TIGER RAG EDITORIAL
THE CASE AGAINST MATT MCMAHON
LSU’s basketball program has hit another rough patch, and it’s hard not to wonder if a big-money NIL push will do anything more than mask the issues that have long plagued the team. Back in mid-February, LSU athletic director Scott Woodward floated the idea of handing McMahon a hefty sum to boost recruiting for next season via NIL deals. But few were holding their breath.
Despite recruiting classes that, on paper, should have kept LSU competitive in the SEC and atop the NCAA Tournament picture, the reality is far bleaker. McMahon’s talent evaluations seem to favor players that other coaches avoid, and once on campus, their shortcomings become glaringly obvious. The teams routinely get outrebounded, struggle to run proper offensive sets, flounder with poor shooting, and have yet to find a point guard who doesn’t turn the ball over. Add in a lackluster defensive performance in nearly every quality matchup and erratic game management, and it’s a recipe for continued disappointment.
NIL MONEY PUSH COMING FOR MATT MCMAHON?
This isn’t a throwback to the gritty, underdog days of John Brady, when LSU’s toughness masked roster deficiencies. Nor is it reminiscent of the swift turnaround during Will Wade’s early stint, when a flood of talent made LSU suddenly relevant. Speaking of Wade, his name looms large in any discussion of LSU basketball because, after shepherding McNeese State from an 11-23 season to a staggering 57-10 record with two NCAA Tournament berths, he’s become the poster child for a complete program transformation. Without any prior ties to LSU, Wade would be a no-brainer replacement for McMahon. Instead, lingering memories of recruiting violations—ironically, for actions that are now commonplace among coaches like Bill Self and Mike Krzyzewski—have tainted his legacy. Rumors now hint at a possible move to NC State, replacing the fired Kevin Keatts.
Over the past three seasons, McMahon’s record has been difficult to defend. With only 14 SEC wins—fewer than every team except the newest members Texas and Oklahoma—LSU sits at a dismal .259 winning percentage in conference play. His overall record of 45-53 pales in comparison to that of his predecessors, and his 4-23 conference road mark is nothing short of eye-watering. The postseason has offered little solace either, with a 1-4 run (including a lopsided 17-point average margin in SEC Tournament losses and an 84-77 home loss in the NIT) marking one of the worst postseason performances in LSU history. Statistically, he owns the lowest cumulative NET and KenPom ratings in the SEC.
With Georgia likely headed to the NCAA Tournament this year, McMahon is set to be the lone coach among his SEC peers hired before the 22-23 season who won’t be tweeting about March madness. LSU’s record against other SEC teams is equally stark—multiple winless series against Alabama, Mississippi State, Auburn, Tennessee, Florida, and subpar showings against Ole Miss and Texas A&M underline a program in decline.
LSU DECLINES NIT, THANK GOODNESS
Then comes that tempting NIL bonus. Since the February 17 announcement of a potential additional year and new NIL dollars aimed at retooling recruiting, the best McMahon has managed is a win against the league’s least formidable team—followed by a six-game skid averaging a 17.7-point loss per contest. Yes, these games were against NCAA Tournament-caliber programs, and yes, several opponents were ranked. But that only circles back to the nagging question: when every other SEC team is executing at a higher level, why isn’t LSU in the mix? A common retort is that McMahon’s short on NIL cash, yet LSU’s NIL budget is among the most generous, standing head and shoulders above many NCAA Tournament contenders. And when key players are either barely showing up—like Corey Chest and Vyctorious Miller, who didn’t suit up in a 31-point NCAA blowout against Mississippi State—or walking away altogether as Tyrell Ward did before the season began, it’s clear that money alone isn’t the cure.
For Woodward and LSU’s higher-ups, it seems the calculus is less about competitive excellence and more about avoiding a multi-million-dollar buyout—along with staving off an onslaught of fan outrage should they part ways with McMahon now. It’s a matter of money and pride, not performance.
Looking back at Wade’s tenure—flawed or not—there’s no denying he once sparked a dramatic turnaround. Yet rehiring him might not mend the fractured fan base already scarred by his past infractions. Ideally, LSU needs a coach with a proven winning track record, someone hungry for a fresh start; a basketball version of Brian Kelly, if you will. Names like Rick Barnes come to mind, or perhaps even Mick Cronin if the offer is right, though his brand is more about tough, grinding defense than the high-flying spectacle some LSU fans might prefer.
LSU ENDS 2024-25 SEASON WITH A WHIMPER
As it stands, a season under McMahon’s continued stewardship appears inevitable. Even a flood of NIL cash won’t likely reverse the downward trend, especially when other programs are willing to invest heavily in winning. LSU remains poised at the bottom of the SEC, while Wade gears up for a promising run at NC State. The overarching issue is whether LSU has the right leader at the helm of its second-most important athletic program. For now, the betting odds seem to favor another year of mediocrity—a reflection, at its core, of a flawed plan that Woodward might soon have to reconsider if the football playoffs don’t deliver enough relief.
THE CASE FOR MATT MCMAHON
LSU men’s basketball is no stranger to criticism, yet a closer look at Coach Matt McMahon’s tenure reveals a story far more nuanced than the alarmist diatribes some have recently put forward. Critics have zeroed in on a string of disappointing statistics and seemingly poor SEC records, but in doing so they miss the broader context: McMahon is trying to build something sustainable in one of college basketball’s most challenging environments.
