On the Marquette Hoops board, I learned that Fr. Wilde is "gone." Who then is the CEO and decision-maker for MU during this PR crisis. Where is Fr. Pilarz? Who was involved in the Cottingham situation and resignation?
There is a major PR crisis at my alma mater, and the school appears rudderless. Please don't tell me the BoT. A lot of you folks who live in Milw seem to know a lot more about the admin - who is in charge now?
We desperately need some management leadership.
More than likely it's Dick Strong with some advising from Crean.
Buzz. Makes the most money and is directly responsible for the behavior of his student athletes. All he got was a raise, a bonus and a minor hand slap. Meanwhile, the AD gets flogged publicly and then jettisoned unceremoniously.
Imagine what they will do for Buzz if he ever gets passed the Sweet 16!
Quote from: muhoops1 on July 05, 2011, 11:16:07 AM
Buzz. Makes the most money and is directly responsible for the behavior of his student athletes. All he got was a raise, a bonus and a minor hand slap. Meanwhile, the AD gets flogged publicly and then jettisoned unceremoniously.
Imagine what they will do for Buzz if he ever gets passed the Sweet 16!
I hope you are joking.
Wild is. Your source is wrong.
He doesn't retire until July 31st.
http://marquette.edu/about/leadership/president.shtml
And pretty much any one of these people:
http://marquette.edu/about/leadership/ulc.shtml
or these people:
http://marquette.edu/about/leadership/trustees.shtml
I think this goes to PR strategy. Why would he make an announcement about anything (especially considering there's nothing they can say) when he's around for only a month more?
And Pilarz can't comment about it at all.
Well, he might be "gone," like on vacation or somewhere. But that doesn't mean that he cannot make decisions, plus his entire executive staff is around too. The University isn't "rudderless."
QuoteBuzz. Makes the most money and is directly responsible for the behavior of his student athletes. All he got was a raise, a bonus and a minor hand slap. Meanwhile, the AD gets flogged publicly and then jettisoned unceremoniously.
Imagine what they will do for Buzz if he ever gets passed the Sweet 16!
I hope you are joking.
Sorta. I mean look the guy has stayed reasonably clean in an otherwise ugly situation. I know nothing of what actually happened. Although the phrase "perception is reality" applies here. I have no vendetta against Buzz and he seems like an alright guy. I'm just saying that if this situation involves men's hoops players then typically the spotlight is turned on the coach. It hasn't to this point and that surprises me.
Quote from: muhoops1 on July 05, 2011, 12:48:08 PM
Sorta. I mean look the guy has stayed reasonably clean in an otherwise ugly situation. I know nothing of what actually happened. Although the phrase "perception is reality" applies here. I have no vendetta against Buzz and he seems like an alright guy. I'm just saying that if this situation involves men's hoops players then typically the spotlight is turned on the coach. It hasn't to this point and that surprises me. However, that won't stop me from wildly speculating and reach a conclusion without evidence to support it.
Fixed it for you
Quote from: muhoops1 on July 05, 2011, 12:48:08 PM
Sorta. I mean look the guy has stayed reasonably clean in an otherwise ugly situation. I know nothing of what actually happened. Although the phrase "perception is reality" applies here. I have no vendetta against Buzz and he seems like an alright guy. I'm just saying that if this situation involves men's hoops players then typically the spotlight is turned on the coach. It hasn't to this point and that surprises me.
No matter what happened, the coach cannot be held responsible for every poor choice a player makes.
What he can and should be held responsible for is the way that the university handles the situation and any disciplinary actions that are required after the incident.
The coach has a choice of what type of kid he will be recruiting. Is there a reason he is recruiting hard 2 Wisconsin kids, has offered Fisher and
Fuller for 2013, for sure that is different then a JC kids from Texas.
I agree with your point about the University. And I don't know what happened. All I'm saying is that I find it unusual that he hasn't been put under the microscope to this point. Buzz cannot be held responsible for players actions, because he is not their full time care giver and they are adults.
However, as we saw in the series last summer...he takes a great deal of pride in teaching his players to be better people. I recall a phrase "character revealed" used a lot. What we saw last year was not what appeared to be a hands off coach, rather a very invested, involved man. I say that to his credit and that is why it seems odd that he has remained out of the spot light to a large degree.
