Going negative on another school (assuming it is true information) seems more mature and less negative than going negative on a kid (even if the kid jerked you around).

4 ...

Report Post

Posted by wildtigercat93

Member since Jul 2011

112363 posts

Posted on 2/9/13 at 5:12 pm to CarrolltonTiger

quote:
Going negative on another school (assuming it is true information) seems more mature and less negative than going negative on a kid (even if the kid jerked you around).

You really think the negative recruiting uses true information? Lulz

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by memphstigers23

Fenway Pahk

Member since Mar 2012

10278 posts

Posted on 2/9/13 at 5:24 pm to CarrolltonTiger

quote:
Going negative on another school (assuming it is true information) seems more mature and less negative than going negative on a kid (even if the kid jerked you around).

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by LSU GrandDad

houston, texas

Member since Jun 2009

21564 posts

Posted on 2/9/13 at 5:26 pm to CarrolltonTiger

quote:
Going negative on another school (assuming it is true information) seems more mature and less negative than going negative on a kid (even if the kid jerked you around).

you are taking this out of context. ok, dissing a kid after nsd is not that cool but the "game is over". negative recruiting is mostly bull shite. yea, florida is a higher ranked school than Lsu but that's graduate school stuff and the vast majority of these guys will be obtaining (or working toward) undergraduate degrees in pretty unchallenging disciplines and florida's point is utter bull shite. then to further the negativety by hinting "other" shite like the coach will leave, etc, etc is not that effective. i like our approach. instead of saying "the food in florida sucks", which is 100% true you should say..."the food in louisiana is the best in the country", which is also true and a positive. by the way, both can be proved.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by epbart

new york city

Member since Mar 2005

2928 posts

Posted on 2/9/13 at 5:37 pm to CarrolltonTiger

quote:
Going negative on another school (assuming it is true information) seems more mature and less negative than going negative on a kid (even if the kid jerked you around).

Depends on how it's done; and I respectfully disagree with what you're alluding to. Miles' comment on Kiel last year was hardly as slanderous as some made it out to be. Context means everything. There's a world of difference between: a) making a kid the focus, saying he has no chest and trying to shine the spotlight on him negatively, and b)saying something to the effect that maybe this kid didn't have the chest to come here, but we still have a great group of guys who have outstanding qualities and they're going to do great things. The latter, which I think was Miles' tack, is a way to say it's time to take the spotlight off of Kiel and move on. It turned out to be not the most politically astute way to say it... and allowed the media to frame more emphasis on him slandering Kiel than he intended, but whatever.

Les likes to smack talk a little; he's not quite as witty as Spurrier, but I'm fine with it. People who get worked up about it are either too sensitive or have an agenda to cut him down.

Negative recruiting, in comparison, by saying another school sucks in some way or another, or trying to plant seeds that coaches won't be there when nobody knows anything, is a different beast. And it is petty and insecure in comparison to a school that recruits by simply highlighting what it has to offer. I'm not trying to be holier than thou, and personally can't say I wouldn't resort to negative recruiting myself if I were a coach, but I do think it's nice Miles and his staff can succeed by doing it more honorably.