Consider the recruiting classes that McMahon has landed. On paper, they rate highly enough to suggest that LSU should be right there among the SEC’s top contenders. For many observers, the gap between expected talent and on-court performance is cause for alarm. Yet history shows that developing a cohesive, tournament-ready team is rarely an overnight transformation. Talent rarely translates immediately into wins without the proper system and time to mature. McMahon’s players may be facing an adjustment period as they learn a system designed to maximize modern basketball’s shifting dynamics, including the intricate world of NIL deals.
It bears highlighting that McMahon inherited a landscape replete with challenges. Across the SEC, all programs face intense competition, and while his record against major conference opponents isn’t sparkling at first glance, one must acknowledge the depth and quality of those matchups. The measures critics cite—low home win averages, underwhelming postseason outings, even an 11-game losing streak punctuating a win against a struggling team—must be viewed within the framework of a rebuilding program. Taking on the rigors of one of the nation’s toughest conferences means that temporary setbacks are part of the journey towards long-term success.
Moreover, the debate over using NIL money to fuel a rapid turnaround simplifies a much more complex picture. LSU’s NIL budget is impressive—even by the standards of many programs that routinely appear in the NCAA Tournament. The inherent issue isn’t the amount of cash available, but rather how that money is leveraged in a program that’s in the midst of transforming its culture, player development, and on-court identity. McMahon, it seems, is not simply chasing quick fixes; he’s laying down a foundation that may well bear fruit in the near future. In today’s collegiate environment, where recruiting success is influenced by many factors outside the coach’s control, a short-term imbalance between financial clout and immediate results isn’t the sole measure of a coach’s potential impact.
Comparisons to figures like Will Wade are inevitable—and perhaps unfair. Wade’s recent turnaround at McNeese State is impressive on many levels, yet his own tenure was shadowed by off-court controversies and NCAA violations that ultimately affected program credibility. McMahon, by contrast, has maintained a focus on program integrity, a principle that resonates positively not only with real fans but with boosters and administrators who understand that long-term stability isn’t built on a foundation of short-lived success. The administrative reluctance to remove McMahon, despite his early struggles, can be seen as an acknowledgment that change for the sake of change rarely yields a better outcome. LSU’s decision-making, driven by both financial implications and university pride, ultimately favors the steady but fiscally and ethically sound approach that McMahon represents.
Statistical setbacks—like a modest .259 winning percentage in SEC play or less-than-ideal records on the road—are undoubtedly points of contention for those scrutinizing his performance. However, each of these numbers tells part of a larger story about transition in a high-powered conference. Basketball at the highest levels is a marathon, not a sprint; early missteps can lead to critical learning moments that forge a resilient team capable of competing when it really counts. The harsh comparisons to previous eras under coaches who delivered early-season sporadic successes do not account for the modern game’s complexities, where recruiting, player retention, and systemic development play increasingly significant roles.
One must also consider the systemic hurdles that McMahon faces on a daily basis. While some tout the notion that with more NIL funds he could recruit a superior team instantly, it is important to remember that other programs throughout the country are enjoying similar financial advantages. The challenge isn’t merely accumulating resources—it is about creating an environment where that investment translates into consistent, high-quality performance. McMahon’s track record, though imperfect, demonstrates a commitment to utilizing those resources to build character and a disciplined style of play that may prove competitive over time.
LSU’s current crossroads—torn between the allure of re-hiring controversial figures and the pursuit of true competitive excellence—mandates an objective assessment. While some suggest that a coach like Will Wade might instantly propel the program back into relevance, it is equally true that his history of recruiting irregularities and off-court indiscretions would pose significant risks to LSU’s long-term reputation. McMahon, by contrast, might be navigating rough waters now, but his approach prioritizes sustainable and principled development over quick fixes that could lead to future complications.
And know this about McMahon’s talent evaluation and recruiting skills. He tried to get much better players through the portal at this time last year, but he was priced out almost immediately as LSU is at the bottom in NIL money in the SEC with South Carolina and Oklahoma.
So, it’s not that he doesn’t know how to evaluate talent or signs players that other coaches avoid, as some have said. It’s just that the program he has worked for since 2022 has decided it can’t afford such talent and the players McMahon wants for men’s basketball. LSU needs to change that approach. McMahon knows talent. He recruited, signed and developed one of the best players in the NBA in Ja Morant while he was at Murray State, which was still very good after Morant left.
The reason LSU looked like a Sun Belt team is because it is an SEC program on a Sun Belt budget. If McMahon truly gets more NIL money soon, he needs to make a significant splash with it, similar to Brian Kelly’s current portal roster that happened after Kelly and LSU finally emphasized the portal for football more than three years into it.
THE FINAL ANALYSIS
In the final analysis, the case for Matt McMahon rests not solely on immediate win–loss numbers but on the promise of a thoughtfully rebuilt program. LSU fans deserve a narrative that acknowledges the trials of facing one of the most competitive conferences in sports, and recognizes that the coach’s measured progress is indicative of a broader strategy rather than a collection of isolated games. The numbers critics highlight may be ominous in the short term, but they are part of a learning curve that every rebuilding program must experience.
Thus, as the conversation about the future of LSU basketball continues, a balanced, objective narrative must be maintained—one that refrains from a knee-jerk dismissal of McMahon’s efforts. Change in collegiate sports, as in life, demands both patience and perspective. For now, LSU’s decision to back McMahon reflects a commitment to building a program with stability, integrity, and a long-term vision that promises a brighter, more competitive future.
It is the opinion of Tiger Rag that Matt McMahon should stay, but he is clearly on watch between now and through next basketball season.
Be the first to comment