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: