Here's a quick update on LSU’s Coach Mulkey and her attempt to front run the Washington Post. If you missed my piece from over the weekend, it’s currently running on the main page of The Repute.

48 hours after the Post’s piece went live, there’s been a notable split in sentiment based on three dynamics:

1) The Tigers secured a win in their Sweet 16 game on Saturday and are gearing up to face Caitlin Clark’s Iowa Hawkeyes tonight in the Elite 8. About 40% of the articles we looked at focused on these on-court achievements. This coverage was largely positive, with only occasional nods to the controversy stirred up by the Washington Post.

2) Another 40% of media attention heaped onto the Washington Post article itself, casting a predominantly negative shadow — though some local Louisiana publications did come to Mulkey’s defense.

3) An intriguing 13% of the conversation shifted to Mulkey’s direct challenge to an LA Times piece. Her label of the article as “sexist” prompted an early Sunday update, as it ‘failed to align with the Times’ editorial standards’. This maneuver appeared to score better than her preemptive move against the Post, with most resulting articles leaning "slightly positive." Recall, I discussed the art of such strategic counterpunches recently.

Here’s what I’m thinking based on these latest numbers: Had Coach Mulkey refrained from attempting to front-run the Post, it’s likely that the more favorable views of her team’s on-court performance and her successful jab at the LA Times would have dominated the headlines. Instead, the persistent chatter about the Washington Post’s narrative has magnified the negatives.

Bottom line, the data still doesn’t convince me that the front run was the right play.

How do you see it?