By the way, Mulkey sucks. Just an opinion from one that does not watch women’s basketball but still sees Barbie Doll on all the channels (make her go away!!). It doesn’t take much to turn on her. She begs for it.
Mulkey is classless
- Thread starter JGH 35
- Start date
really?
aggressive, sarcastic, rude, dismissive, disrespectful, inflammatory
I can think of a long list of politicians (both sides) and CEOs (not to mention political commentators) that these terms describe very well.
In fact, in today's world, it seems the quickest way for a no-name to make a splash and generate a following is to do or say something outrageous (or repost something outrageous someone else said) and refuse to back off
For a number, it seems to be a prerequisite and the more inflammatory they are the more celebrated they are with the people.
They are often described this way by people:
"He/she never backs down no matter what"
"They give as good as they get"
"They fight and I like someone that fights"
"They call it like it is and don't care who they hurt or who gets mad"
"He/she doesn't care what people think."
"He/she might not be right, but they are confident and I like that"
Last edited:
This isn't my argument, but in seeing your list of qualities, would you hire a lawyer with those qualities to advocate for you in a trial? Or in a very important case? Or would you prefer someone who was afraid to hurt someone's feelings? That they were going to say the wrong thing? That at the first sign of any kind of pushback will wilt and crumble to pressure?
I sure wouldn't. When I am thinking of electing someone, I want someone who is going to fight and advocate for me. Not be afraid to hurt someone's feelings. I am electing a representative, not a minister or priest. I am not looking for spiritual or emotional guidance, but for someone who will actually get things done that will move us forward.
It also describes the characteristics of highly successful people and strong leaders. Nick Saban embodied almost all of the traits referenced above.
With coaches and CEOs, one can decide whether they want to be a part of it. With politicians, you're left prisoner to their actions unless you move out of the country.
Well, your post makes the point I was trying to make. You state my point straight out. That's what I was saying.
Do you care what your coach says or does if they win? So what if they are jerks? So what if they are a-holes, right? Classless? irrelevant.
Big deal if they are arrogant?
So what if they are rude?
Sarcastic? Irrelevant.
Inflammatory? irrelevant.
The title of the thread was Mulkey. She wins. She's got 4 national titles and- to some on here- she embodies those qualities - but she wins and wins big for her fan-base.
You aren't hiring a coach to be your pastor.
That's exactly why I wrote that it was interesting that the qualities some really love in a politician or CEO are the same exact qualities some hate in a coach.
Last edited:
You are making my point for me. That's what I was saying in my original comment on this (below). Thank you.
Mulkey and LSU's act is all about marketing. Mulkey knows she's not going to out recruit Staley and Geno without a hook. This hook has earned her team more media attention on average than us.
They are the "bad girls" and Mulkey is the Flamingo-dressed mouthpiece of the operation. This posturing is endearing to a subset of high-quality recruits. They've also got a dedicated thread on many of the sports forums across the country, including this one.
They are the "bad girls" and Mulkey is the Flamingo-dressed mouthpiece of the operation. This posturing is endearing to a subset of high-quality recruits. They've also got a dedicated thread on many of the sports forums across the country, including this one.
So, you are saying you would just as soon have a classless coach who wins, like Mulkey, as you would a classy coach who wins, like Dawn Staley. SMH.
The thing about having those characteristics is …. You better win. You won’t be tolerated if you don’t win where a nicer person might last through some bad seasons. But Mulkey will win because (and all of ya’ll know more than me on women’s ball so I’m guessing here) there are not very many good teams out there and in that world she knows she will always be in the top cut. Right? So she can get by with anything and she knows it.
Agree. Far less competition in women's basketball as a whole helps ensure success.
Mindset is another advantage to their approach. The "us against the world" and "they might be more talented, but we're tougher" attitude can carry alot of weight via confidence on the court.
I didn't mention anything like "just as soon have a classless coach as a classy coach"
I'll repeat it
Do you care what your coach says or does if they win? So, what if they are jerks? So what if they are a-holes, right? Classless? irrelevant.
Big deal if they are arrogant?
So what if they are rude?
Sarcastic? Irrelevant.
Inflammatory? irrelevant.
The title of the thread was Mulkey. She wins. She's got 4 national titles and- to some on here- she embodies those qualities - but she wins and wins big for her fan-base.
You aren't hiring a coach to be your pastor. - The same thing people say about politicians and CEOs- they don't give a damn if they are a-holes, or arrogant jerks, inflammatory, etc..
Yep - that's always true - you have to win no matter what.
Coaches can be royal A-holes but they have to win
CEO's can be the same- but they have to do well. If they do well, unless they break certain laws, they can do anything. Lots of CEOS are A-holes. Lots of CEOS have destroyed their own families becuase they are pretty awful people personally, but if they do well in business- they are lauded.
Same goes for politicians. It's about winning- or more importantly in politics- being SEEN as doing something - or tricking people to believe you are doing something- or tricking them you aren't doing something.
You can be an a-hole that would spit on a baby, if you can convince enough folks to follow you- or give you the benefit of the doubt.
