First off, a good read via the Spokesman on the overall excitement level with coach Wulff for this year's class.  Most of you have probably read it by now, but it is a good look not only at the upcoming signees, but it also touches on a number of things, such as recruiting rankings, the types of kids Wulff and company are after, etc.  When asked about said recruiting rankings, Wulff didn't hide his, uh, thoughts on the subject:

“It’s really obvious kids rankings jump tremendously when they commit to a certain school,” he said. “And some kids don’t change when they commit to other schools. It’s kind of funny.

“It’s so false and unreliable. Unfortunately, people look at these rankings and put credence into them.”

What do coaches put credence in? The players’ build, athletic ability, academic record, character and numerous other criteria. What Wulff is looking for are players who fit his program.

“I want kids who are coming for a purpose, a mission and goal they are striving for,” he said.

Got it. 

The thing is, the recruiting rankings are a bit of a stretch, but are they really all that wrong?  I mean you look at the top 10 classes or so every year, and you see a lot of the same names - USC, Texas, Florida - over, and over, and over again.  It's probably not a coincidence that, you know, the top recruits in the country go to those powerhouses, and those types of schools stay on top?  But I think the reality is that BEYOND the top 10 or so, it really is a crap-shoot.  Which is pretty much what ESPN's Tom Luginbill said in an article on BusterSports.com over the weekend, as referenced by Grippi in the Spokesman article:

Buster: Washington State is rated No. 35 by one prominent recruiting site, and No. 84 by another. How is it possible to be that far off?

Luginbill: Because recruiting rankings aren't easy nor are they overly accurate. Things look good on paper, but the reality is you never know how good a class is going to be until about two or three years down the road. Team rankings for the most part are fan driven in the sense that fans like to hear their team is doing well.

In my opinion, going outside of say a top 10 or 15 is nothing more than a crapshoot. Especially when you are getting into the 30s, 50s or even 80s. Personally I think it is ludicrous that anyone would have actual published rankings in the 80s. All it does is make you look less credible.

It's a great point.  The idea that one class is #35 in one service, yet now #85 in another, is pretty crazy when you think about it.  It doesn't matter the name of the school or whatever, I mean it could be Oregon State or ASU instead of WSU and it would still be hard to pin down as to the exact reasons as to why.  How can it possibly be that far off? 

Here's a few comparisons on some key players in WSU's class that might, at least a little bit, explain the differences:

Asante Cleveland (yes, STILL a WSU commit for now): 
Scout.com - 3-star tight end, rated the #15 tight end in the country.
Rivals.com - 2-star tight end, actually rated one of the lower commits in the WSU class.

Kalafitoni Pole
Scout.com - 3-star defensive tackle, #85 in the country.
Rivals.com - 2-star defensive end, rated towards the bottom of the WSU class.

Aaron Dunn
Scout.com - 4-star tight end, #9 in the country, the only 4-star player in the entire WSU class.
Rivals.com - 3-star tight end, rated the third-best player in the WSU class.

So, there are some wild swings between both services.  But it isn't just WSU where this is happening.  Right now, UW is on pace to "win" the Scout.com Pac-10 recruiting title for this year's class, rated #8 in the country.  But look at Rivals.com?  UW is rated #32 in the country, and just 6th in the Pac-10.  Weird.

Luginbill's right though.  You don't really know what you have until two to three years down the line.  And look at where WSU has hit rock-bottom the last two years, and then look back to the recruiting classes from 2005 and 2006, classes that would composed the upper-classmen of those teams?  It makes sense for the struggles when you see the attrition from that time period! 

Moving on, turns out that recruiting news regarding Bellevue defensive tackle Julious Moore might have jumped the gun just a little bit??  Remember, late last week Realdawg.com reported that Moore was going to visit WSU after being notified that he would have to grayshirt if he wanted to still attend UCLA.  However, word now from Cougfan's message boards is that Julious Moore did NOT visit WSU over the weekend, and there is nothing new to report.  I guess we'll find out on Wednesday what's up with young Julious.

You probably heard already, but Phase III is now a no-go for 2011, and the target date has been reset for the opening of the 2012 season.  And it doesn't appear that we were all that close either.  80% of the money was needed to break ground, but we came in around 50% per the report.  I guess it isn't a surprise, and I think a lot of people heard that we had a ton of ground to make up to make this thing a reality.  Still, 2012 isn't that big of a deal.  And at least the last crop of frosh who we saw so much of in 2009 will be seniors in '12, so they'll have a chance to play in the renovated stadium after all. 

That's it for now.  Enjoy your Monday, and GO COUGS!