Without knowing PMAC attendance figures from the early 2000s this is just speculation, and I don't want to rekindle the Brady debate again. But I'd be willing to bet that after the 2000-01 season you'll see a steady drop off because fans figured out Brady's inconsistency (1 year up, 3 years down routine). By the time the 05-06 team came around people had seen this song and dance before and expected a major dropoff, and they got it. Add to that an abrasive attitude toward the fans and media and potential (traditionally non-basketball) fans will be turned off. With teams like UConn, Duke, North Carolina, they may not win ACC, Big East or national titles every year, but every year those teams are serious contenders. LSU has decidedly not been a yearly contender despite the number of conference titles in the 2000s because of that inconsistency, and that has seriously hurt fan perceptions and expectations IMO. In terms of fan interest it also hasn't helped that LSU has received a shameful lack of TV coverage this year. If nobody sees them play, nobody really knows how good they are. You also have some fans that don't pay attention until the tournament, so if they get a 7 or 8 seed and lose the 1st round game, you haven't generated interest among casual fans, and unfortunately we need those to fill up the PMAC for big games. Personally, I'd be ecstatic if they made it to the Sweet 16. Ironically, it's not post play that's been hurting the team lately, but quick guards beating our defenders to the basket. That concerns me going into Kentucky on Saturday, since I don't want this to be one of those games when Meeks starts going wild. Honestly, at this point LSU just doesn't have the bench depth to make it into the later rounds. Terry Martin has improved, but the bench has not been playing well in the last few games and the lack of talent relative to a Pitt, UConn or UNC will limit what they can do. But they have far exceeded expectations this year, and honestly I'll be proud of the team no matter how they end up in the tourney.
Is it fair to say that an LSU win in the NCAA tourney meets expectations and two wins exceed expectations (with, of course, any more than two wins being beyond our wildest dreams for this season)?
clearly lose to Pitt, UConn, UL, and UNC. 50/50 against X and beat Syracuse. unfortunately i think you have overestimated the size needed to do very well against the LSU post D (patterson and harangody are smaller than your description. both will dominate if they have adequate guards), and you have underestimated the # of teams with sufficient size in the post to give LSU major problems. bench play is overrated. for example, i looked at two teams that are doing well in good conferences but not crazy top 5 teams, Kansas and Marquette, LSU's bench has more minutes than both. i know the personnel is quite different, but dont forget that the 06 FF team had less of a bench. the success will mostly depend on the matchups. even against top teams, however, they have a decent chance if a third player scores. basically, against a team with a very good PG and a very good 4 or 5, LSU would need MT and Tas to get 25 and GT or Bo to get 20. absolutely. but honestly for me its how they play. if they play crappy and lose in the second round to 13 seed W. Kentucky then i wont be happy.
Yes, and that worked out wonderfully against UCLA when their big man shut down Tyrus and Big Baby and their guards proceeded to dismantle the team. The fact that GT played the last 8 minutes with 4 fouls spoke volumes on confidence in the bench to help pull away from Florida. All that PT for the bench has been necessary but as you've pointed out before there's no reliable 3rd/4th scoring option right now, and that will hurt us if Tas and MT get shut down or have an off night.
so you think that team should have (could have) had a post player on the bench better than glen or tyrus? it wouldve been nice to have a big scoring guard for that game, but i think its a huge reach to put any measure of blame for that game on the lack of a bench. if tas and mt get shut down, what would you do? sub in a bench player? no way. if there was a better option theyd start. the bench can be important, but it rarely is and its importance always pales in comparison to the starting 5.
No, and I'm not putting the blame on the lack of a bench per se, but on a lack of overall depth. Hell, every time I saw Voogd come in the game I cringed b/c I knew he was good for at least one unforced turnover per appearance. What would you do if one of those two went down in the first round with a knee or ankle injury? LSU has been very fortunate thus far with injuries that haven't kept starters out for extended periods of time. Earlier in the week people were talking about OU's NC chances being dashed when Griffin went down. On the whole the bench will never be as huge a role as the starters, but I think it's a mistake to diminish their role. It's like saying kickers aren't important in football because the offense and defense do all the heavy lifting, but if your offense can't put points on the board you better believe that kicker becomes important in those situations.
Besides the starting five, I think the most important player on the team this year might be Q. Thornton. He's pretty solid on defense and he allows CTJ to sit Johnson when needed without severely limiting the team. If QT wasn't there, I think CJ may have fouled out of a few key games and hurt the team. FWIW.
