LSU AD says where Brian Kelly went wrong: 'Yeah, I’m saying it' | Exclusive
USA Today
Overall Assessment
The article centers on LSU AD Verge Ausberry’s critique of Brian Kelly’s tenure, emphasizing a lack of connection with fans and donors. It promotes Lane Kiffin as a high-profile, media-savvy replacement who will revive engagement and visibility. The framing favors Ausberry’s perspective with minimal balance or contextual depth, leaning into drama and program revival narrative.
"That’s when nobody gives a s***"
Editorializing
Headline & Lead 55/100
Headline and lead emphasize controversy and criticism of Kelly without balancing context or neutral framing.
✕ Sensationalism: Headline uses provocative quote and implies controversy without clarifying it's the AD's opinion, creating a sensational hook.
"LSU AD says where Brian Kelly went wrong: 'Yeah, I’m saying it' | Exclusive"
✕ Framing By Emphasis: Lead paragraph frames the story around a dramatic shift in philosophy and criticizes Kelly without presenting his side, prioritizing conflict over balanced setup.
"LSU football suffered from “no connection” under Brian Kelly, and now the program is pivoting back toward “the Saban model.”"
Language & Tone 40/100
Tone is highly subjective, favoring dramatic, emotionally charged language and one-sided commentary.
✕ Loaded Language: Uses emotionally charged language like 'get your ass beat' and 'hollowed out' to evoke disdain for Kelly era.
"when you’re getting your ass beat by A&M by 40"
✕ Narrative Framing: Describes Kiffin’s reception as 'villainous exit' and 'hero's welcome', framing the story as a morality play.
"A villainous exit in Oxford. A hero's welcome in Baton Rouge."
✕ Editorializing: Editorializing tone in Ausberry’s quotes, e.g., 'nobody gives a s***', injected without critique.
"That’s when nobody gives a s***"
Balance 45/100
Heavily reliant on one source (Ausberry), with minimal effort to include opposing or neutral perspectives.
✕ Omission: Relies solely on AD Ausberry’s perspective to critique Kelly; no quotes or views from Kelly, his staff, players, or neutral analysts.
"There was no feel, there was no connection..."
✕ Selective Coverage: Quotes Ausberry extensively, giving one-sided narrative without counterbalance, though he is a primary stakeholder.
"That’s who we had. That’s why we got what we got."
✕ Vague Attribution: Includes a brief, non-substantive quote from Kelly about Kiffin’s potential success, but not about his own tenure.
"I think so."
Completeness 60/100
Offers some historical and program context but omits deeper analysis of Kelly’s performance and broader challenges.
✕ Cherry Picking: Article omits Kelly's record (71% win rate) until late, downplaying a key fact that complicates the 'failure' narrative.
"Kelly won 71% of his games at LSU, but he never made the playoff."
✕ Omission: Provides useful context on Saban’s legacy and Kiffin’s past, but fails to explore broader structural issues (e.g., recruiting, injuries) that may have affected Kelly’s tenure.
✕ Appeal To Emotion: Mentions fan exodus after Texas A&M loss but doesn't contextualize whether this is typical for losing programs or unique to Kelly.
"By the fourth quarter of Kelly’s final game at Tiger Stadium, the stands had hollowed out..."
framing Lane Kiffin as an ally who restores connection and engagement
[narrative_framing], [editorializing]: constructs Kiffin as a heroic figure who re-engages fans, donors, and former players
"He’s not one who’ll say, ‘OK, I don’t want people to contact me. I don’t want people to touch me. I don’t want people to be around me.’"
framing lack of fan and alumni connection as exclusionary failure
[loaded_language], [narr游戏副本ing], [omission]: emotionally charged language and one-sided narrative emphasize disconnection under Kelly, portraying fans and former players as excluded
"There was no feel, there was no connection between the LSU football program, the coach, and the fans."
framing media attention and headlines as beneficial for program vitality
[narrative_framing], [editorializing]: embraces controversy and publicity as positive forces, equating visibility with success
"Every day you talk about us, guess what, that’s good for LSU. If they’re not talking about you, guess what? That’s when you’ve got problems."
framing Brian Kelly's tenure as mismanagement due to disengagement
[framing_by_emphasis], [cherry_picking]: focuses on ceremonial and relational failures over on-field performance, downplaying 71% win rate
"That’s who we had. That’s why we got what we got. There was no feel, there was no connection..."
framing the Kelly era as a crisis of apathy and disengagement
[loaded_language], [appeal_to_emotion]: uses visceral imagery of empty stands and fan exodus to depict a program in collapse
"By the fourth quarter of Kelly’s final game at Tiger Stadium, the stands had hollowed out, and Aggie maroon was notable among the fans who remained."
The article centers on LSU AD Verge Ausberry’s critique of Brian Kelly’s tenure, emphasizing a lack of connection with fans and donors. It promotes Lane Kiffin as a high-profile, media-savvy replacement who will revive engagement and visibility. The framing favors Ausberry’s perspective with minimal balance or contextual depth, leaning into drama and program revival narrative.
LSU athletic director Verge Ausberry describes a strategic shift toward greater engagement with alumni, donors, and former players under new coach Lane Kiffin, citing a desire to restore connections that were lacking during Brian Kelly’s tenure. Kelly, who posted a 71% win rate but no playoff appearances, was criticized by Ausberry for limited interaction with the fanbase and program stakeholders.
USA Today — Sport - American Football
Based on the last 60 days of articles
USA Today
No related content