For the record, I am not speculating wildly. I can only assume that nothing happened as there were no suspensions, no punishments, etc.
Quote from: muhoops1 on July 05, 2011, 02:08:31 PM
I agree with your point about the University. And I don't know what happened. All I'm saying is that I find it unusual that he hasn't been put under the microscope to this point. Buzz cannot be held responsible for players actions, because he is not their full time care giver and they are adults.
However, as we saw in the series last summer...he takes a great deal of pride in teaching his players to be better people. I recall a phrase "character revealed" used a lot. What we saw last year was not what appeared to be a hands off coach, rather a very invested, involved man. I say that to his credit and that is why it seems odd that he has remained out of the spot light to a large degree.
For the record, I am not speculating wildly. I can only assume that nothing happened as there were no suspensions, no punishments, etc.
Everybody is "out of the spotlight" because by law there is virtually nothing they can say. This includes Buzz Williams. I'm sure that privately he is as invested as ever in the lives of his players both on and off the court.
Quote from: BCHoopster on July 05, 2011, 02:02:54 PM
The coach has a choice of what type of kid he will be recruiting. Is there a reason he is recruiting hard 2 Wisconsin kids, has offered Fisher and
Fuller for 2013, for sure that is different then a JC kids from Texas.
What are you implying? That Wisconsin kids are more or less likely than Texas kids to misbehave/commit a crime? Or HS kids vs. JC kids?
Guess no one at MU wants to stand up and take responsibility for this PR clusterf**k. Losing C ham will probably be a bigger loss than most realize. Don't have a lot of confidence in the MU administration right now. Especially when not one big wig has enough nuts to go on the media stage and clear the air.
Stone, they tried that with Buzz. It causes more problems than anything. What are they supposed to say?
It'd be nice if Wild addressed MU's current policy on dealing with sexual harassment. Hell you could use it as a positive and flip it showing a pro active side.
ND eventually settled with the US dept of education to make changes to their policies and better inform students on procedure for harassment.
Judging by how MU handled that sexual harassment case an internal review and publication of new policies or the review they did would be a good start to getting some better pub.
They did already did that. Here is the article from June 22, with quotes from Wild and everything:
http://www.jsonline.com/news/education/124379168.html
""The university has publicly acknowledged that we made mistakes in dealing with these incidents. We worked quickly and proactively to correct those procedures, both to be sensitive to victims and to comply with Wisconsin state law," Wild said in a statement. "We now refer any reported incident of sexual assault to the Sensitive Crimes Unit of the Milwaukee Police Department. We have also added a victim advocate to the staff of our Student Health Service and have more tightly restricted who on campus has access to reports from the Department of Public Safety."
Now, what else do you want them to do?
Quote from: Stone Cold on July 05, 2011, 06:59:36 PM
It'd be nice if Wild addressed MU's current policy on dealing with sexual harassment. Hell you could use it as a positive and flip it showing a pro active side.
I am guessing neither Wild wants to go in front of the press to address this, nor does MU want him to. The allegations he covered up the clergy abuse would be comingled into this story. Neither MU, nor Wild, could shape it so narrowly to just address this issue.
Plus, it still would not be enough for some of the media hounds. Wild's statement on MU's acknowledgement of their policy error and plans to change said policy obviously fell on deaf ears.
beg cottingham to come back. ;)
just hope he wasn't thrown under the bus. still some ambiguity there.
good to see they made some pro-active statements with the media...been busy lately haven't seen all the updates.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on July 05, 2011, 12:06:16 PM
Well, he might be "gone," like on vacation or somewhere. But that doesn't mean that he cannot make decisions, plus his entire executive staff is around too. The University isn't "rudderless."
OK, I get it now. Fr. Wild is away on vaca. That is part of the strategy to keep him out of comments about Cottingham or anything. Besides, he is a lame duck now, who is probably happy as can be to be away from this mess. Fr. Pilarz is also uninvolved because the Jebbie Regional Province doesn't want him involved, [Poor guy - he'll end up handling questions when he officially walks in the door) although he is presently listed on the BoT. And the U is legally hands-tied about talking, which is a good thing.
