I took a quick look at the team recruiting rankings published by Rivals.com and Scout.com. While I know these things are fluid right now, some teams have very similar rankings while others are rated much differently. For example, Rivals has Michigan at 24 while Scout has us at 27. Oregon: Rivals 8, Scout 10. Penn State: Rivals 36, Scout 33. Some big differences include Alabama: Rivals has them at 1 while Scout has them at 8. Another: Ohio State: Rivals 11 but Scout 4. For you recruiting experts: what accounts for the differnces and is one site considered more reliable or better than the other?
Rivals vs. Scout rankings-which is better?
Whichever has us higher.
Honestly, I prefer Rivals' rankings.
The only ranking that matters is the one at the end of the football season.
But to answer your question I prefer rivals
But I think I'm biased since I like the cleaner layout of their webpages. Superficial, I know. Scout needs to hire a better graphic designer.
has a significant negative impact on their credibility. Tom Beaver is annoying as crap, but I do think Scout has better sources than Rivals. Yet I avoided getting a scout membership for years because I just couldn't deal with their website and, as a result, always kinda felt Rivals was the more professional organization.
there's 10 years or so of data now. Figure out which site has done a better job. If you do a good job with it, you'll get a ton of attention for it.
(The general sense is that ESPN is terrible, but that Scout and Rivals are fairly close together. A lot of the ESPN is terrible stuff comes from when Scouts, Inc. first got off the ground, and I think they're better now than they used to be.)
I've been paying attention to both sites for probably like ten years now, and Rivals has been consistently better at evaluating/ranking talent.
just curious what your basing this on...
Rivals bases their rankings on projected NFL ability, and I'm assuming Scout does the same. It's not like Rivals is that much better than Scout, but it does seem like they've been more accurate over the years.
if rivals does theres on NFL possibilites.. what the hell were they thinking in 2007 with pryor being named their god child. Unless they see him being the next great TE or something.
I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure Scout has the same # of 5 stars (25), 4 stars, etc each season. Rivals has different counts based on talent level each season. If I'm right on that, I think that makes Rivals much more credible. Amount of talent definitely changes year to year.
But ultimately accuracy still comes down to who is better at identifying talent, rather than # of people ranked at each level, I guess...
It really depends on the region. I think Scout does a better job in the midwest, because they have better "scouts" in the midwest (Greene, Trieu, etc). I'm not even sure Rivals has anyone covering the midwest. That being said, Rivals might have a better national presence.
As someone who follows these rankings for his job...
Over the past 4-5 years, I think Rivals is significantly better at evaluating talent than Scout. As recently as a couple years ago, ESPN was a complete joke, but by and large I now consider their rankings the most accurate (even though they're often the least kind to Michigan).
I personally like Rivals better, but that's just me.
I think we can all agree that when it comes to recruiting, between TomVH and Sam Webb we are pretty well off.
Not hating on the OP, as it is clearly a legit question, but I feel like this gets asked a ton around this time of year. Not sure if there is enough data to make this useful, but it'd be interesting to do some sort of quantitative analysis of how their past rankings turned out. Granted there are a ton of variables for whether or not a recruit pans out, but a higher percentage of higher rated kids should be more successful.
Whichever thinks better of Michigan is, without doubt, more accurate.
I thought this thread would get a huge negbang for sure. Plus one to everyone for restraint!
interesting to note that the guy who started Rivals, went bankrupt, and someone savvy in marketing bought it and made it work with the subscription idea. Then the original Rivals guy later started Scout.
IMO there isn't a better informative site than MGoBlog. If you're looking at recruiting as a whole, I wouldn't put too much stock into one being "better" than the other. I use Rivals and Scout as informative tools about upcomming players, but not much more. I've been following recruiting heavily since 2004, subbed to both Rivals and Scout and different times, and I can honestly say that as far as rankings go, they're pretty much even. For every Vince Young they get right, there's a Mike Hart out there that they get wrong and vise versa.
As far as Michigan itself goes, since I found MGoBlog, Scout nor Rivals combined can even touch this site. The information that Brain, Tom, Tim, and the whole community give out more than fills my needs. Best of all, it's free!
For every Vince Young they get right, there's a Mike Hart out there that they get wrong and vise versa.
A 5 star is something like 7 times more likely to be an All-American than a 3 star.
Yes, in terms of news or commentary, MGoBlog is very good. However, I think most people around here use Scout and/or Rivals for player rating/ranking and analysis. MGoBlog relies almost entirely on the services for scouting reports and ratings.
Rivals. I prefer them by far.
I know this really doesn't answer your question, but since we have access to both, just use both, maybe average them in your head or something. You can do this for individual recruits or the team rankings.
For example, if Commit A and Commit B are both 4 stars by Rivals, but Scout has A as a 4 as well but has B as a 3 star, then I'd imagine that Commit A is the more highly rated recruit, due to a bit of consensus. If you rely on one over the other, you're just not using all of the available information.
Take a look at two LBs - Willingham and Kellen Jones. Both have a three stars to one service and four to the other, but reversed. Essentially, they are evenly rated prospects, in my mind.
It's not a perfect system, but using two sets of data is always better than only using one, especially when it's pretty unclear which is more reliable.
Their rankings are public so no real need to choose. If you're choosing to subscribe to one or the other you do it for reasons other than their ability to rank.
One of the best things about Tim's B10 recruiting rankings is that it aggregates the rankings from the 3 major sites in one place.
I used to think Rivals but it seems like Scout has done a much better job at matching their rankings to players with impressive offer lists. I'm basing this primarily on Michigan recruits.
For example, Scout had Gardner as 5-star last year to Rivals 4. This year scout ranks Fisher higher than Rivals while Rivals ranks Raymon Taylor than Scout. Looking at these offer sheets compared to ranks, Scouts seems better.
Rivals for football, Scout for Basketball.
All the guys I know who are really into college BBall are always referring to the Scout rankings. Football guys look to Rivals. I don't know for sure, but I think in their infancy they were one trick ponies, and Rivals was a football site, Scout was BBall.
i honestly think scout throws around stars too loosely and they're rankings are not as respected as rivals and espn
Heres the thing.
Rivals designers have done a much better job creating their website, organizing things, and keeping everything streamlined.
However, as many pointed out above me, most of their analysts are in the south. There are 6 midwest guys for scout, and 1 for rivals.
If you could somehow combine scouts evaluators with rivals design, it'd be awesome. I've met a number of the rivals guys in person, and they're kind of self-serving, to be honest. I haven't met many scout guys, but for the record the 24/7 sports guys are solid as well.