Partridge on recruiting
Here's a pretty good Baumgardner piece about Chris Partridge and recruiting if you haven't seen it already. I love what he has to say about the mentor role of being a coach. Also says of negative recruiting that "it turns into more of a negative for them than for us," as other coaches talk about Harbaugh instead of building a positive relationship.
I don't understand negative recruiting and how that sells you on a recruit. It seems like recruits and parents would know that the coach telling you this is obviously biased and discredit it.
Unfortunately. Just watch political ads. If those ads didn't work they would have stopped using them generations ago. But it is a mark of those looking to take the easy route.
One should be clear on what "negative" recruiting is. Pointing out facts (such as Coach X is under NCAA investigation or school Y is on probation) can dissuade a recruit from a program, but is it negative?
its a subjective question, so here's my opinion:
i would say that trying to shine a negative light on other schools would be negative recruiting.
Sell your school on the positives of your school...
Pointing out investigations, although true, are negative imo... kids and families are making the one of the biggest decisions in their lives: i would imagine that they know all about investigations, past investigations and potential investigations by the NCAA...
for some, that makes a difference, and for others *cough*OleMiss*cough* it doesn't matter one lick...
obviously, innuendo and flat out lies are the worst of negative recruiting.
Partridge says that he deals a lot with recruits and families saying that "Coach X tells us that Harbaugh is leaving for the NFL soon," so his experience with negative recruiting is clearly based on rumour.
Will know negative recruiting for what it is.
and we know who the final three were. She said as much, "the other schools wanted to tell us what was wrong with the other schools we were considering. Michigan simply spoke about what they had to offer, didn't insult the other schools and I liked that approach much better; They were very confident they had the most to offer." One example, but we all know his choice.
apparently Clemson also offered Rashan's uncle a job or help with buying a house and he still chose Michigan. Negative recruiting works to a certain extent, but I think all the extra under the table benefits other schools offer (esp. SEC) are probably harder to overcome for clean programs than negative recruiting.
"But, honestly, that helps us more than it hurts us. They're talking about (Harbaugh) instead of their school. Why aren't they focusing on themselves instead of being scared of who we are? And 17-year-olds kind of take to that.
Now that's a perspective on negative recruiting that you don't hear often enough - why aren't those schools advertising themselves rather than trying to hurt Michigan? That's actually a really good way to throw it back at those who would do it.
Negative selling of just about anything is not likely to work.
Not that negative recruiting never works, but when one school uses it and another doesn't it usually makes the first school look weak.
It's the concept of "punching up" versus "punching down." A school with less to offer might try to punch up to appear to be on the same level as UM, but when UM doesn't punch down it keeps them above the fray. We are confident to stand on our own merits, and for good reason.