Someone above posted the listings of the Senior Staff and BoT. Whole lot of people on staff including a Public Affairs VP and Marketing Commo VP for MU. Where have they been on an issue of allegations that are larger than the Athletic Dept and affect all students. There are some Senior Staff there, but are they truly making the decisions?
As far as the school not being rudderless, what is the old line about a "camel being a horse designed by a committee." I strongly have the feeling that is what is happening. The BoT is way too large to be an effective committee. The executive committee usually runs the show, gives all the big donors and friends of the U a chance to blah, blah, and entire committee rubber-stamps what the exec committee wants.
Someone bought into or approved the stupid press conference with an Acting AD and putting the spotlight on one team in an entire athletic program by putting its coach up there. Why not all the team coaches? Why not the VP of Public Affairs? Maybe the school isn't rudderless, but its crisis management PR is
I want to put this behind. The school has done many good things for Milwaukee and beyond. They said they improved their policies and procedures, including a victim advocate... I hope there are no new revelations.
Trolls, oh wait, that is who's running the message board.
Don't feed him please.
Quote from: CoachRaymondsClass on July 05, 2011, 10:36:03 AM
On the Marquette Hoops board, I learned that Fr. Wilde is "gone." Who then is the CEO and decision-maker for MU during this PR crisis. Where is Fr. Pilarz? Who was involved in the Cottingham situation and resignation?
There is a major PR crisis at my alma mater, and the school appears rudderless. Please don't tell me the BoT. A lot of you folks who live in Milw seem to know a lot more about the admin - who is in charge now?
We desperately need some management leadership.
The sky is falling
no troll here, just an alum who is deeply discouraged by the bad publicity. Like you and most, wish it would go away. Good person has possibly been forced out by this... There may be more. Many others share concern. Some just want to hear good stuff about bb . We'll see what else falls from the sky yet and how MU responds
Quote from: CoachRaymondsClass on July 06, 2011, 08:42:27 AM
no troll here, just an alum who is deeply discouraged by the bad publicity. Like you and most, wish it would go away. Good person has possibly been forced out by this... There may be more. Many others share concern. Some just want to hear good stuff about bb . We'll see what else falls from the sky yet and how MU responds
If you would have started with this...
Quote from: CoachRaymondsClass on July 05, 2011, 08:22:06 PM
OK, I get it now. Fr. Wild is away on vaca. That is part of the strategy to keep him out of comments about Cottingham or anything. Besides, he is a lame duck now, who is probably happy as can be to be away from this mess. Fr. Pilarz is also uninvolved because the Jebbie Regional Province doesn't want him involved, [Poor guy - he'll end up handling questions when he officially walks in the door) although he is presently listed on the BoT. And the U is legally hands-tied about talking, which is a good thing.
Someone above posted the listings of the Senior Staff and BoT. Whole lot of people on staff including a Public Affairs VP and Marketing Commo VP for MU. Where have they been on an issue of allegations that are larger than the Athletic Dept and affect all students. There are some Senior Staff there, but are they truly making the decisions?
As far as the school not being rudderless, what is the old line about a "camel being a horse designed by a committee." I strongly have the feeling that is what is happening. The BoT is way too large to be an effective committee. The executive committee usually runs the show, gives all the big donors and friends of the U a chance to blah, blah, and entire committee rubber-stamps what the exec committee wants.
Someone bought into or approved the stupid press conference with an Acting AD and putting the spotlight on one team in an entire athletic program by putting its coach up there. Why not all the team coaches? Why not the VP of Public Affairs? Maybe the school isn't rudderless, but its crisis management PR is
I want to put this behind. The school has done many good things for Milwaukee and beyond. They said they improved their policies and procedures, including a victim advocate... I hope there are no new revelations.
No one would have called you a troll.
The reason MU is getting bad publicly is a bad thing happened (a women accused some athletes of sexual harassment or worse and MU public safety mishandled the incident). Their are no words or spiffy statements that will make it go away.
I understand some posters need to act worldly and sophisticated by criticizing MU for doing certain things and not doing others. But frankly, you have no idea what you're talking about and if you were running things it would be order of magnitude worse.
