Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes. — Walt Whitman
Over the past few days, I have taken heat from a handful of commenters. What bothers them most is that I waiver at times or have bias; that I don't adhere to a rigid ideology. For example, when Rod Perry was hired, I questioned it. I questioned it because of his age (a bias), passive personality (bias), the Colt's poor secondaries (observation), that Riley hired another friend (bias), lack of recruiting connections/letting a top recruiter walk, etc. But in the same post, I also wrote
- Maybe he'll be a good recruiter (since he has LA ties)
- He has a lot of experience, so he should be a good coach
Also, in August I said this about Perry.
I was impressed with Rod Perry's video. From what I hear, he's teaching the DBs to turn around and play the ball.
The point isn't to defend myself. What I am trying to explain is that the people getting on my case remember specific (negative) comments and forget other (positive) comments. In other words, they too, have bias (or at least selective memory). Also, opinions change as we gather information and experience. When I was a kid, I couldn't stand beets. Now I like them. When I was a kid, I loved the Beatles. Now when I listen to them, I hear dorky white guys imitating the blues. People evolve, tastes evolve, opinions change. I started to like Perry in August as I got to know him. Yet, nobody remembers this, and they harp on opinions from February. I used to like Bob DeCarolis, but Ive soured on him for a variety of reasons barely addressed in the crappy petition. Maybe one day I will go into more detail on that.
Finally, in writing a blog for four years, I'm bound to contradict myself. Like Whitman said, "very well, then I contradict myself." There's no sense beating one's self up for yielding. I'm also bound to write bad petitions and do all sorts of things that can be perceived as sub-par, inconsistent, weak, etc. I only care in the sense that the demand to not do these things has apparently been placed, or at least implied, in the first place. Sort of stunts the childlike prankster in me (and I'd hope all of us). That being said, criticize all you want. Keeps me sharp, and sometimes it's funny.
We always hear how difficult it is to recruit to Corvallis.
I noticed the Beavers have the #41 class and a 3-star average. They're also still in the mix for a handful of 4-stars.
"Difficult" is a relative thing. People will bring up USC or Florida. Sure, difficult to compete with those schools. But most colleges aren't competing with them. OSU can compete for legit 3-star talent (which is all any school needs to win big). There's no reason they ever couldn't, they just didn't try for 28 years, and the perception morphed into reality.
It seems to me that recruiting success is more a function of coach's effort, pitch, and personality than location. On-the-field success can help, but it's not mandatory (i.e. many bad teams sign great classes). Riley made staff changes to target and boost recruiting, and right after that effort the Beavs started signing some of their best classes (2011, 2012, and now 2013). What does this say about the #1 excuse we hear? Do I need to petition Mythbusters, or can we voluntarily put this to rest? Seems like the Pollyannas want to keep it in their back pocket in case there's a bad season down the line. Looking across all OSU sports, I don't see the validity. I just see good recruiters or bad recruiters; staff's who emphasize it, or staffs who don't. The football program's recruiting success (once they improved their effort) just cements the notion.
Now, cue JackBeav to tell me Walt Whitman didn't write that quote.