The Seattle Times published a Google Map of the geographic location of all the WSU and UW commitments. One look at that map and its obvious to see how the strategies and networking connections of the two schools differ.

Everyone knows the Cougs cleaned up in the Bay Area and locked down Spokane recruits. It is almost reminiscent of the pipeline that WSU fans thought was developing under Bill Doba from Texas.

But why?  Looking at the heavy Los Angeles draw from Huskies, it seems apparent that Sarkisian heavily relied on his existing network from his USC days, and left the rest of California untouched.

So, Paul Wulff had his staff emphasize the Bay Area knowing that Sarkesian would be spending his efforts in LA.  If Wulff can establish a pipeline in the Bay Area to compete with Sark's pipeline in LA for the recruits which want to go out of state, we could see a two-sided geographic distribution like this for several years.

And the Bay Area is perfect for Wulff and WSU.

The two local Pac-10 schools, Stanford and Cal, are both excellent programs-- but they are also more demanding academically.  That means that there's more talent which is likely to not have access into Stanford or Cal that might have an easier time at other Pac-10 schools.

Also, for a player who wants to get away from home a bit, maybe to grow up some, get the college experience, or just stretch his legs out of the reach of Mom and Dad, the Washington schools have got to appeal more to those in NorCal than moving in-state to LA or a closer north to Eugene or Corvallis.

Of course Wulff and WSU will still have to compete with the rest of the Pac-10, Mountain West, and WAC schools for recruits.  But by emphasizing the Bay Area with the knowledge that UW would be emphasizing LA, Wulff's strategy at least eliminated some competition from his in-state rival, a school which to some California recruits might have similar geographic appeal despite their vast differences in locale.

Signing Day has come and gone with 22 newly minted WSU Cougars. The class is a really good one. The staff had a plan for areas that they could attack and they executed to near perfection. 13 of the 22 recruits came from Washington State or the area between the East Bay and Sacramento. Let's  take a look at the composition of this class and who they best compare to.

Everyone is doing some sort of recap that references where we finished in the "rankings". I think the so-called rankings are garbage. Rivals doesn't update their player ratings on the West Coast more than once or maybe twice a year. The Scout network is incredibly responsive but they suffer from serious bias. For example, the Northwest recruiting coordinator is a relentless Husky fan and actually is part owner of the Husky fan site.

Rather than go by team rankings let's take a look at who our nearest competitor was and what sort of Cougar great this player profiles as. I've grouped the players into four categories:

1) The Drew Bledsoe Category (player could have gone anywhere he wanted)

2) The Gino Simone Category (player could have gone to most Pac-10 schools)

3) The Marcus Trufant Category (player had limited BCS opportunities but had limitless lower conference opportunities)

4) The Will Derting Category (kid was an hidden talent that WSU secured with little fanfare.)

Let's take a look!

The Drew Bledsoe Category (player could write his own ticket)

1) Aaron Dunn

Nearest competitor: Cal

Likely position in college: Tight End or Tackle

Player comp: Mark Bruener

2) C.J. Mizell

Nearest competitor: Florida State

Likely position in college: Outside Linebacker

Player comp: Mark Fields