Zaide Didn’t Travel With Team

[Billy Hoyle]

ND? WF? GT? Not sure if any of those guys get fired, but none are doing great.

Shrewsbury is only in his third year at ND with a contract paying $4 million/year through 2030. Does ND care enough about basketball to eat that contract and pay Shaka more?

Stoudamire is only in his third year at GT and is currently 9-4, though with a new AD, he could feel some heat.

Forbes at Wake, maybe? 9-4, with two one-point losses to Michigan and Texas Tech. He got a "long-term" extension after 2022 (reportedly, through 2030). But this is his sixth year with no tourney appearances despite multiple 20 win seasons. But, at nine wins Wake is almost certain to have more wins on the season than MU. How would the Wake AD justify bringing in Shaka with fewer wins in 2025-26?

[SOSW]

He'll do the Bennett/Wright thing of stepping down (which will be taken less seriously because he doesn't have a natty like they do).

He'll do TV for 2-3 years then come back when there's a salary cap or you can sign these guys to actual multi-year contracts.

How do you expect there to be a salary cap in 2-3 years?

[wadesworld]

Never seen someone be so confidently wrong as often as wades. Acknowledging "an altercation" period is dumb as hell from an MU socials standpoint. Responding to a troll account is dumb as hell and simply gives credence to the troll.

The fact that literally everyone outside of the usual 5 of you agrees is telling.

Learn how to read.  The only information about "the altercation" that was presented in the original Tweet was that Zaide was released from Marquette because an altercation happened.  Marquette basketball then Tweets out that the information about "the altercation" is incorrect, when the only information was that "an altercation" happened.  So the only possible conclusion would be that Marquette is saying an altercation happening was inaccurate.  It's not hard to read.  You and a couple other babies just want to tell everyone how awful Marquette is at everything.

Can't wait to hear your temper tantrum when TJ Otzelberger isn't our coach next year.

[dpucane]

How do you expect there to be a salary cap in 2-3 years?

Not sure what actual changes will be made I'm just speculating. But there has to be changes this is getting too silly.

[rocky_warrior]

So the only possible conclusion would be that Marquette is saying an altercation happening was inaccurate.  It's not hard to read.

You're really double and tripling down on this.  I don't really care, but (and this will be a complete shock to you), it could certainly (and more likely) read that an altercation happened, but the details are "inaccurate".

It could absolutely mean "There was no altercation", but that is definitely NOT what it says.

[MUBurrow]

Well ... the MU media / comms / pr team is clueless and incompetent. Is Broeker awake ?  On vacation?

I don't have big feelings about this, but being asleep or on vacation would have been the correct play.  Not sure who's thumbs are on the official MU twitter account at 9:45 pm responding to unverified accounts on a Sunday night over Christmas break, but just like - don't.

[wadesworld]

You're really double and tripling down on this.  I don't really care, but (and this will be a complete shock to you), it could certainly (and more likely) read that an altercation happened, but the details are "inaccurate".

It could absolutely mean "There was no altercation", but that is definitely NOT what it says.

But THERE WERE NO DETAILS ABOUT THE ALTERCATION PROVIDED!  So how could the details be inaccurate, when there were zero details provided about the altercation.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

Not surprised you don't get this but responding to a troll at all (MUBB hashtags included), and editing it to acknowledge "an altercation" happened, is only making matters worse for Marquette.

You released a statement, that's it. Now you're giving oxygen to a known troll and doing it clumsily?? A complete joke.

You and others are the ones that don't get it.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

They literally amplified it through their response.

Just say nothing. PR 101.

That is not PR 101.

[WhiteTrash]

That is not PR 101.

Well then MU needs to take PR 102.

[Jay Bee]

But THERE WERE NO DETAILS ABOUT THE ALTERCATION PROVIDED!  So how could the details be inaccurate, when there were zero details provided about the altercation.

Yes, there were details.

[rocky_warrior]

But THERE WERE NO DETAILS ABOUT THE ALTERCATION PROVIDED!  So how could the details be inaccurate, when there were zero details provided about the altercation.

Maybe you haven't read the original tweet?

following an altercation with assistant coach Cody Hatt. #mubb

Personally, I think this Bill guy was throwing random crap out, and that crap landed too close to the truth.

In other news, the best reply to MU's response came from a UConn  fan: "Someone is going to have to read this to Tyler Kolek"

[Zog from Margo]

Can't wait to hear your temper tantrum when TJ Otzelberger isn't our coach next year.

Otzelberger to MU is a pipe dream, and that pipe has some pretty good stuff in it.

[wadesworld]

Otzelberger to MU is a pipe dream, and that pipe has some pretty good stuff in it.

No kidding.

[SOSW]

That is not PR 101.

Yes it is. You don't respond to a Twitter troll. You let your initial statement stand on its own. By this morning, no one would have cared a bit what "Whitesoxbill" said. Yet today the response is being mentioned on social media, the Field of 68 newsletter etc. 

It was managed completely wrong.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

Well then MU needs to take PR 102.

I'm in marketing and often work closely with PR.  I have a friend in PR who I've posed this scenario to. 

Ignoring trolls when they have not created any traction on a topic is one thing. 

However, when something inaccurate starts to spread on social media, especially when there is an allegation of a physical altercation, ignoring it is NOT "PR 101" like so many "experts" here seem to believe. 

Controlling the narrative and immediately squashing the rumor is the right approach.  I'll acknowledge Marquette's wording of it's response could have and should have been better. 

[Vander Blue Man Group]

Yes it is. You don't respond to a Twitter troll. You let your initial statement stand on its own. By this morning, no one would have cared a bit what "Whitesoxbill" said. Yet today the response is being mentioned on social media, the Field of 68 newsletter etc. 

It was managed completely wrong.

Wrong.

[SOSW]

Wrong.

I guess we found Broeker's burner.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

I guess we found Broeker's burner.

Nice work - very lazy and stupid.  At least you're consistent. 

[cheebs09]

How much traction did it actually gain? Outside of the perpetually online (myself being firmly in there), I don't think it really was making its way midstream. Those of us that know the whitesoxbill account already know it's not reliable.

Just have Paint Touches or Ben Steele cite sources close to the program say that the altercation was false and then even those online move on.

[SOSW]

How much traction did it actually gain? Outside of the perpetually online (myself being firmly in there), I don't think it really was making its way midstream. Those of us that know the whitesoxbill account already know it's not reliable.

Just have Paint Touches or Ben Steele cite sources close to the program say that the altercation was false and then even those online move on.

Bingo.

[tower912]

It is going to be funny as hell if Shaka uses the available scholarship on a high schooler.

[cheebs09]

It is going to be funny as hell if Shaka uses the available scholarship on a high schooler.

I am very worried we use that on a late high school lottery ticket.

[Pakuni]

You're really double and tripling down on this.  I don't really care, but (and this will be a complete shock to you), it could certainly (and more likely) read that an altercation happened, but the details are "inaccurate".

It could absolutely mean "There was no altercation", but that is definitely NOT what it says.

It was poorly worded, but a more generous - and accurate, IMO - reading would be:

1. Rumor of an altercation gains steam on X and elsewhere (including here).
2. Social media manager hopes to get out in front of it and too pithily replies "Inaccurate" to one of the X accounts spreading the rumor
3. Social media manager sees people here and elsewhere questioning what's inaccurate.
4. Social media manager updates the original reply to say the altercation part is inaccurate.

[panda]

It is going to be funny as hell if Shaka uses the available scholarship on a high schooler.

More losing will sure be hilarious