Effects of Negative Posts on Recruiting

[FanatiCat]

What are everyone's opinions on whether or not this will be any kind of factor in Patterson's decision to come to UK? On the one hand, yes the dance team does have a number of attractive females and one would think it would be enough to convincea young manto come here. On the other hand, more seriously, any other negative posts that cannot be controlled by UK athletics could have a big impact on his decision. If he is as intelligent as advertised I would hope that he would have the sense not to take such posts into account, but it could certainly be used against us. Patterson would be PERFECT for UK, and for some retards to screw it up on account of something like this would really be unacceptable.

[Doug Hardin]

Not much, to be concise.

I'm sure Patrick's a smart kid, and he realizes that at any of the schools on his list, he's going to be treated like a rock star and be thrust into the spotlight. A lot of that is good, and some if it is going to be negative, such as possibly having stalkers and overzealous fans harrass you. The MySpace incident might be limited to UK fans, but that doesn't mean that hewon't get similar treatment at Wake, Duke, or Florida.

But if he--or any other recruit for that matter--didn't want to be part of that culture or didn't think he would be able to handle it, he'd probably be looking elsewhere. I remember hearing about one recruit--maybe it was Josh Duncan who ended up at Xavier?--who just thought that being in the spotlight at a major program just wasn't for him, so he went to a smaller school.

But "negative posting" isn't really what's going on here with Patterson. I think that's what happened with recruits like Adam Williamsor Jared Carter where a sizable portion of the fans posted things like, "This guy sucks! We don't need to recruit him," or "I saw him play last week, and he's just going to be another wasted scholarship" and already wrote the guy off before he even got on campus. That kind of thing, I think, will have more of an impact than the occassional overzealous idiots.

[UKfaninCO]

Doug, excellent post. In truth it will only negatively impact recruiting if Patterson lets it. I think if he chooses to go somewhere else it will be because he wants to. While he may cite this incident as a reason he chose somewhere else I sincerely doubt it would actually have any bearing on his decision. (I would be flattered if it happened to me, anyway. :lol:)

[audacious1]

Doug Hardin wrote: But "negative posting" isn't really what's going on here with Patterson. I think that's what happened with recruits like Adam Williamsor Jared Carter where a sizable portion of the fans posted things like, "This guy sucks! We don't need to recruit him," or "I saw him play last week, and he's just going to be another wasted scholarship" and already wrote the guy off before he even got on campus. That kind of thing, I think, will have more of an impact than the occassional overzealous idiots.

Doug I agree completely! I hope all the WCN readers see this and take it to heart.

But also we have to remember that if the NCAA decides to make an example of someone in today's Internet age, they've targeted Kentucky in the past and it wouldn't surprise me one bit to hear they hand down official penalties for those who did post that stuff on Patterson's MySpace page.

[blueheretic]

Tre Pryor wrote: Doug Hardin wrote: But "negative posting" isn't really what's going on here with Patterson. I think that's what happened with recruits like Adam Williamsor Jared Carter where a sizable portion of the fans posted things like, "This guy sucks! We don't need to recruit him," or "I saw him play last week, and he's just going to be another wasted scholarship" and already wrote the guy off before he even got on campus. That kind of thing, I think, will have more of an impact than the occassional overzealous idiots.

Doug I agree completely! I hope all the WCN readers see this and take it to heart.

But also we have to remember that if the NCAA decides to make an example of someone in today's Internet age, they've targeted Kentucky in the past and it wouldn't surprise me one bit to hear they hand down official penalties for those who did post that stuff on Patterson's MySpace page.




Here is what I think is humourous.

You guys are spending all of this time discussing the affects of "negative posting/posters." You are very much willing to expend all of this energy on this subject.

Yet, you will not join in a simple post just to say GO CATS!!!


You are not part of the solution. You have become part of the problem.

You are highlighting the problems and magnifying them for all the world to see.

Why not ignore the negative posts and create more positive posts?

You guys crack me up with this overwrought mother hen-ish worrying about negativity when you could solve it by ignoring neg posts and letting them drop and filling the board with positive energy.

But I guess positivity is not as fun or as interesting as complaining about the complainers.

Edit: do not call out individual posters when they are not involved in a thread

How about trying to create a positive atmosphere? How about setting a positive example for others to emulate? All I see and read is you guys complaining about thepeople who are complaining about Tubby.

