Rivals vs. Scout vs. ESPN
Out of curiosity, which recruiting site do you guys buy into more and think is more legit, Rivals Scout or ESPN? Personally I hate everything ESPN does and I feel as if they have a monopoly over the sports world, therefore I do not give what they have to say in terms of recruiting much importance. The fact that Will Campbell isn't even in their top 150 for next year makes me believe that they are just full of shit. As far as Scout vs. Rivals goes, I put more relevance into what Rivals says. I do not know why, I just feel as if it is harder to get a 5 star and 4 star rating from them, but that is just a hunch I have and it is also the site I go to more since it isn't as clustered as Scout is. What are your thoughts?
November 20th, 2008 at 8:51 PM ^
most use rival.
November 20th, 2008 at 9:06 PM ^
I've used both and it seems like lately Scout gets the breaking news faster than any of them. Rivals has better overall evaluations and what most people go by though.
November 20th, 2008 at 9:19 PM ^
I know it is popular to bag on them, but I think they have the least biased info. I'm still looking for someone to do an analysis to see who was right on the players that had the widest variances such as W. Campbell etc.. now that we have had 4 years of data to compare. I remember ESPN much higher on Hemmingway than Scout. We'll see about I. Bell and Big Will. ESPN wasn't as high about ROJO who hasn't really taken over the world.
November 20th, 2008 at 9:28 PM ^
i hate scouts website therefore i like rivals
November 20th, 2008 at 9:41 PM ^
rivals has the best rankings IMO but scout, at least for Michigan, has the better coverage
November 20th, 2008 at 9:44 PM ^
Scouts, IMO is the best only because it is quicker about Michigan news and It is the first recruiting website that I discovered. Rivals is alright but i guess i don't visit them enough to say that with confidence. But you are right when you say that ESPN stinks. Recruiting is not their strong point.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:17 AM ^
TomVH.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:37 AM ^
I prefer Rivals. I feel like their info is more accurate. Sometimes they're a little behind Scout, but I've encountered some baseless rumors emanating from Scout. I think the Rivals people tend to be a little more conservative about breaking stories. With some breaking news, they're a little behind, but I get the feeling they like to fact check first. And really, I'd rather get info I trust 20 minutes later and know that it's accurate, as compared to Scout.
I don't like ESPN's rankings, although I do appreciate their scouting reports.
November 21st, 2008 at 1:00 AM ^
I don't think I should put a lot of input here, to be objective and fair. But, I will tell you that I decided to sign up for one of those to see what was on there about a week ago, and immediately cancelled my subscription.
November 21st, 2008 at 1:04 AM ^
By the way, either site you choose, the message boards are ridiculous. I never visit them, as they are populated by rumor mongers and high schoolers.
November 21st, 2008 at 1:46 AM ^
seriously, this site, along with a few other michigan blogs, breaks michigan related news as fast as anything. plus, it has access to the things i like in recruiting (a recruiting board with smiley ratings based on our chances, and a depth chart by class list!)...the only thing i use scout and rivals for is to look at ratings, which are free anyways. if you really want a scoop on who might come to michigan, just listen to brian and tom, and listen to the sam webb podcast on wtka.com and you'll be good to go
November 21st, 2008 at 2:20 AM ^
I like Rivals over Scout simply because the site is easier to use and it's easier to get the info I want. ESPN is straight dumb, they have been way off on so much stuff it isn't funny. I was an ESPN guy for a while for recruiting by they don't have much info and they are usually wildly inaccurate IMO.
November 21st, 2008 at 3:13 AM ^
Since we are dumping on ESPN I figured I'd chime in. Their ranking system is idiotic. Their highest rated players this season get a 93, and unranked players get a 40, it just makes no sense. It appears they want to use a hundred point scale but then no one can get the top rating so why even have it. And then starting someone unranked at 40?
November 21st, 2008 at 10:22 AM ^
I prefer Rivals as well. Scout's layout is near un-readable. Scout is occassionally ahead of Rivals on some new (by a few minutes), but I think that because of that rush, they've gotten things wrong - which Rivals really hasn't. Rivals also tends avoid excessive rumor-mongering, which I appreciate.
That said, never visit the forums, ever. You'll need eye-bleach.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:05 PM ^
The cool thing I use scout for is the part of the front page on the bottom right that lists the recent recruits. If you check every couple days you can see who has committed anywhere recently, which is a nice update to have. That way, if you know a couple guys were committing on a particular day, you could go a check the recent commit board to see where they went. Kinda neat.