re: MBB Offseason '26 Transfer Portal / HS Tracker

quote:

---

I do too. But I don't think "success" = Final Four/NC in terms of expectations. I don't think most booster expect a Sweet 16 appearance in year 1. I think the general expectation for "success" in year 1 is an NCAA Tournament appearance with 1-2 wins. LSU was 15-17 (3-15) last season. It's 3rd losing season in 4 years. If the trends above hold, then it's not unreasonable to think LSU could move to a record of something like 22-10 (9-9) If that happens I don't think you will see any boosters, nor fans bitching. The only ones who will complain are the handful that aren't really LSU basketball fans. Just people who hate Wade personally and want him to fail to satisfy their own self-interests (which best I can tell is anonymous message board cred) That kind of record would not be the ultimate goal for the program. But it would represent success in the eyes of most. For context, LSU was 21-10 (9-9) in Wade's final season. That was good enough for a 6 seed in the NCAA Tournament. If you told LSU fans today that LSU was going to be a 6 seed in the NCAA Tournament this season and win a game or two in the tournament, most would take it.

---

I agree with most of what you said. Comparing last year’s LSU team to the results this year has to account for the investment in the team. Given the investment, I think immediate success requires winning at least 1 game in the tournament, but it may require 2 wins to call it a success. I didn’t include McNeese. Wade was clearly a huge success there. I don’t know how much boosters invested in the years Wade was at each location vs before he arrived at each location, but that factors in the measure of success. I know when I spend a lot more, I expect a lot more. I believe boosters do as well.

?? ?? ??

quote:

---

I don’t know how much boosters invested in the years Wade was at each location vs before he arrived at each location, but that factors in the measure of success.

---

Outside of last year at NC State, that was a VERY different time in college sports. Even if the investment increased significantly in Wade's first year at UTC and LSU, it could not have much of an immediate impact because it could not be used to sign good, D-1 experienced "free agents" who were immediately eligible. So the quick improvements at UTC and LSU were the result of taking much of what was left from a losing team and making the better (along with in the case of LSU getting fortunate to sign an impact freshman, Waters, because Georgetown, where he was committed, fired their HC late)

Last year at NC State was a mixed bag. He signed a good transfer class and immediately made the team much better than the year before. But then things totally fell apart at the end.

Still though, I don't think LSU's booster are expecting a tremendous season right away. That's because of where the program has been over the last 4 years. A NCAAT appearance and a win or two would qualify as "great" success relative to the McMahon era.

It's different that football because the program expectation levels are lower in basketball. In football LSU has won national championships. That means 9-3 records with Citrus Bowl appearances aren't "good enough" for the booster. Thus, the investors' expectations of what their investment should buy is higher than that. I know some LSU basketball donors. I promise you. They aren't expecting a Final Four or anything close this year.

quote:

---

The limiting factor is usually funds, and LSU was not limited this year, so the previous 4 years with limited budgets (no matter whose fault that was) have nothing to do with expectations for next year's success. It won't have anything to do with McMahon.

---

That was a BS narrative specifically crafted to justify, at the time, to provide public support for a coach with awful record. (Don't think it was orchestrated by the AD? The guy who "broke" the story McMahon would return was a guy who covers LSU football recruiting whose wife just so happened to work for the athletic department). The reason is because behind the scenes there was a strong push going on to fire McMahon and hire Wade from McNeese. Woodward and Tate were simply not going to do that and the easiest way to avoid it was to not make the LSU job available. In doing so, they had to justify the otherwise nonsensical decision to move forward with the least successful coach in the league.

Even though some other schools may have spent more, LSU had enough money to compete in the SEC under McMahon. The spending gap wasn't that large. McMahon didn't lose because he had no money. He lost because he was a terrible coach. You could have given him $20M and LSU still wouldn't have been any good.

quote:

---

If we don't have success such as finishing in the top half of the SEC and winning at least 1 game in the tournament, then it's either due to bad luck, or the funds weren't spent to get the right talent or they weren't coached well.