Now we have this.

I'm complaining about the people complaining about the people complaining.....lol

When it could all be solved by just letting the complaints go.

But some people are so sensitive about Tubby Smith that they can't let the slightest complaint slide.

Why is that?

Like I said. There are some people who I never see post except to make some sly comment about the "legion of doom" or some such thing as that. How are they any better.


I was actually set on making a post that was in agreement with the positive thread until I read his post. It turned me off. So instead I just closed the thread and moved on.

[blueheretic]

Doug Hardin wrote: But "negative posting" isn't really what's going on here with Patterson. I think that's what happened with recruits like Adam Williamsor Jared Carter where a sizable portion of the fans posted things like, "This guy sucks! We don't need to recruit him," or "I saw him play last week, and he's just going to be another wasted scholarship" and already wrote the guy off before he even got on campus. That kind of thing, I think, will have more of an impact than the occassional overzealous idiots.



Is it negative to speak the truth?

They could have been more tactful. But Adam Williams was not equal to the task of playing for UK. The energy expended on Adam Williams would have better served UK elsewhere. In this instance, the fans who posted negatively in regards to the recruitment of Adam Williams proved to be correct. Why did it take a year at UK for Tubby Smith to come to this conclusion?

The same can not be said of Jared Carter. He may prove to be a valuable and serviceable Center over the course of the next two years.

Patterson is in an entirely different category. From all I have read, this guy will come in and start his Frosh year and will probably be gone after his Soph year and will contribute plenty. He's almost a guaranteed superstar. There are no negatives to the Patterson recruitment.

The negatives involved in the Patterson recruitment are the UK fans who are not satisfied with Tubby's efforts to date. The expectations that the fans have of UK Basketball are seen as a negative here.

Those same expectations are part of what keeps UK on top. UK fans and I dare say the UKAA are not satisfied with 27 wins and the Elite 8.

We have an extremely dynamic fanbase which travels well and religiously attends UK Basketball functions and they very much want even expect Final Fours and Championships in return for their dynamism and loyalty.

It's a double edged sword.

Tubby's challenge is to swing that back to a positive. His challenge is to use this as a recruiting tool. Rather than a wound in our side. It's all about marketing. Thus far, the UKAA under Tubby has failed this test.

Is it negative to state that?

I remember when the UKFanbase was admired as a vocal and loyal group. The UK fanbase wasopenly credited with helping the UK Football Team to the Outback Bowl because the sponsorsknewthat Kentucky Fans travel well and wide.

Seems UKAA liked it's fan base then...now suddenly, we are a liability.

Interesting.

Same fanbase. Same people. Same ideas and expectations. Something changed. It wasn't the fanbase.

[HOMEYCAT]

GO BIG BLUE!!!!

[blueheretic]

HOMEYCAT wrote: GO BIG BLUE!!!!
YEAH!!!

[Lost Highway]

Ihave a hard time accepting the premise that negative posts on a message board effect anything.

Some of us UK fans are in a vacuum. We see only blue and are sensitive. We need to get out into the real world and see what other programs are saying to each other. Every prominent team has fans who are opinionated. These message boards are only opinions and if Joe Recruit has any intelligence he realizes the source of the comment and the reason for the comment. Ihave a feeling today's Joe Recruit is sophisticated enough to see through that.

In my opinion if a player likes the school and coaching staff, what an anonymous person says on a message board would have little to do with their final decision. Surely the players being recruited are smarter than to fall for some anonymous comment that may or may not be from a fan of the school. Surely they have more sense than that.

[blueheretic]

Who you callin' Shirley??? :lol:

[kipper265]

http://videodetective.com/photos/815/034245_7.jpg

I am serious.....and don't call me Shirley.

[audacious1]

blueheretic wrote: Tre Pryor wrote: Doug Hardin wrote: But "negative posting" isn't really what's going on here with Patterson. I think that's what happened with recruits like Adam Williamsor Jared Carter where a sizable portion of the fans posted things like, "This guy sucks! We don't need to recruit him," or "I saw him play last week, and he's just going to be another wasted scholarship" and already wrote the guy off before he even got on campus. That kind of thing, I think, will have more of an impact than the occassional overzealous idiots.

Doug I agree completely! I hope all the WCN readers see this and take it to heart.

