which is more accurate..Rivals or Scout

#26
#26
Rivals goes more on quality and Scout gives more for quanity. Like teams that 29 guys even if they have hardly any 4 or 5 stars still get a higher ranking on Scout. Like even w/ the 3 lower ranking guys we got this Sunday on Scout we went from 21 to 16. At Rivals we stayed the same. Rivals would move us more for getting 1 higher ranked guy. I hear Rivals is better for football, and Scout is better for basketball. But that is just hear say. I'm not sure if there is a "better". Mainly you just wanna be "up there" in both.

Also, I disagree about ESPN. I think their eval of recruits is the best. They just don't update their team rankings that often. We are 11th there, but they haven't updated since the 20th I think.
 
#30
#30
ESPN Rankings suck because ESPN (like some of their coverages/properties) half-a** it on recruiting like they do with the NHL....it's on their periphery but it's not as important as the NFL, MLB...etc..it's just what they choose to cover...it's hard for me to watch ESPN sometimes because it's almost like TMZ now.
 
#31
#31
Though Scout gives out more 5* they seem to be stingy on the 4*. Neal is a 4* and the #9 rb on Rivals and is a 3* and something like the #35 rb on Scout. Same with Meline #41 wr compared to #70+ wr on Scout. The disparity baffles me.
 
#32
#32
Sadly I think Rivals is the best, and I say sadly because I like the layout of the Scout site better. That being said, I wouldn't send my worst enemy to ESPN for recruiting info.
 
#34
#34
Rivals....not because they have us higher but they have more money to scout players....scout is a second rate place. i sugg anyone with a membership X it
 
#35
#35
Whats going on with Delvin Jones? I haven't heard anything about him. Is he still with strong with us?
 
#37
#37
:)Can I jump in and ask a questions vol fans. Can you guys and gals point me to the preffered site for wed signing day. Thanks and sorry for changing the subject I dont have enough posts to start my own thread.:)
 
#40
#40
Rivals is almost always more accurate (although no site is accurate all the time). Scout really whiffs on a number of players. Rivals does a more thorough job of taking an honest look at ALL the prospects. I get the impression that Scout hasn't really done their homework on many of the players. It seems like they just slap three stars on some guys and put them down on the list somewhere (e.g. Ted Meline). Also, why do I feel like I answer this question at least once a month?
 
#41
#41
DeepSpringsVol is better than either seeing as i have our class ranked #1 and its not even close
 
#43
#43
scouts had Rhett Bomar, John David Booty, and Mitch Mustain as their overall #1's.

rivals worst were Ernie Sims and Derrick Williams.
 
#48
#48
Reality is somewhere in the middle and I'm not sure which one is the better service or if makes a difference since both have our class ranked in middle of the conference.

Rivals Scout
1. UF UF
2. Auburn Bama
3. Bama Auburn
4. LSU LSU
5. UT GA
6. GA UT​
 
Last edited:
#49
#49
Rivals...only because that's what the radio guys honk. I found it interesting that scout gives teams ratings based on talent, need and balance:

Talent - This category reflects the quality of players committed to that school. Teams must recruit difference-makers throughout their class to obtain a high ranking.
Need - This is analysis of whether the team needs are being met at each position. This value is capped per position type (i.e., a team does not receive extra credit for overloading at a position).
Balance - Teams must be represented at every position by players of each body type. Securing balance in every recruiting class is a necessity due to the injuries and attrition that are part of college football.

Found here: Scout.com: About Team Rankings

Maybe Rivals does the same???????
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top