Scout or Rivals? Does it matter?

Submitted by VaUMWolverine on January 29th, 2011 at 2:26 PM

I've started following recruiting this year. Which site do you prefer or are they so close it doesnt matter? Thanks for the input.

 

EDIT: Thanks everyone for the input. After about 30 replies I've come to the conclusion that TomVH and this blog are awesome. GO BLUE!

Comments

MH20

January 29th, 2011 at 2:46 PM ^

To me, the Scout site looks like it was designed by a five year old.  Rivals has a clean, professional look, whereas Scout makes my eyes bleed.

FWIW I am a Rivals subscriber, but my opinions were formed before I signed up a few years back.

EDIT:  I will agree that the Rivals message board is garbage.

ken725

January 29th, 2011 at 2:49 PM ^

Agree with everything you said.  I don't like it when people link to scout profiles of the recruits since it also makes my eyes bleed.

I'm glad that our board is the way it is.  I would say any board other than mgoboard is crap.

MH20

January 29th, 2011 at 2:56 PM ^

I should say that the layout/design of the Rivals message board is garbage.  There is some really good content to be found from some of the respected posters there, but good God is the layout crappy -- way too much clicking/navigation involved.

OK I'm done ranting like an idiot.

VBSoulPole

January 29th, 2011 at 4:25 PM ^

Yesterday I had all three sites open in different windows on my phone while waiting for the Chris Bryant decision. There was a thread here due to Tom's tweet about 10 minutes before scout or rivals. Pay sites usually hold out info for a bit so that members think it's worth it.

Not that any of this matters, we all know we have something epic here at MGoBlog

Welpppp

January 29th, 2011 at 5:44 PM ^

If you're making a TomVH > Rivals argument, I don't think the Bryant commitment is a great example. Rivals sent a reporter to the press conference and had real-time updates from there. Tom tweeted out that Bryant had committed before the ceremony had even started (Bryant and a handful of other teammates all made their decisions together, with Bryant going last).

Tom may have been "faster" on this, but it was also incorrect and was originally tweeted out without crediting where he got it from (he later did cite that he got it from an ESPN reporter that was there, but that was only after the guy he took the tweet from took his original tweet down). Bryant ended up choosing Michigan so it didn't look as bad, but it still wasn't a good situation.

 

Not trolling, Tom typically does an excellent job, but I think yesterday isn't the example you should be drawing on.

As for the Rivals vs. Scout debate, I think Rivals blows Scout out of the water on basically every level, both with the local Michigan sites and the overall companies. From the quality of the reporting, how well-written their analysis is, the overall quality of Rivals.com rankings over Scout.com's rankings and the premium info that ends up on the site (give me quality over quantity any day), I'll give Rivals the nod. I do think that the internet/twitter/message boards like MGoBlog have made the need for premium recruiting services far less necessary, though, because the information usually ends up out there anyway. It's kind of unfair but that's the way things are these days.

Mr Mackey

January 29th, 2011 at 2:39 PM ^

MGoBlog and Tom VH are more reliable than anything. But I personally prefer Rivals. Anything other than ESPN.com's recruiting, they're not too reliable

namaste

January 29th, 2011 at 2:55 PM ^

As someone who's had premium at both sites, I'll sum it up for you:

 

Rivals>Scout for ratings, rankings

(although Scout has gotten better over the years, they used to be as bad at rankings as ESPN is now; EX: David Harris was rated a no-star by Scout)

 

Scout Premium>Rivals Premium

(Scout way more updates and interviews than Rivals)

 

Scout messageboards>Rivals messageboards 

(this used to be the opposite, but has changed)

 

Rivals' monthly magazine (The Wolverine)>Scout's monthly magazine (Go Blue Wolverine)

(this isn't even close, The Wolverine is the best magazine on Michigan athletics)

 

 

Mgoblog is almost as good as premium scout in terms of ammount of info, but mgoblog is usually more accurate though. Honestly, if you use the scout freeboard 10% of the time and mgoblog 90% of the time, you'll know enough. Mgoblog is great, and it's free! You're in the right place.

MH20

January 29th, 2011 at 2:52 PM ^

Trieu is a really good scout for Scout (ha!).  He's been doing this stuff since he was in high school, when he started doing mock NFL drafts that after a few years started to get picked up by scouting services/media contingents.

I may be a bit biased because I've met him a few times (he's friends with a good buddy of mine) and seen his stand-up (pretty damn funny).

mrider

January 29th, 2011 at 2:54 PM ^

The premium board of scout is pretty awesome. I know a lot of people dislike Beaver, but he does have good info usually. Plus Sam Webb is the man obviously.

 

Rivals Rankings are more accurate but the board is dicey.

coldnjl

January 29th, 2011 at 3:10 PM ^

I liked Scout when I was a member, but I raised a problem with something TomBeaver stated as fact and then never happened. He kicked me off of the site (but continued to charge me). Honestly, don't join a site. The Mgoblog board and TomVH is sufficient to keep you up to date. If you want to increase your knowledge, listen to the recruiting roundup by Sam Webb on WTKA (Scout), follow twitter of known insiders, and pay attention to the free boards. 

Don't join Scout as Tom Beaver knows little and feeds you information in off the wall metaphores and code. Its annoying, and as I have said, can be wrong often. 

mrider

January 29th, 2011 at 5:22 PM ^

I'll give you the fact that his metaphors are super fucking annoying. 

But to say he is often wrong is false. The only thing in the last 2 years he has been off was the coaching saga. But everyone was wrong on that.

Dorsey, D Warren, and Zettel are all things he was all over before a lot of insiders.

 

boydr24

January 29th, 2011 at 3:04 PM ^

It's a toss up it really depends if you are a insider on espn, scout premium, or the rivals ultimate ticket. If you don't pay then none of the sites are that great all you get are the players grades and some drill times but most of those are wrong anyways. 

johnvand

January 29th, 2011 at 3:23 PM ^

Rivals has a few guys who are tapped into the program, including a couple former players, who post on the premium message boards. 

Honestly, that's why I continue to pay the $10 per month over there.  The inside tidbits form those guys are the only thing you can't get here on MGoBlog.  Most of the recruiting news here is the same as either of the pay sites. 

That wasn't true 10+ years ago when I first joined Rivals.  Back then they were the biggest (only?) name in the game when it came to recruiting info.  

Now, between TomVH and twitter, you get just about everything you need/want to know about whom we've offered, who's visiting this weekend, and whom to expect commits from.

umhero

January 29th, 2011 at 3:26 PM ^

I used to have premium on both but now I just rely on MGoBlog.  I think Scout has more free content and they keep their content more up to date.  Rivals provides more detail to their rankings.  They each rank their 5 Stars differently; Scout gives the top 50 players 5 Stars while Rivals is more selective and gives 5 Stars only to players they are fairly certain will play on Sundays.

aaamichfan

January 29th, 2011 at 4:21 PM ^

I've been following recruiting for probably like ten years now, and Rivals has always seemed to be more accurate with their rankings.

I've never paid for either though.