But also we have to remember that if the NCAA decides to make an example of someone in today's Internet age, they've targeted Kentucky in the past and it wouldn't surprise me one bit to hear they hand down official penalties for those who did post that stuff on Patterson's MySpace page.




Here is what I think is humourous.

You guys are spending all of this time discussing the affects of "negative posting/posters." You are very much willing to expend all of this energy on this subject.

Yet, you will not join in a simple post just to say GO CATS!!!


You are not part of the solution. You have become part of the problem.

You are highlighting the problems and magnifying them for all the world to see.

Why not ignore the negative posts and create more positive posts?

You guys crack me up with this overwrought mother hen-ish worrying about negativity when you could solve it by ignoring neg posts and letting them drop and filling the board with positive energy.

But I guess positivity is not as fun or as interesting as complaining about the complainers.

Edit: do not call out individual posters when they are not involved in a thread

How about trying to create a positive atmosphere? How about setting a positive example for others to emulate? All I see and read is you guys complaining about thepeople who are complaining about Tubby.

Now we have this.

I'm complaining about the people complaining about the people complaining.....lol

When it could all be solved by just letting the complaints go.

But some people are so sensitive about Tubby Smith that they can't let the slightest complaint slide.

Why is that?

Like I said. There are some people who I never see post except to make some sly comment about the "legion of doom" or some such thing as that. How are they any better.


I was actually set on making a post that was in agreement with the positive thread until I read his post. It turned me off. So instead I just closed the thread and moved on.


Since you quoted me, I'll respond. I did post on your thread. Go look and you'll see:

"Posted: Sat Jul 22nd, 2006 09:24 am"

Then you come here and cry about people not posting. I don't get you. But I do agree with your point about being "postive." That is where we should be.

[blueheretic]

Tre Pryor wrote: blueheretic wrote: Tre Pryor wrote: Doug Hardin wrote: But "negative posting" isn't really what's going on here with Patterson. I think that's what happened with recruits like Adam Williamsor Jared Carter where a sizable portion of the fans posted things like, "This guy sucks! We don't need to recruit him," or "I saw him play last week, and he's just going to be another wasted scholarship" and already wrote the guy off before he even got on campus. That kind of thing, I think, will have more of an impact than the occassional overzealous idiots.

Doug I agree completely! I hope all the WCN readers see this and take it to heart.

But also we have to remember that if the NCAA decides to make an example of someone in today's Internet age, they've targeted Kentucky in the past and it wouldn't surprise me one bit to hear they hand down official penalties for those who did post that stuff on Patterson's MySpace page.




Here is what I think is humourous.

You guys are spending all of this time discussing the affects of "negative posting/posters." You are very much willing to expend all of this energy on this subject.

Yet, you will not join in a simple post just to say GO CATS!!!


You are not part of the solution. You have become part of the problem.

You are highlighting the problems and magnifying them for all the world to see.

Why not ignore the negative posts and create more positive posts?

You guys crack me up with this overwrought mother hen-ish worrying about negativity when you could solve it by ignoring neg posts and letting them drop and filling the board with positive energy.

But I guess positivity is not as fun or as interesting as complaining about the complainers.

Edit: do not call out individual posters when they are not involved in a thread

How about trying to create a positive atmosphere? How about setting a positive example for others to emulate? All I see and read is you guys complaining about thepeople who are complaining about Tubby.

Now we have this.

I'm complaining about the people complaining about the people complaining.....lol

When it could all be solved by just letting the complaints go.

But some people are so sensitive about Tubby Smith that they can't let the slightest complaint slide.

Why is that?

Like I said. There are some people who I never see post except to make some sly comment about the "legion of doom" or some such thing as that. How are they any better.


I was actually set on making a post that was in agreement with the positive thread until I read his post. It turned me off. So instead I just closed the thread and moved on.


Since you quoted me, I'll respond. I did post on your thread. Go look and you'll see:

"Posted: Sat Jul 22nd, 2006 09:24 am"

Then you come here and cry about people not posting. I don't get you. But I do agree with your point about being "postive." That is where we should be.






Apparently the discussion is over. If one does not agree with you, they are crying. OK, I finally understand where you are coming from.

If you agree about being positive, then why not add to the positivity instead of dragging the board down further with negative posts about the negativity.

What's that old saying about two "wrongs" not making a "right?" It fits just as well here.

But that doesn't suit the agenda, I suppose.