The CEOs, coaches, and politicians comparison is flawed in that there is a choice to work for a CEO or play for a coach. When it comes to politicians, we're often along for the ride because so many people in society today lack basic analysis skills and just follow their favorite media person or what seems fashionable. We're held prisoner by their vote.
This is why there's a premium today on critical thinking skills. In today's world, you can't just rely on what someone else is telling you to do regardless of their title and credentials. You have to do your due diligence to avoid life land mines.
Last edited:
Babb has been working for The Washington Post for 14 years.She might be classless. But the Washington Post is also infamous for their opinion hit pieces. They tried to do one on Dave Portnoy a few months ago before he completely outted them.
LSU’s Kim Mulkey threatens to sue Washington Post if outlet publishes rumored ‘hit piece’ about her
On Friday, Sports Illustrated college sports reporter Pat Forde posted on X that the Washington Post has a “big” story about Mulkey “in the works.”nypost.com
Three times, his features have been named best in the nation by The Associated Press Sports Editors.
So far Mulkey is not recruiting well but she is getting a decent pick up from the portal. She loses HVL and if Reece transfers or goes pro she's in trouble.
It doesn't change the fact Washington Post has a terrible reputation for garbage journalism. The Associated Press has proven their worth over the past few years and they regularly hand out participation trophies for goodwill.
Also, Babb graduated from our Journalism School at USC. He should not be the one writing the expose given the current environment between the two programs. Even if the piece if above board, it's a bad look.
Last edited:
The Washington Post has won 65 Pulitzer Prizes in journalism, the second highest of any newspaper or magazine in the United States. It has won the gold medal for Public Service, the most distinguished award, six times.
They used to have a good reputation. Things change. Let's see if they ever even publish the piece after the threat of a lawsuit. If so, it probably will be tailored down from what it once was.
I disagree. It’s one thing to be along for the ride, it’s another to follow them like a puppy dog running to their master like people do today with certain politicians and the “rock star” CEO types.
I said above it’s interesting that what can be viewed as a negative with a coach can be celebrated when the traits are in a politician or CEO -and that is true.
He is a good writer, and wrote a really good piece when LSU hired Kelly (which really wasn’t so much about Kelly)
The Post has some great writers that do good in-depth stuff.
Several of them are Gamecock grads.
Perfectly explains why I got into coaching youth sports for my kids. I wasn't going to let my kids play for people like that. I don't associate with people with those traits regardless if they are in the same social circle or family. However, I would hire someone like that to represent me in a court of law, if they had the track record to back it up.
Yes, I would expect someone like that wouldn't do too well coaching kids- although I have seen it before if they won enough.
Winning cures all - including bad character (whatever that means these days).
Last edited:
I wasn't saying there aren't some who are that way, I am saying I don't see it as a positive. There are some great statesmen who don't act like that, who aren't rude or dismissive or inflammatory. The most effective ones compromise and earn the respect from across the aisle. Sure the TV likes to see outrageous, for ratings. But those politicians alienate people and don't get much done.
I agree. It seems the most outrageous ones generate the most publicity, money, fame, and support from the population at large.
A paper with the reputation of the Washington Post will have a team of lawyers fully vet stories like this knowing the playbook is going to be "its all lies snd exaggeration, I'm going to sue", which is just utilizing the fact that people don't trust the media like they used to. This story has been in the works for 2 years. Mulkey is scrambling right now. If the Post was bold enough to give her a deadline to respond and give her a chance to answer some questions, then the story they got has some legs.
WAPO is nothing but fishwrap. Its motto seems to be more like: “we always print the truth — even if it’s just half of it.”
My guess is Mulkey will win the court of public opinion, but she won't be stupid enough to sue anyone.
I love Hailey Van Lith of all people coming out and saying that racism is the reason why people don't like LSU. To me, dislike of LSU is the epitome of non-racism. They have an unlikeable white coach and equally unlikeable black star. Trash is trash, no matter what color the wrapper. And Van Lith looks horrible playing for LSU. She used to have a good shot but that disappeared somewhere in the bayou.
Leftist nutjobs giving other leftist nutjobs awards doesn't make good journalism. "Russian collusion" is proof of that.
I don't think 95% of people that choose to read that article will come away with anything but knowing it's a great story and presents a fair look at a human being.
Kim has problems and issues like anyone else.
Stories that only present positives of a human being aren't honest and aren't realistic.
This story covers a good bit of her personality and career- warts and all.
There isn't anything to sue over- and of course she won't- and wasn't going to do so. She doesn't want to lose in court- and lose badly. She doesn't have money to burn for worthless efforts like some people do.
Still get your news from Fox or have you moved up to the National Inquirer?
Both are far better than CNN and MSDNC will ever be.
But...but...but... Russian collusion. Pulitzer award for leftist lies.
Uhhhh, yeah you did. Now your just doubling down on it and repeating it. Sooooo.......
That's total bullshit. Every SEC team is made up of predominately black women. Yet it is only LSU that is being criticized. It has nothing to do with racism, sexism, or any other ism. This has to do with their behavior both on and off the court. It is their bad character and behavior that spawns this kind of criticism and nothing else. The sad part is it is encouraged and promoted by their classless head coach. She is supposed to be the adult to set the example for these developing young people and she is failing them miserably.
Similar threads
