re: McMahon a good coach, just not a good fit for LSU

No, it’s about coaching ability.

Take what Mascona says with a barrel of salt. He’s known for putting out false information which he did during that segment and likes to make up stories and narratives that make about as much sense as government spending practices

I wouldn’t trust his numbers especially considering that he conveniently left out mentioning Florida who has one of the lowest NIL for basketball in the SEC just so his narrative could be pushed. He also lied saying we lost every player weeks after McMahon was hired because 3 scholarship players did return which was only 1 fewer than the previous year, Wade’s last at LSU. He even used misleading statements about coaches salaries. He used Oats, who’s on his second raise as a comparison to McMahon to push his narrative, leaving out the fact that Oats and McMahon’s first contracts are identical in salary.

quote:

---

He also lied saying we lost every player weeks after McMahon was hired because 3 scholarship players did return which was only 1 fewer than the previous year, Wade’s last at LSU.

---

That's a pretty common misrepresentation, he's certainly not the only one who has used that - it's a convenient technicality with common flaw that presupposes no one but CMM could have convinced any of the players much less 3 to return.

But yes, the Nil narrative whether you mention Florida or not is also flawed IMHO for me because as I indicated in this day and age it better be a significant part of what a coach should have to do for his program.

I completely understand someone in conversation forgetting and misstating the players who returned. The problem is this guy is supposed to be a journalist who provides the LSU fanbase with factual information plus this was a planned segment on his show so even if he’s not held to a journalistic standard, he should have his facts straight for a planned segment. The truth is this is common place for him, his theories and narratives are always filled with incorrect information and purposeful obfuscation. Thats why it’s wise to be skeptical about the things he says.

quote:

---

I completely understand someone in conversation forgetting and misstating the players who returned. The problem is this guy is supposed to be a journalist who provides the LSU fanbase with factual information plus this was a planned segment on his show so even if he’s not held to a journalistic standard, he should have his facts straight for a planned segment. The truth is this is common place for him, his theories and narratives are always filled with incorrect information and purposeful obfuscation. Thats why it’s wise to be skeptical about the things he says.

---

I don't think he considers himself a "journalist" as much of an opinion maker. However, his takes on basketball have always been bad. It mostly comes from the fact that LSU basketball has been largely ignored by most LSU fans/media for decades relative to football and baseball. For good reason. LSU basketball hasn't been the consistent winner those two programs have been. If you are a media member trying to get attention to sustain your livelihood it doesn't behoove you to talk extensively about sports no one wants to discuss. That lack of attention also brings with a lack of knowledge. I know Matt personally and would have no problem telling him to his face his opinions about basketball are wrong, and explain to him why that is.

Is it likely places like Kentucky, Arkansas, Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee have higher NIL commitments now than LSU? Of course. Those donors are seeing a much higher ROI. But I PROMISE you the NIL amount of LSU is not wholly out of line with that of programs like Ole Miss, Miss. St, A&M, Missouri, even Florida. Yet, the results LSU is producing are far lower.

But even if we assume for the purposes of argument that LSU's NIL commitment is woefully short of their competitors, isn't the logical question to ask is why? Contrary to what apparently some on the board want to believe, players were being paid well BEFORE NIL became "legal". And yes, Wade was FAR from the only coach doing so. In essence, NIL just "legalized" what was already taking place (unless you believe AAU basketball is just an altruistic amateur basketball organization). Yet, if you also believe the narrative that Wade was paying massive amounts for guys like Ried, Smart, Days, Watford, Thomas, etc, etc,, then it stands to reason that money was coming from somewhere. That "somewhere" was donors. Basically they were paying NIL before it was called "NIL". So if Wade was able to generate the amount of money necessary to win recruiting battles with the likes of Kentucky, Arizona, Auburn, North Carolina, Indiana, etc, then why isn't McMahon getting the same money?

The reason is (1) McMahon is not an aggressive fundraiser. It's just not his personality and something he didn't have to do a ton of at Murray St. (2) He believes in the mid-major team development approach over the course of several years. The problem is that is not the world of college basketball we live in anymore, and the would-be donors who just a few years ago "bought" the likes of Reid, Smart, etc, aren't shelling out that kind of money because the HC isn't aggressive in seeking it and they don't believe in him.

If you are going to be a poor fundraiser then you better be a great tactical coach. If you are going to be a poor tactical coach then you better be a great fundraiser. But you can't be bad at both...otherwise you end up with a sub .500 (sub .300 in conference) winning %

quote:

---

Well that’s the question right, we had a top 15 class this year so A. How did we do that for free? And B. Does it matter how much we spent if we still recruited well?

---

I guessing maybe the argument is whatever NIL funds were allocated, they were primarily allocated to HS recruiting and not transfers. But I think that shows the flaw in McMahon's thinking. At Murray St. you signed second-tier recruits, but you were confident they would be in your program for 3, 4, maybe even 5 years. That means those guys built bonds and developed together with the ultimate goal of being a really good team once they were upperclassmen. In theory you would love to do that at LSU. But that's just not going to work. HS signing classes don't stay together. Not just at LSU. Going into next year, at best, LSU will have 1 player (Reed) from the first signing class. They would likely, at best) only have 1 player from the second signing class (assuming Williams would leave). Then it is unlikely all 4 players from this years signing class will return. That's just the nature of the sport. That's why redshirting guys and trying to slowly bring them along is not the path.

A HC has to be able to either (1) bring in specific players that fit his preferred style of play or (2) bring in the best players you can get and adjust the style of play to the strength of the roster, and have that roster ready to go now. Then he has to flip it and do it again next year. This working with an eye towards 2-3 years down the road is ineffective. It's why a lot of good coaches have left the game. But it's also reality.

Terrible game coach and a terrible motivator.

Not sure why people want to keep sugar coating it. He is not a good coach for LSU.

McMahon has an 8-million-dollar buyout, how about giving him 8.5 million to purchase high caliber players. You guys want him to win with "Better Value" players.