re: McMahon quote after Texas Tech loss

quote:

---

LSU was absolutely competitive in a lot of those games with NO SEC PG

---

I'm defining "competitive" as within 2 possessions in the final 5:00. That happened in a total of 8 SEC games last year.

Matt McMoron needs to geaux.

That game wasn’t fair. Texas Tech showed us how pitiful our basketball program is under McMahon.

quote:

---

You are making some pretty impassioned arguments in defense of CMM, in this post and thread, but Saturday's game is the one defining moment?

---

There are posts from him after the Georgia embarrassment last year saying it was time to get rid of McMahon.

Then he apparently woke back up in his mediocre life where the only metric for success is “competing” and we’re back here.

quote:

---

people who don’t know basketball

---

you must really know basketball. congrats. by contrast the folks that disagree with you are inferior. lets insult them

quote:

---

same people

---

what is more interesting, do you think, basketball, or dunking on optimistic fans?

I define it as being in single digits. And considering the rankings and talent level of those teams compared to LSU last year they were very competitive. We lost by more than 13 in only six games in regular season.

quote:

---

My defense is based on the reality that LSU and Woodward were not funding the program equal to other schools in the SEC

---

I genuinely mean this. What evidence is there proving this to be accurate other than reports that surfaced in mid-February at a point where LSU was 14-12 (2-10)? NIL funding doesn't necessarily increase or decrease during the season. So if LSU's team was grossly underfunded presumably that knowledge would have been known well before the beginning of the season...not suddenly coming to light 3.5 months into the season at a point where LSU's record was bad. The timing ALWAYS seemed suspect. As in we have to give SOME reason as to why LSU is bad...again...and it can't be that the HC is bad because we plan on bringing him back next year.

LSU's recruiting class rank (HS signees and transfers) this year is 32. Last year it was 16th. The difference is last year the HS signing class was ranked higher, while this year it's the transfer class. NO ONE is saying LSU is spending at the level of Kentucky, Kansas, Duke, etc. But they sure as hell weren't spending at the bottom of all major conferences...which is what the results were.

So either the player rankings for LSU...for 3 years (maybe 4) have been grossly inaccurate relative to the actual market value of the players OR the players have been, on the whole, at least mid-tier SEC talent, yet the results are falling woefully short for another reason.

Your feminine deflections won’t work. Add something or go bother someone else.

quote:

---

That’s a heck of a qualifier. I guess the regular season aspect is so you didn’t have to include the 29 point drubbing in the SECT.

This is why you guys can’t be taken seriously. I’ve been saying it recently, you’ve picked your conclusion and now you’re going to backfill by cherry picking to reach that conclusion. 13 points, lol. No one picks 13 points without an agenda. Most rational people would start at double digits to define a blowout. Regular season, just so you can avoid the SECT game.

Pathetic and completely disingenuous.

---

Find the name calling. This is easily responding to the post criteria.

McPuffy Dummy.

quote:

---

So are you. Juvenile name calling from a little twit. So you can't be taken seriously . And you can be in a close game and in the final 2 minutes end up losing by 12-13. But then an unathletic loser like you who's probably never even dribbled a basketball much less shot one wouldn't know that.

---

Keeping this safe in case you decide to scrub.