MU is doing the right thing, nothing. It will go away, just like the similar case at ND did (which was worse as it resulted in a suicide.) Now, if one of the accuser(s) sue or makes their name and the athletes name(s) public, then the case changes and MU will adjust.
So mark me down as one that thinks MU is doing their best to make lemonade with the lemons of this case. This thread more reflects the ignorance of the posters and not how MU is handling this case.
Like you said, MU was put in this position because some athletes screwed up. Even if it didn't rise to the level of a crime, the athletes still screwed up and did something inappropriate if they put themselves in a position for someone to make these allegations. However, I still think MU has made some mistakes in how they've handled it since then.
1) Stating that the previous policy broke the law for the past 10 years. I don't think it necessarily did, it was up to DPS to make a judgement call if they had reason to believe a crime had been committed. I think they would have been better off just saying they're working with MPD and the DA to make sure the policy is in compliance. The way they said it, now people think they've been illegally covering up athletes raping students for 10 years.
2) Including the quote from Cotttingham's letter in the press release about his resignation. I don't know what ultimately led to Cottingham leaving, but including that quote made it look like MU was throwing Cottingham under the bus for this whole thing. They should have just left that part out.
3) The Broeker/Buzz press conference. They can't say anything anyway, so why put them up there and make them refuse to answer questions? It only makes it look like they're still trying to cover something up. Also, by putting Buzz up there after he was just given a very public, and very big raise, they make it look like the decision to get rid of Cottingham while keeping Buzz is all money driven. If anyone was doing a press conference, it should have been Fr. Wild or the head of DPS to show this was a university-wide issue, not just athletics.
Quote from: Litehouse on July 06, 2011, 10:41:51 AM
Like you said, MU was put in this position because some athletes screwed up. Even if it didn't rise to the level of a crime, the athletes still screwed up and did something inappropriate if they put themselves in a position for someone to make these allegations. However, I still think MU has made some mistakes in how they've handled it since then.
1) Stating that the previous policy broke the law for the past 10 years. I don't think it necessarily did, it was up to DPS to make a judgement call if they had reason to believe a crime had been committed. I think they would have been better off just saying they're working with MPD and the DA to make sure the policy is in compliance. The way they said it, now people think they've been illegally covering up athletes raping students for 10 years.
2) Including the quote from Cotttingham's letter in the press release about his resignation. I don't know what ultimately led to Cottingham leaving, but including that quote made it look like MU was throwing Cottingham under the bus for this whole thing. They should have just left that part out.
3) The Broeker/Buzz press conference. They can't say anything anyway, so why put them up there and make them refuse to answer questions? It only makes it look like they're still trying to cover something up. Also, by putting Buzz up there after he was just given a very public, and very big raise, they make it look like the decision to get rid of Cottingham while keeping Buzz is all money driven. If anyone was doing a press conference, it should have been Fr. Wild or the head of DPS to show this was a university-wide issue, not just athletics.
Are you suggesting that if MU did what you suggest here, we view this differently? You might be correct in what you say but none of it matters, the case would be viewed exactly the same.
You cannot talk your way out of something like this and to keep analyzing words and posturing is not the problem.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on July 06, 2011, 10:47:21 AM
Are you suggesting that if MU did what you suggest here, we view this differently? You might be correct in what you say but none of it matters, the case would be viewed exactly the same.
You cannot talk your way out of something like this and to keep analyzing words and posturing is not the problem.
Actually I disagree, because if MU had followed Litehouse's item #1 this entire discussion is framed differently. Instead of MU having done something illegally for 10 years, MU simply updated their policies to be more transparent and beneficial to potential victims.
Additionally, item #3 is an example of perception is reality, now MU looks like it has something to hide all because legally they couldn't say anything.
Its all about how the situation was framed, and I think this discuss is entirely different with Litehouse's suggestions.
Marquette never gets out ahead of an issue. The issue is always framed by others, and we all know what happens then.
A competent PR executive should be able to anticipate SOME of the time (not expecting ALL the time), and place the issue in a light more favorable to MU.
We all know that DPS had been breaking the law, but it should have been framed as DPS assisting MPD, or DPS protecting MU Students, (just brainstorming. I'm NOT a competent PR executive), or whatever.
