Toggle sidebar

Rivals versus Scout?

GreatDanish

GreatDanish

Hall of Fame
Nov 22, 2005
6,079
1
0
TN
Rivals.com or Scout.com

Just wanted to see what everyone thought.
You can break it down if you want.
Who covers recruiting better?
Who seems the more competent staff?
Who covers the teams better?
If someone were buying you exactly one subscription, would you take Rivals or scout?
 
I personally like Rivals better. To being with, Rivals.com actually has information.
I believe Rivals has better articles, player evaluation, and graphics.

It really is just your personal opinion. Try doing a free trial and see what you like.
 
Not to down Scout in any way (they do a good job), but I believe Rivals does a better job when it comes to the recruiting scene. They seem to have more accurate player rankings (IMO) and generally seem closer to the situation than does Scout. I believe Scout may actually cover "in season stuff" a bit better, but if you're a recruiting junkie, I would subscribe to Rivals. JMO. :)
 
RIVALS. No contest.

Just look at our commit lists from the last four years on both sites. You'll notice that DeMeco, Juwan Simpson, Bino, and Tim Castille were one stars. Prothro, DJ Hall, Antoine Caldwell were two stars. Bottom line, they miss more than rivals. They are getting better though.
 
The BamaOnline staff is excellent. One of them is a close friend of mine and I have met all of them. Once you sign up, you'll realize that they are very factual and credible when reporting on the prospects. They are nice,friendly people and will go out of their way to answer virtually any question put to them.

Overall, I just feel like Rivals ranks and keeps up with prospects more accurately than Scout does. I'm not a member, but when I peruse the site it doesn't feel like they are as well researched as Rivals. I tend to have alot of disagreements with their rankings as well.
 
doctorgonzo said:
The BamaOnline staff is excellent. One of them is a close friend of mine and I have met all of them. Once you sign up, you'll realize that they are very factual and credible when reporting on the prospects. They are nice,friendly people and will go out of their way to answer virtually any question put to them.

Overall, I just feel like Rivals ranks and keeps up with prospects more accurately than Scout does. I'm not a member, but when I peruse the site it doesn't feel like they are as well researched as Rivals. I tend to have alot of disagreements with their rankings as well.
Click to expand...

Well I like Bama Mag especially their print magazine and premium forum. They do a great job covering Alabama Sports in depth and their recruiting coverage is very good. I personally like Rivals.com a little better over Scout.com for overall recruiting coverage but they both kind of balance each other out. They both have great recruiting stories and videos so I wouldn't want to do without either one. ;)
 
I subscribe for the last month or two of recruiting season to both and that is about it. On the whole, I have to say that I think Rivals is better. They seem to get info before Scout a lot of times and their mods are more active on the Insider boards there. But, Scout is also very good and I really recommend using them both. They are a great complement to each other and they are both pretty inexpensive.
 
This has probably been asked before, but I looked at the most recent 3 pages and didn't see it as a topic.

Why is there such a huge difference between Rival's and Scout's rating of Bama's class? Are the systems different? e.g. Is Rivals giving us credit for resigning Ford, while Scout is not? Even then, there is a huge difference in where some of our OL recruits are ranked between the two sites.

I've read that Rivals is run by a Bama grad and/or fan, and that Scout is run by an Auburn grad and or fan. Is that true, and is that the real difference? I've also read where Rivals does a better job of updating a players ranking through out their senior season, while Scout's rating of players changes very little from the beginning of the season.

Anyway, does anyone have any real insight as to why the two systems rank Bama's class so differently? Thanks.
 
Rivals counts Ford, while Scout does not.

Also, Rivals does recalculate more often.

There are so many people involved in the rankings process, that who started the company has no impact. However, although they will not say this, both services have increased a player's ranking based on schools that are interested (which makes sense, because a lot of offers means he's probably good) and perhaps the school that signs him. This is not necessarily a favortism issue as much as it is a trust issue with coaches at certain schools.

Anyway, I think most everyone would agree that Rivals does a much better job overall of covering recruiting. Scout.com has the better free message board, but Rivals has really busted out the last two years in overall service.

I posted a message a few weeks back asking which service people preferred, and I believe the results were unanimous - Rivals.
 
I just signed up for Rivals last night, i mean 10 bucks a month? thats like almost a super sized meal at mcdonalds a month. Oh, and I was wrong about McElroy he's better than I thought. Probably should of gotten 4 stars imo after watching all the other QB's.
 
Last night I was looking at Scout and Rivals ratings of Alabama. Rivals has us 3rd and Scout has us at 11. That is a pretty big difference. I mean they both have Notre Dame 1 and Georgia 2. Also most of their top ten is similar except for Alabama where scout has us just outside of the top 10. Obviously I searched the threads here and found this one because I had the same question as a few posters in this thread had.

1. Which one is better? Most people have said Rivals. Im wondering do you guys think rivals is better because they have Alabama ranked higher? I mean I really do hope that Rivals is better, but is there an objective reason why we should believe one recruiting service over the other?

2. Do they go into detail as to how they rank players?

3. Also, is there some behind the scenes people doing the rankings that are somehow biased one way or the other?

I know it really isnt that important because I really do trust Saban's ability to judge talent and bring that talent to Bama but for those of us not on the inside it would be nice to know where we stand from an objective, unbiased point of view.

One of the reasons Im kind of going on about the unbiased part is something I heard Luginbill say on a radio show last week. He was talking about where he had Alabama ranked regarding its recruiting and he said something to the effect of "Well I would have Alabama ranked higher except for the fact that I think they need to recruit a big time nosetackle. They arent filling their needs in that position and thats hurting their ranking right now." I could not believe what I was hearing. A recruiting analyst holding back a good rating based on the fact that he didnt think they were recruiting positions, that he judged, Alabama needed. Now I could care less that he said this (even though I disagreed). What baffled me was that he was ranking us according to his judgement of what Bama needed rather than just looking at the atheletes we have commited and judging their talent. Is this common or was Luginbill just being an idiot. I really lost a lot of respect for his rankings after hearing this interview.
 
