Scout vs. Rivals --- what gives?
by Coug1990 on Feb 8, 2010 8:56 PM PST
Email
PrintCougar Alum and Times husky writer makes writes an interesting article regarding Scout and Rivals. It has been written on here and other Cougar sites that Rivals is no good or that they are only good if you live down in the south. Condotta writes that is not necessarily so.
Scout basically counts up the stars a team has and makes its rankings based on that. Rivals counts up the stars, but they also give more weight to getting players at positions that are more important like a QB or lineman.
To me that makes sense. Many of us were wondering where was the beef in this class. That is why WSU ranked so low, not any bias.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/huskyfootballblog/2011015428_scout_vs_rivals_---_what_gives.html
This FanPost does not necessarily reflect the views of the site's writers or editors, who may not have verified its accuracy. It does, however, reflect the views of this particular fan, which is just as important as the views of our writers or editors.
20 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Rivals only counts Mizell as a 2 star
but, if you go back to FSU’s 09 class he was rated 4 stars. That right there is why I pay more attention to Scout’s ratings.
Davontae Butler is listed as a three star on Rivals. He is listed only as a two star on Scout.
Tell me, is Rivals or Scout correct?
CJ Mizell was ranked four stars last year by Rivals. I would guess that they haven’t upgraded the Cougar ranking or if there is some other issue that they are downgrading him.
Anyway, I don’t agree with looking at any one player, look at the entirety of the rankings. Including Mizell, Scout has 17 players as three stars or better. Rivals has 14.
It seems like people are discounting them because they disagree with where the Cougars are ranked.
I have no beef with the way they rank their classes
I have a huge beef with the depth of their individual evaluations, which in turn affects their class rankings..
They seem to have some major holes in their evaluation coverage
Certain parts of the country seem to get evaluated more closely than others. If a kid is from the northwest, really the only way he gets evaluated is if he goes to one of their combines. I’ve determined this from looking at the rankings the last two years. You go to Scout and even ESPN and you can get some strengths/weaknesses. You go to Rivals, and you get nothing a lot of the time. They seem to really focus on high-end guys.
Here's an example
Connor Halliday. No picture. No scouting report. No stats from his senior year.
I want to see the thought process behind a ranking. There’s just nothing there for so many of their players.
I just posted after this
I wonder if it is just because Cougfan goes into more depth regarding the details than Cougzone. Rankings of players for both sites are made out of state, so the evaluation time put into the ranking for each site may be the same. The write up is what may be different.
Scout is based out of Seattle, Rivals out of Tennessee
so naturally the West coast coverage is more in depth with Scout. This is why I like Scout better, UW and WSU both focus almost entirely west of the Rockies, the depth of evals goes way deeper for some of the West sleeper kids with Scout.
I also don’t agree with Rivals team ranking method. Who’s to say that a LT/QB is more important than a FB/P (I’m sure you would agree with the Punter). To an extent Scout does the same thing by limiting 4 and 5 star ratings in those positions. However, if a K/P or LS prospect is an absolute can’t miss, they’ll still give that kid 5 stars.
Scout would have the perfect system if…they could manage to build some formula in to account for positions of need and star rating of the recruits at said position.
I am not saying that you are right or wrong
But, I am curious if that is fair? WSU signed 5 players from Washington. Rivals game them a total of 14 stars and Scout was 15 stars. Not really a big difference. I wonder if the evaluation of players are all that different? What might be different is perhaps Cougfan does a better job than Cougzone in writing up the story regarding the player so they go more into the strengths and weaknesses.
Again, I do not know the answer.
Rivals gives stars
But then they evaluate a player on something like a 4.8-6.1 scale based on impact. I think that scale factors in to their team ranking but I don’t know. At the end of the day, everyone will pick the ranking system that sheds their team in the best light.
That is what I was thinking
If Rivals had put the Cougars in the top 25, we would all be singing their praises. What Condotta said is that they weight the position the recruit plays. So, a 4 star kicker does not get the same weight as a 4 star QB.
