OT - Scout v. Rivals

I think Rivals is more thorough. Scout lets more guys fall through the cracks. Rivals not only seems to have a larger database but they do a lot better job of following up on players and keeping tabs on their recruiting. A guy will be listed as a "prospect" on Scout long after he's narrowed that school off his list. Scout also doesn't rate the players. They just rack-and-stack by position, and hand out stars. Rivals gives you a rating so you can tell the difference between a low three-star and a high three-star. Finally - and this is key - Scout doesn't even have all their info straight. The UVA commitment list is missing Tim Smith, who committed back in October, and lists RB Jontel Evans....a point guard who has no intention of playing football at UVA. I'm sort of tempted to do a "who's more accurate" project but I don't think there's any point. There's so many variables that go into whether a prospect develops properly, that make that too much of a dartboard exercise. Rivals is easier to use, less sloppy, more thorough, and more detailed. Whether or not a five-star recruit pans out (or a two-star, for that matter) is kind of irrelevant - those guys tend to have five-star offer lists and five-star high school careers anyway, and I thin the blame for one going bust (for example) falls on the coaches, injuries, and the recruit himself long before it falls on the recruiting services for "erroneously" labeling him a five-star. The same for a two- or three-star who goes on to a stellar career.

is that they at least attempt to be rational with their rankings. One of their moderators once explained that they treat each recruiting class kind of like a mock NFL draft. So, there are usually around 32 Rivals five star guys, and these are the ones that they predict will end up as first round draft picks four years later. You can extend that and say guys that get a 6.0 would be something like projected first day picks, and the top 250 would be projected to be drafted, period. With Scout it is not as easy to see where the cutoff from five stars to four stars makes any sense. Right now they have 50 five stars. As far as comparing individual rankings, like Dre Kirkpatrick for example, I have no idea who could be right.

but if you apply the Scout model to a smaller scale and (for example) say that they allot the state of Michigan three 5-star player each year and then you look at this year's class you can see how that would unnecessarily disrupt the year to year continuity of their talent evaluation. Assuming they agree on the 30 5 stars that Rivals evaluates, they still need to produce 20 more, and you can be sure the first thing they do is look at California, Florida and Texas because those upgrades will be the least suspicious. That being said, I don't really have any evidence to back this up its just my opinion, but I think it does illustrate the inherent flaws with the way Scout seems to operate. The other thing worth noting is that at least on Rivals, the fifth star has only been around since 2000. I don't know if thats been the case with Scout, but if Rivals did it first then this could be primarily a case of "keeping up with the Joneses" and trying to do it without looking like copycats. Also, the Scout site feels like it was laid out by a monkey on heroin.

When I was choosing which service to subscribe to, I chose Rivals because it's easier to use and it's less confusing to look at The Wolverine front page than it is to look at Go Blue Wolverine. I tend to find Rivals more accurate and less rumor-filled than what I've seen from Scout. And, like someone said above, Scout often has guys listed at positions that they clearly aren't going to play in college, a la Anthony Lalota (who's a DE but was listed at OT) and Shavodrick Beaver (who's a QB but was listed at WR long after he committed to Michigan).