---

If LSU doesn't finish at least in the top half of the SEC this year then Wade did a poor job, either in roster construction or coaching. And I will be the first to say it. The "money" aspect, while important, is overblown. Good coaches win. That was the same for McMahon. If he was a good SEC coach he would have won. His record speaks for itself.

quote:

---

This cannot be stated enough and why I hated the argument when it came to mcmahon. Am I supposed to believe that Mcneese outspent LSU when wade was there? Or FAU when May was there? But yet both of those teams would have beat the shite out of any of Mcmahons teams

And for the record, if this season turns out to be disappointing which I dont think it will be, I'll be here saying the exact same thing. You can throw all the millions of dollars you want at players, but if you cant coach them its not worth shite

---

McNeese was way better under Wade, and they got in the tournament by winning their conference, but LSU most likely would've beaten them last year. In previous years, LSU lost to teams they should've beaten, but last year they beat all of the teams they were supposed to beat.

Money is the biggest factor in attracting players in this era, but reputation of the school, expectations, returning roster, and the coaches are also important to attract players. Wade was able to attract talent on his reputation. McMahon was able to attract talent his first year as well, despite looming concerns, and then lost that benefit of the doubt for the last few years due to underperforming that first year, which forced him to overpay on the small budget that he had, regardless of why it was a small budget. I think that led to struggling to construct a roster. This year Wade has his reputation to aid attracting players, although that may be a mixed bag this year, but he has a huge budget, and that is the most important. We have a right to expect success with the budget, just like the expectations for Kiffin are huge for the same reason. If they don't succeed with that budget, it's either poor coaching, bad luck, or poor roster construction which shouldn't happen with a huge budget.

quote:

---

but LSU most likely would've beaten them last year. In previous years, LSU lost to teams they should've beaten, but last year they beat all of the teams they were supposed to beat.

---

Wade didn't coach McNeese last season. But even when Wade was the HC at McNeese I don't know if you can say with a strong degree of certainty LSU would have won a game against them. McNeese was an NCAA tournament team in both of Wade's seasons there. They were a 12 seed in both tournaments, which is generally reserved for the upper-tier of mid-major teams...which is why the 12-5 upset is the most common. Including one by McNeese. McMahon wasn't exactly good against NCAA Tournament teams. Particularly in the non-conf portion where in 4 years he had ONE win against a non-conf. opponent that reach the NCAA Tournament that season (SMU who was a borderline NCAAT team, at that). I still don't think people fully grasp how bad McMahon was. He was AWFUL against good competition

quote:

---

but he has a huge budget,

---

How do we know that? Just because someone said so without any supporting basis? The amounts spent on NIL is the single most overexaggerated thing in college sports, high and low, because no one can or will provide proof. They are like fishing and big dick stories. Every year they get bigger but no one actually pulls a fish out of the ice chest or flops their giant goober out on the table.

As with much of life, the truth lies in the middle. LSU is not spending as much as some of the basketball heavy programs (Duke, Kentucky, Kansas, UNC). Even this year. But they aren't, and haven't been destitute either. The money is not the reason for McMahon's awful record and it won't be the primary reason for Wade's if he performs well. It will be the coaching. It if wasn't then UNC and Kentucky would have dominated last year instead of struggling to make the NCAAT, and teams like Vandy and Nebraska wouldn't have been able to compete.

McMahon had 2 top 20 ranked rosters in 4 years at LSU. His other 2 were ranked 32 and 47, his most successful btw. Wade’s class is ranked 73rd this year. If money = player ranking the facts don’t match your assumptions.

Saw 3 LSU McMahon players in the NBA Summer League a day or two ago. There’s probably others playing as well.

quote:

---

Saw 3 LSU McMahon players in the NBA Summer League a day or two ago. There’s probably others playing as well.

---

Yep. It was never a talent issue. Maybe in Year 1 but years 2-4 had enough to compete.

CMM couldn’t land guards. Not saying he had the best bigs. However if I was coaching against him, I would just defend at half court and lose on the boards. Always had a quality pg, just easy to wear that 1 down. Thomas and Reece were the best he ever picked up, still 2 shy to compete in the sec.

CWW currently has no pg. The young man from Texas should run the point unless he looses the job to the mich st guy. Does have smart big men who can run an offense. Just my opinion based of limited highlights. Not gonna budge on guard needs. Still super early.