For years I’ve been told “it is difficult to recruit to Corvallis.”

Well, in 2011 it sure seems easy.

My overall argument has always been that the recruiters themselves are the limiting factor in success, not the weather, town, etc that apologists love to offer up as excuses for incompetence. Well, now that we've had early success with recruiting, let's revisit those old discussions.

1. My argument: Pat Casey consistently recruits top 25 classes to Corvallis.

Dissenter's counter-argument: Casey only had nationally ranked classes after winning big in 2005.

Conclusion: So is the town of Corvallis or "winning big" the limiting factor? The argument changed right off the bat. Make up your mind, apologists.

2. My argument: Craig Robinson has had top-ranked classes. Craig Robinson never "won big"…his success in recruiting appears related to his personality, charisma, and approach more than location or playing time.

Dissenter's counter-argument: "You can't compare football to basketball. 5 scholarships versus 20." or "Craig Robinson had playing time to offer."

Conclusion: Um, why can't you compare basketball to football? The 5 to 20 thing is a ratio and therefore ignorable. If my initial premise is that it's not difficult to recruit to Corvallis, both the football and basketball teams are located in Corvallis. Clearly I believe it's easy to recruit any athlete to Corvallis, not just football players. With regard to playing time…outside maybe five positions, Mike Riley has playing time to offer, too. Keep this in mind: Jay John wasn't bringing in national talent.

3. My argument: There are plenty of small college towns (Auburn, Stillwater, Clemson, Blacksburg, Fayetteville, etc) with "nothing to do" and less than ideal weather who recruit top 30 classes.

Dissenter's counter-argument: Corvallis is smaller, wetter, and lamer than all those locations. Some argued those towns all have bigger towns within driving distance.

Conclusion: The dissenter's are really grasping at straws on this one. Corvallis lamer than Clemson? Portland and Eugene are bigger cities and only a short drive away. My ultimate conclusion here is that people on the internet really hate to admit they're wrong or another guy is right. They'll say anything before doing that.

4. My argument: The football team has had bad recruiters and an antiquated coaching staff that hasn't embraced technology/kept up with the times.

Dissenter's counter-argument: The coaching staff has made improvements every year. You can't expect success overnight. We're slowly improving, etc.

Conclusion: First off, the staff didn't make improvements every year. The 2006 class was much better than the 2007 class (one of the worst in recent history). Since '07 there was a gradual improvement until the 2010 class, which was a significant improvement. That class, however, was still not Rose Bowl caliber. The apologist's have a slight case here. With the exception of 2007, recruiting has improved (at a snail's pace) each year. However, their argument that you can't change recruiting overnight has been proven flawed. This year, Riley fired Newhouse and hired Brennan. He not only hired a great recruiter, but sent a strong message to the rest of the staff. The result? One 4-star and four 3-stars, none rated below 5.6.

It seemed obvious to me all along that Oregon State's poor recruiting resulted from these factors:

• Coaches who either didn't like recruiting or weren't very good at it.
• Having a staff of technological Luddites.
• Poor leadership at the top. Riley didn't make recruiting a clear priority.
• The unspoken belief that OSU could compensate for poor recruiting with great coaching. I think last year's offensive line showed Riley, definitively, that this was not the case.
• Riley's ego (via the media's praise and exaggeration of his ability for turning over rocks and finding football players instead of salamanders).
• Slow to look at film, slow to get offers out, constantly playing catch up.

There are other reasons. I'm sure they'll come up in the comment section if the apologists start making up excuses again.

The bottom line is that Riley sent a clear message by firing Newhouse, hiring young, talented recruiters, and changing the energy within the program. After that happened, we saw positive results.

All along I've felt this could be done overnight. It's very frustrating to be able to see the path to success, yet have people who supposedly want the same thing as you dissenting and making excuses that hold the program back. Hopefully the dissenters read this and realize they were clearly wrong, and if their ego won't allow them to admit it to me, at least admit it to themselves.

Recruiting to Corvallis is only as difficult as each respective staff makes it.