Yea, it's a different kind of deal
They do weight their recruits, and also ranking them not based on stars but on their own little system. Weighting based on position seems odd because a class of all skill players (hello Neuheisel) doesn’t make a good class. The linemen and players that may not weighted as heavily are just as important.
I beg to differ...
If Rivals ranked our class #1 in the country I would still choose Scouts recruiting reports…. and its not even close. I have literally never found anything of value at Rivals, ever. The fact that Scout is the choice of the vast majority of Coug fans online has very little to do with recruiting rankings, and everything to do with vastly superior and more in-depth coverage.
by LongballWSUFB on Feb 11, 2010 12:37 PM PST up reply actions
I agree
Rivals has probably less than half the content. Its always days late on things (still doesn’t have our latest DT or WR commits).
by Roy Weaver Stuckey on Feb 11, 2010 4:47 PM PST up reply actions
You are only partially right
It is not that Scout has more content than Rivals. The correct answer is that Cougfan has more content than Cougzone.
People who are on Rivals swear by Rivals. People on Scout swear by Scout. I am a premium member of both and they both have their good and bad aspects.
Going by your criteria, nationally Rivals is a lot bigger than Scout and it isn’t close. Therefore, they must have a “vastly superior and more in-depth coverage.”
It doesn’t make it true when you write it and it does not make it true when I write it.
I heard Rivals doesn't look at Senior film
And Rivals only has like 4 people who look at film all together.
by Roy Weaver Stuckey on Feb 9, 2010 7:23 PM PST reply actions
Found a link
Where Scott Kennedy, director of recruiting, mental masturbation and naval gazing at Scout.com chats about the differences between Rivals and Scout on a message board here.
While Scout awards about 20 more 5 Stars, Rivals awards more than 100 more 4 Stars, and nearly 50% more 3 Stars…
last count it was something like this;
Rivals
5 – 28
4 – 340
3 – 1400
Scout
5 – 50
4 – 250
3 – 950
It should come as no surprise that your player, has a higher star rating on Rivals. There’s about 500 more players with 1 more star than on Scout, or, roughly 20% of all D1 Signees, and anyone want to bet me that the vast majority of them are in BCS conferences, pushing that number closer to %35?
What might come as a surprise, is that a Ranked 2 Star on Scout could give you more points towards your team rankings than a 3 Star on Rivals…
The gist of it is, that Rivals doesn’t rank as many players as Scout and so the unranked 3-star is worth way less when they add it all up than Scout. Also, Rivals only takes into account the first 20 players, as opposed to Scout’s 25. So then I went to the Cougfan and Cougzone to look at how many players are ranked in their position at each. Sure enough… Cougfan has 5 players UNranked, while Cougzone has 6 players RANKED.
Now I think it’s kinda pointless to rank beyond, say, the top 20-30 kids at any given position. You’d probably be better off grouping them into tiers (which is kinda-sorta what the star system does), but whatever… I’m not the one trying to make money on this stuff.
At any rate, that seems to be where the disparity comes from.
Look at those pictures of Reggie
Man did he fill out in that year out of high school. But, yeah, it’s stupid the way they actually drop kids’ rankings if they kind of go off the radar for a year. I mean, is he really a worse player for having played a year in prep school? Of course not.
by Jeff Nusser on Feb 10, 2010 10:38 AM PST up reply actions
Were we talking about basketball or football?
I thought the question at hand was why the rankings were so different….
Also, the thread I linked to (I don’t know if it’s subscription only) mentions that this is the first year they have had a “post graduate” class for guys like Mizell (and Buckley if he signs another LOI). Which is the only way they can give a player something other than the “2-star, not rated” treatment who’s not a HS player or a JC player. I’m assuming a prep school kid coming out this year would be able to retain their 3 star ranking.
by TiltingRight on Feb 10, 2010 11:39 AM PST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Community Guidelines
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