Last edited:
tuck said:
Last night I was looking at Scout and Rivals ratings of Alabama. Rivals has us 3rd and Scout has us at 11. That is a pretty big difference. I mean they both have Notre Dame 1 and Georgia 2. Also most of their top ten is similar except for Alabama where scout has us just outside of the top 10. Obviously I searched the threads here and found this one because I had the same question as a few posters in this thread had.

1. Which one is better? Most people have said Rivals. Im wondering do you guys think rivals is better because they have Alabama ranked higher? I mean I really do hope that Rivals is better, but is there an objective reason why we should believe one recruiting service over the other?

2. Do they go into detail as to how they rank players?

3. Also, is there some behind the scenes people doing the rankings that are somehow biased one way or the other?

I know it really isnt that important because I really do trust Saban's ability to judge talent and bring that talent to Bama but for those of us not on the inside it would be nice to know where we stand from an objective, unbiased point of view.

One of the reasons Im kind of going on about the unbiased part is something I heard Luginbill say on a radio show last week. He was talking about where he had Alabama ranked regarding its recruiting and he said something to the effect of "Well I would have Alabama ranked higher except for the fact that I think they need to recruit a big time nosetackle. They arent filling their needs in that position and thats hurting their ranking right now." I could not believe what I was hearing. A recruiting analyst holding back a good rating based on the fact that he didnt think they were recruiting positions, that he judged, Alabama needed. Now I could care less that he said this (even though I disagreed). What baffled me was that he was ranking us according to his judgement of what Bama needed rather than just looking at the atheletes we have commited and judging their talent. Is this common or was Luginbill just being an idiot. I really lost a lot of respect for his rankings after hearing this interview.
Click to expand...

If an analyst does his homework he can tell what positions a team has the most "need" and it should be a consideration in ranking the team's recruiting class. If a team brings in a slew of 5 star recruits at certain positions that are not at a place of need it is really not gonna be a lot of help to the TEAM. Still, the rating would be subjective since the coaches for a team that needs a stud DT may have a high rated DE that is just what they want to convert into a DT.
When certain teams recruits are constantly rated higher by a certain source, you can bet there is a little bias involved.
While it is great, for us fans, to have a top rated recruiting class, the coaches evaluations is what really counts.
 
If you're a Bama fan - BamaMag.com until the end of time . If you're a fan of false and/or misleading info - rivals . Recent example - which site flooded you with T.Pryor stories(rivals) ? Which site new there was a 0% chance with TP and didn't write up false headlines trying to pull you in wallet first(BamaMag) . A few months back , Rivals also pumped a player as a being ready to announce for the Tide - we were a very distant 3rd choice at the time but , the headline and false story surely pulled in some new member$ .

I spent a ton of years in the recruiting game and still do my best to avoid rivals at each & every opportunity I get . I'd rather get "the word" an hour later on Scout than get 3-4 fake stories every 7-10 days on rivals . Rivals is about saturation and cash while BamaMag is for Bama fans .

JOMO . It's up to you as to how you allow your trust to be earned and what you consider to be honest and/or ethical .
 
tuck said:
Last night I was looking at Scout and Rivals ratings of Alabama. Rivals has us 3rd and Scout has us at 11. That is a pretty big difference. I mean they both have Notre Dame 1 and Georgia 2. Also most of their top ten is similar except for Alabama where scout has us just outside of the top 10. Obviously I searched the threads here and found this one because I had the same question as a few posters in this thread had.

1. Which one is better? Most people have said Rivals. Im wondering do you guys think rivals is better because they have Alabama ranked higher? I mean I really do hope that Rivals is better, but is there an objective reason why we should believe one recruiting service over the other?

2. Do they go into detail as to how they rank players?

3. Also, is there some behind the scenes people doing the rankings that are somehow biased one way or the other?

I know it really isnt that important because I really do trust Saban's ability to judge talent and bring that talent to Bama but for those of us not on the inside it would be nice to know where we stand from an objective, unbiased point of view.

One of the reasons Im kind of going on about the unbiased part is something I heard Luginbill say on a radio show last week. He was talking about where he had Alabama ranked regarding its recruiting and he said something to the effect of "Well I would have Alabama ranked higher except for the fact that I think they need to recruit a big time nosetackle. They arent filling their needs in that position and thats hurting their ranking right now." I could not believe what I was hearing. A recruiting analyst holding back a good rating based on the fact that he didnt think they were recruiting positions, that he judged, Alabama needed. Now I could care less that he said this (even though I disagreed). What baffled me was that he was ranking us according to his judgement of what Bama needed rather than just looking at the atheletes we have commited and judging their talent. Is this common or was Luginbill just being an idiot. I really lost a lot of respect for his rankings after hearing this interview.
Click to expand...

1. I've always thought Rivals did a better job of evaluating talent compared to Scout and it's not solely related to Alabama targets either.

2. I know that Rivals does. They have their Rivals ranking which is a number based scale which you can see in most prospects profiles. Just click the little "about" link and it'll give you the full explanation.

3. I'm sure that there are, I mean after all they are only human. But again I think Rivals does a better job here than Scout JMO.

Ultimately it matters little what these recruiting services think because they're wrong about prospects about as often as they are right about them or pretty close to it. It comes down to the coaches and their ability to evaluate and develop the talent that they sign and we are fortunate to have one of the absolute best in the business at that in CNS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Posts

Advertisement

Trending content

Advertisement

Latest threads

Top Bottom
Back