This post is an extended follow up to a comment from Tim in a prior post on the Rivals 250: "There's no such thing as an 'underrated' guy to the people who do the rating. They're just rated where they are." That made me laugh, and on its face it is undeniably true. But I'll explain. A player can be underrated or overrated by a single recruiting service because the services have regional and team-specific sources, but then make national pronouncements. So a regional group may believe a player is a top 100 guy but fail to convince everyone else. Hence that kid is rated 221 or something while local affiliates maintain he is much better and "underrated." Tim surely knows this better than I, but it is worth remembering: Scout, Rivals, ESPN, etc. are not monolithic entities, one-man shows (does Lemming actually operate that way?), or some mysterious unseen force that gathers all data in a computer and spits something back. It's a room full of guys arguing for the players they're high on. They do not render settled, uniform opinions when they rate comparatively. I agree it would be stupid if Rivals published a Top 100 and in that same publication declared a player too high or low. (If so, move him up/down.) But the most knowledgeable writers and scouts--the local affiliates--for Rivals may continue to publish "Rivals" opinions stating that a guy should be rated higher and get more respect. Most of my reading takes place on that local level, so I will read that Rivals guys in NY think Mike Hart is no 3 star and is being "underrated." Cameron Gordon with Scout last year is another example that comes to mind. I do not mean to say a kid is clearly underrated if Tom Beaver or Josh Helmholdt thinks he is better than Scout or Rivals says. But in general, if we get a kid from Ohio or Florida, I value the opinion of the sites for area teams. I think it is worth considering and harmonizing with a national rating. Boisture is a good example. He's a Rivals 100--but where do people within the state rate him? You factor in for team bias, but it is useful information. I continue to be excited about guys who have huge buzz locally, but can't convince the national office (e.g. Odoms, Gallon after his initial Rivals plummet). I would actually put Big Will in that category. And certainly Devin Gardner. I am always suspicious of hype coming from the fans and writers of the team receiving a commitment, but I like local hype. I think with area hype, smoke often points to fire. To say I expected Gholston or Anderson to be "underrated" is to say that what I had read to date suggested local evaluators thought the player was terrific but were having trouble convincing the national people. Clearly those two had their cases successfully made.