I'm sorry. I'll stop complaining now. ;)

[audacious1]

blueheretic wrote: Tre Pryor wrote: blueheretic wrote: Tre Pryor wrote: Doug Hardin wrote: But "negative posting" isn't really what's going on here with Patterson. I think that's what happened with recruits like Adam Williamsor Jared Carter where a sizable portion of the fans posted things like, "This guy sucks! We don't need to recruit him," or "I saw him play last week, and he's just going to be another wasted scholarship" and already wrote the guy off before he even got on campus. That kind of thing, I think, will have more of an impact than the occassional overzealous idiots.

Doug I agree completely! I hope all the WCN readers see this and take it to heart.

But also we have to remember that if the NCAA decides to make an example of someone in today's Internet age, they've targeted Kentucky in the past and it wouldn't surprise me one bit to hear they hand down official penalties for those who did post that stuff on Patterson's MySpace page.




Here is what I think is humourous.

You guys are spending all of this time discussing the affects of "negative posting/posters." You are very much willing to expend all of this energy on this subject.

Yet, you will not join in a simple post just to say GO CATS!!!


You are not part of the solution. You have become part of the problem.

You are highlighting the problems and magnifying them for all the world to see.

Why not ignore the negative posts and create more positive posts?

You guys crack me up with this overwrought mother hen-ish worrying about negativity when you could solve it by ignoring neg posts and letting them drop and filling the board with positive energy.

But I guess positivity is not as fun or as interesting as complaining about the complainers.

Edit: do not call out individual posters when they are not involved in a thread

How about trying to create a positive atmosphere? How about setting a positive example for others to emulate? All I see and read is you guys complaining about thepeople who are complaining about Tubby.

Now we have this.

I'm complaining about the people complaining about the people complaining.....lol

When it could all be solved by just letting the complaints go.

But some people are so sensitive about Tubby Smith that they can't let the slightest complaint slide.

Why is that?

Like I said. There are some people who I never see post except to make some sly comment about the "legion of doom" or some such thing as that. How are they any better.


I was actually set on making a post that was in agreement with the positive thread until I read his post. It turned me off. So instead I just closed the thread and moved on.


Since you quoted me, I'll respond. I did post on your thread. Go look and you'll see:

"Posted: Sat Jul 22nd, 2006 09:24 am"

Then you come here and cry about people not posting. I don't get you. But I do agree with your point about being "postive." That is where we should be.






Apparently the discussion is over. If one does not agree with you, they are crying. OK, I finally understand where you are coming from.

If you agree about being positive, then why not add to the positivity instead of dragging the board down further with negative posts about the negativity.

What's that old saying about two "wrongs" not making a "right?" It fits just as well here.

But that doesn't suit the agenda, I suppose.

I'm sorry. I'll stop complaining now. ;)

You're either not looking at the right thread or are refusing to be honest, one of the two. I did post to the positive thread, so look and see. I need to resume mypractice of skipping over your posts.

[TrueblueCATfan]

Patterson will chose the school that is BEST for him.....Good LUCK to him

[blueheretic]

Tre Pryor wrote: You're either not looking at the right thread or are refusing to be honest, one of the two. I did post to the positive thread, so look and see. I need to resume mypractice of skipping over your posts.

You missed the point again.

It's not a question of whether you posted to the thread that I started.

The question is whether your constant wrangling with those who do not share your opinions on Tubby is a positive or a negative. You, by virtue of your constant attack, give air to the negativity that you wish would go away. You invite it to be posted.

How is that a positive?

Explain that...or just jump over that inconvenient fact and my post.

[audacious1]

blueheretic wrote: Tre Pryor wrote: You're either not looking at the right thread or are refusing to be honest, one of the two. I did post to the positive thread, so look and see. I need to resume mypractice of skipping over your posts.

You missed the point again.

It's not a question of whether you posted to the thread that I started.

The question is whether your constant wrangling with those who do not share your opinions on Tubby is a positive or a negative. You, by virtue of your constant attack, give air to the negativity that you wish would go away. You invite it to be posted.

How is that a positive?

Explain that...or just jump over that inconvenient fact and my post.

If anyone on this board is an agitator it's you. Talk about constantly being negative. I did post on your "positive post" then you said I didn't. It's really that simple.

Now I'll resume ignoring your one-sided posts.

[blueheretic]

If it was a snake, it would have bit you and it'd be about to strike again. :shock: