LSU didn't HAVE to fire Wade. They chose to. Now, given the unknows at the time I can't say LSU didn't have valid reasons for thinking firing Wade was a reasonable course of action. But they didn't HAVE to fire him.

quote:
But LSU's not firing someone 1.5 seasons in coming off how much the program was in shambles left in the wake of the wade firing. At least no sane people think that he will be fired after this season.

No reasonable person his saying McMahon should be fired today. So it's not like LSU would be firing a HC after 1.5 years. And much of this discussion is predicated on the assumption there is no improvement the rest of the season and at the end of the year the results are no better than the results last year. That would be deciding to fire a HC after two full seasons...not 1.5.

Your position is that no one should consider firing McMahon after just two seasons because of the "shambles" to program was left in after Wade was fired. I hate to break it to you, but the program is in "shambles" now (likely) after two full season. Whether LSU performs poorly because of limitations brought about by NCAA sanctions or simply bad coaching, the result is the same...losing and disinterest. Or, to put it another way, LSU fired Wade to avoid the threat of a "death penalty", in the process essentially giving themselves a de facto "death penalty" based upon the results to date under McMahon. It doesn't really matter WHY you are losing. Just that you are losing.

If the season continues to crater and LSU finishes at the bottom of SEC once more, I again ask the question "why wait to make a coaching change if you don't foresee anything getting better"? In that case waiting to make a change would just be prolonging the inevitable.

McMahon has a contract. He's going to be paid for next season according to that contract whether he coaches LSU next year or not. So it's not as if LSU really "saves" anything financially by keeping him other than a psychological effect of not wanting to pay someone for a job they aren't doing. But that should never be a basis for holding off on making a move you know you are going to have to eventually make anyway.

This situation already played out with Johnny Jones. The 2014-15 season was the Ben Simmons season. LSU was ranked in the preseason top 25 and it felt like that season was what the program was building towards. Sadly, those expectations were never reached and season ended unceremoniously with Jones effectively losing the program. At that point it was abundantly clear LSU was never going to be a championship contender under Jones. So keeping him on for another season wasn't going to progress the program towards that ultimate goal. Nonetheless, Alleva kept him for the 16-17 season. One where Jones entered the season as a lame duck. He, the players, and everyone within college basketball knew that barring some miracle he was going to be fired at the end of the season. With that being the circumstances surrounding the program complete apathy took hold. The fans didn't care and the players didn't care because everyone knew change was coming at the end of the year. The result was the worst SEC performance in the history of LSU basketball (until McMahon matched it last season).

What did that extra season under Jones accomplish? Nothing, other than setting the program back further for the new HC. The same logic would apply here. If McMahon has bad season but is retained for year 3, EVERYONE will know it is likely a lame duck year. That means recruits, good transfers, current players, even good assistant coaches will be reluctant to hitch their wagon to a program that is going to be overhauled following the season. That being the case, McMahon would have very little shot of having a good season.

Maybe the team turns things around in SEC play and LSU has a good season to give you the glimmer of hope things are on the upswing. But if not, why waste another season? To confirm in year 3 what you already knew was the case after year 2? It's illogical.