Okay, I just wanted to post this thread just to see what everyone's opinion is on the matter, and why. I understand that by and large, people seem to think that Rivals as a recruiting service is better at projecting success at the college level (meaning that their rankings tend to be more accurate). I would guess that this is not just a function of our class ranking this year on both sites (since Rivals ranks us much higher, obviously), since I've been reading for years that Rivals is more reliable even though Scout has/had ranked our past several classes higher, so I'm guessing this is an unbiased opinion.
But why? In all honesty, I'm curious if this opinion is really based on fact or not. I don't know -- I tend to believe that Rivals is a more accurate service, BUT in looking over a few of the past recruiting classes, it seems almost like as far as boom/bust guys went, they were at least pretty even.
Scout was much, much higher on Adrian Arrington and lower on Carlos Brown, Greg Mathews (not knocks on any of these players, but we're looking at guys who were top 100 to Rivals and low four star to three star guys to Scout who have been alright at best).
At the same time, Scout was rather low on Shawn Crable, who obviously turned out to be pretty good.
Obviously, the sample size is not big enough to make a comparison -- but you get the idea.
What do you guys think and why?