Shocking Decision Exposed: The Real Reason Dawn Staley Chose Raven Johnson Over MiLaysia Fulwiley Will Leave You Speechless

The South Carolina Gamecocks have become synonymous with excellence in women’s college basketball under the leadership of head coach Dawn Staley. With national championships, multiple Final Four appearances, and a consistent presence at the top of the rankings, few coaches command as much respect or scrutiny as Staley. But even among her most ardent supporters, a recent decision has sparked widespread debate: why did she favor Raven Johnson over MiLaysia Fulwiley at critical moments during the 2024-25 season?

To the casual observer, it may seem like a simple coaching decision—a matter of matchup, style, or experience. But a new internal analytics study conducted by a group of university performance analysts reveals the deeper, more strategic reasoning behind the move. And the results? Well, they may just change the way you look at South Carolina basketball—and Dawn Staley—forever.

Let’s rewind for context. MiLaysia Fulwiley, the electrifying sophomore guard from Columbia, South Carolina, quickly became a fan favorite during her freshman season. Her flashy handles, ankle-breaking crossovers, and deep three-point range made her a viral sensation. Fulwiley’s offensive explosiveness helped the Gamecocks surge past elite competition, and her ability to create something out of nothing seemed to make her indispensable.

On the other hand, Raven Johnson, a redshirt junior by the start of the 2024-25 season, had taken on more of a steady hand role. She was a defensive anchor, an on-court leader, and the kind of player who does the little things that often go unnoticed by the box score. While Fulwiley filled highlight reels, Johnson filled leadership voids.

So when Staley consistently leaned on Johnson in crunch time situations—especially in the national semifinal against UConn, where Fulwiley saw limited fourth-quarter action—fans and media alike began asking tough questions. Why bench the most talented offensive player on the floor when you need baskets? Why go with the safer option in a do-or-die situation?

The answer lies in the Gamecocks’ internal metrics—part of a broader study conducted with assistance from the university’s sport science department and an independent decision-making analysis firm. The team had implemented a tracking system that logged player tendencies, success rates in specific late-game scenarios, defensive switch efficiency, and chemistry indexes. When all the data was compiled, a clearer picture emerged—and it leaned heavily in Johnson’s favor.

One major factor: Johnson ranked No. 1 on the team in “on-court stability rating,” a measure the program uses to evaluate how well the offense maintains structure, spacing, and timing when a particular player is running the show. Her score was significantly higher than Fulwiley’s. Analysts noted that while Fulwiley was capable of generating individual brilliance, Johnson’s presence led to more efficient possessions for the team as a whole—particularly when facing zone defenses or high-pressure traps.

Secondly, Johnson’s communication metrics were through the roof. Using voice-tracking software during practices and games, analysts were able to gauge which players most effectively communicated switches, called out screens, and verbally directed teammates. Johnson’s vocal leadership, particularly on defense, far exceeded Fulwiley’s, and this was a critical component of South Carolina’s top-ranked defensive efficiency rating.

Turnover percentage also played a role. Though Fulwiley’s usage rate was higher—meaning she had the ball in her hands more often—her turnover percentage was nearly double that of Johnson in the final six minutes of games decided by 10 points or fewer. Staley, known for prioritizing discipline in late-game execution, saw this as a red flag in terms of trust. It wasn’t about who could score in a flash—it was about who would take care of the ball when it mattered most.

But perhaps the most surprising detail uncovered by the study came from lineup synergy. When the Gamecocks ran lineups with Johnson, they posted a net rating of +17.8 over the course of the season in close games. With Fulwiley leading the point, the net rating dropped to +6.3. The most successful five-woman lineup South Carolina used all season, according to the internal report, featured Johnson, not Fulwiley, as the primary ball-handler.

This isn’t to suggest Fulwiley was a liability—not even close. She was, in fact, the team’s leading scorer in several marquee matchups and had the highest individual offensive rating in non-conference play. But the data made something else clear: when every possession mattered, when the margin for error vanished, Johnson gave South Carolina a better chance to execute their system to perfection.

Staley, when asked about the decision after the UConn loss that ended South Carolina’s bid for a second straight national title, kept her explanation brief. “We go with what gives us the best chance to win—not just what looks good,” she said. “Raven has earned that trust.”

Still, Fulwiley’s supporters remain passionate. Many believe the move stifled her development or denied her a signature moment on the biggest stage. But those close to the program argue that this is all part of a long-term plan. “Dawn sees the whole board,” said one assistant coach anonymously. “She’s not playing checkers with these kids—she’s playing chess. Milaysia’s moment is coming.”

Indeed, Fulwiley announced she would return for her junior season shortly after the tournament, and insiders say she’s already working on key areas highlighted in the report: decision-making under pressure, court communication, and shot selection in traffic. “She’s not running from the challenge,” a family member said. “She’s stepping into it.”

For Johnson, the recognition has been a long time coming. After overcoming injuries early in her career and accepting a role that often flies under the radar, she has become the kind of player every championship team needs—but few fans appreciate until it’s too late.

The analytics study, though never intended for public release, has been quietly circulating among coaching circles as an example of how elite programs are using modern tools to make emotionally tough decisions. The findings support what some coaches have long believed: instinct is still vital, but informed instinct—grounded in data—wins championships.

It’s also a reminder of Staley’s evolution as a coach. While she built her program on toughness, fundamentals, and community connection, she has also embraced the future. Her willingness to listen to data, adapt, and make choices that might not be popular speaks volumes about her commitment to sustained excellence—not just highlight-reel basketball.

As the Gamecocks look to reload and contend again in 2025-26, the hope inside the program is that Fulwiley and Johnson can thrive simultaneously—balancing flash with control, flair with discipline. It’s a duo that, if aligned properly, could rival any backcourt in the country.

So yes, Staley’s decision may have shocked fans. It may have even disappointed some. But when you dig deeper into the numbers, into the rhythms of the game, and into the expectations of a title-hungry program, one thing becomes clear: this wasn’t favoritism. It wasn’t politics. It wasn’t hesitation.

It was strategy.

And like so many of her previous moves, it might just turn out to be another stroke of genius from one of the sport’s most calculated minds.