Publish date:

What is the objective of negative recruiting?

Steve Spurrier has never been one to mince words, so when he was asked about a Big Ten program using negative recruiting to try and sway a player that ended up signing with South Carolina, he let it fly.

“We don’t run into much of any negative recruiting around here as SEC coaches. We were involved with a player who was being recruited by a Big Ten school. They got negative a little bit with, ‘There’s a lot of crime in Columbia, the big city. They don’t graduate their players,’ which was completely untrue."

"They searched for a little bit of everything, but the player came with us anyways.” Spurrier added in an Atlanta Journal Constitution piece.

Now negative recruiting definitely isn't a new, or foreign concept to any program that hits the pavement hard during recruiting season, but I can't help but wonder what the advantage is for coaches or programs that actually use this as a tactic on a regular basis.

The bottom line is that #1 you ultimately want kids to go to your school because they want to be there, not because they don't want to be (or are afraid of being) somewhere else, and #2, you should know your school and football program well enough to sell the positives of the campus community, football program, facilities, etc. instead of bashing another program.

As coaches and role models who are supposed to reflect the lessons that we teach our players, what kind of message does it send when you use negative recruiting, and the player ends up coming to your school? How does that coach - player relationship work moving forward? I just don't see any advantages for it at all.

In the crazy world of college coaching nobody has job security, so when that same coach who used negative recruiting tactics against conference and area schools, is looking for a job in a few years, what are the chances he gets hired?

Seems like a childish way to go about a grown man's profession in my opinion.