Quote from: mu03eng on July 06, 2011, 12:21:48 PM
Actually I disagree, because if MU had followed Litehouse's item #1 this entire discussion is framed differently. Instead of MU having done something illegally for 10 years, MU simply updated their policies to be more transparent and beneficial to potential victims.
So MU does #1, and they admit they broke the law. Then they pay millions in legal fees to those that feel they were wronged by this policy over the years and sue.
If this happened, you would be so proud of MU you would donate until it hurts to help offset their costs? This is what I read you to say.
Please stop assuming that a competent PR person can talk their way out of this problem. They cannot. The problem was DPS' policy and it was bound to happen. No amount of talking was going to change this. And opening the entire university to lawsuits is not going to make it better.
It's a bad situation and their is no magic way to handle it. As I said before, MU is trying to make Lemonade out of Lemons and doing about as well as they can.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on July 06, 2011, 06:53:01 PM
So MU does #1, and they admit they broke the law. Then they pay millions in legal fees to those that feel they were wronged by this policy over the years and sue.
Lets make sure we're on the same page here. Some of the newspaper stories state that MU did admit the old policy broke the law. I'm saying that was a mistake.
A mistake that they admitted they broke the law? Why? They broke the law.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on July 06, 2011, 06:53:01 PM
So MU does #1, and they admit they broke the law. Then they pay millions in legal fees to those that feel they were wronged by this policy over the years and sue.
If this happened, you would be so proud of MU you would donate until it hurts to help offset their costs? This is what I read you to say.
Please stop assuming that a competent PR person can talk their way out of this problem. They cannot. The problem was DPS' policy and it was bound to happen. No amount of talking was going to change this. And opening the entire university to lawsuits is not going to make it better.
It's a bad situation and their is no magic way to handle it. As I said before, MU is trying to make Lemonade out of Lemons and doing about as well as they can.
Well you should read it again because thats not what I'm saying at all, in fact the opposite.
Start from the standpoint that the way the law reads allows interpretation(paraphrasing and going off memory cause I can't find where someone pasted the actual law) , basically it is up to MU to determine if the event reached the sexual assault threshold.
Reality: MU came out and said it had been violating a law for the past 10 years.
My suggestion: MU come out and say it had re-evaluated there position on a law so that MU was now more transparent
MU is basically saying the same thing but one has a much more positive connotation. It doesn't eliminate the issue but it will certainly reduce the impact. You have to view the public as the customer and MU as a company delivering a product. When there is a quality issue with the product there are good and bad ways to deliver that information to the customer. In this case MU chose a bad way to deliver it. The news was always going to be bad, but there are much better ways to deliver it to reduce both the impact and longevity of the issue.
Quote from: mu03eng on July 07, 2011, 08:39:57 AM
Well you should read it again because thats not what I'm saying at all, in fact the opposite.
Start from the standpoint that the way the law reads allows interpretation(paraphrasing and going off memory cause I can't find where someone pasted the actual law) , basically it is up to MU to determine if the event reached the sexual assault threshold.
But that isn't what MU did. MU's previous policy left it completely up to the student. DPS basically never reported them.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on July 07, 2011, 08:46:47 AM
But that isn't what MU did. MU's previous policy left it completely up to the student. DPS basically never reported them.
My understanding was DPS would use their judgement in deciding what to report or not, and tell the student they have the option of going to MPD if DPS decided not to.
Some would say that's the better policy.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/125043819.html
Either way, everything always looks easier in hindsight. Of the 3 things I mentioned, #1 seemed the least damaging to me. #2 and #3 are what fanned the flames even more and lead to the 2 Mike Hunt articles that got everyone riled up.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/education/124379168.html
"Previously, officials with Marquette's public safety department left it up to the student who reported a sexual assault whether to report that assault to the Milwaukee Police Department. But that was against Wisconsin law, which mandates that a private security firm that believes a crime has been committed has to promptly notify police. Now students will be told the incident will be reported, but they have a choice of whether to talk to police."
1. MU's "change in policy" that is referrenced in the opinion piece does not impact the entire university, only DPS as it is a "private security firm." Students can still approach the University HAVEN project without it rising to a police matter.
2. The article I posted above says nothing about DPS using their judgement or not. It says that it was up to the student.