can often override quality (i.e. a team that signs 8 players avg/slightly above avg players can be ranked higher than a team that signs only 3 really good players), the fact that LSU is ranked in the top 15 in both despite only having a 3 man HS class and 3 man transfer class seems to suggest there are some quality players here.

---

Agree. I really hate how "team" rankings jump up if you simply have more players, like Missouri this year. Missouri with 5 4 stars is ranked higher than Arkansas with 3 5 stars. Personally I would prefer a smaller class full of 5 stars.

quote:

---

Now, combine that with LSU returning 4 players who were top 100 recruits coming out of HS and it is really hard to make the argument this team "doesn't have talent".

---

Now here you go doing what Madking does. We have Reed and Ward, then I guess you are counting Chest (97th ranked on 247 with zero college experience) and Collins in that "top 100 recruit" list?

I don’t use it as a total evaluation, I just said as much. You’re right it’s a raw talent evaluation and I only use it because it’s the most basic starting point comp for a player talent wise. When I bring it up it’s always to refute claims of “no talent”. An example of no talent would be our 2010 roster, do you see what I mean?

quote:

---

Now here you go doing what Madking does. We have Reed and Ward, then I guess you are counting Chest (97th ranked on 247 with zero college experience) and Collins in that "top 100 recruit" list?

---

Is it not correct that Collins and Chest were top 100 recruits as well? (At least by one ranking service).

It's seems like an equivocal argument to say things are looking great with what looks to be a good HS recruiting class...based solely on evaluation rankings, but then say the rankings are largely meaningless when discussing the talent level of veteran players.

That isn't a slight against McMahon. I think if people looked at the roster of ANY team and saw 7 of the 12 players on the roster were consider top 100 prospects when they came out of HS they would think there is some talent on the roster.

In year 1 people argued the dismal performance was the result of a roster with no talent. I disagree, but I can listen to that argument.

In year 2 there was improvement. But some still attributed any shortcoming to a lack of talent on the roster.

In year 3 he has what looks like (on paper) should be a roster talented enough to compete for a NCAA Tournament spot. All I'm saying is that if LSU fails to meet that relatively low level of expectations the "no talent" excuse starts to fall on deaf ears. Because at some point, after multiple year of evidence, you start to reach the conclusion that either (1) the HC can't bring in good enough players to have decent success or (2) the players he recruited are good but the lack of success is due to poor coaching. Either way, it falls back on the HC.

We disagree on a lot of arguments. And that's fine. At least someone is willing to discuss basketball. But don't you think at some point the HC has to show he can produce results? If not, then why keep spinning your wheels expecting something different?

I think we’ll have a more competitive team this year that will finish worse in conference. Obviously subject to change when we actually see guys on the court against quality competition.