http://www.ubbullrun.com/2013/2/11/39752...ore-rivals
Quote:But to be frank rivals is a crap service for anyone but the top 50 or so classes out there. They are always a day late and a dollar short on mid majors and to top it off they seem to just make up the ratings for guys who were not even listed on their service a few days before signing day.
....
Rivals is a big name because of what they used to be, a big fish in an empty pond. They were one of the few sites specifically aimed at college recruiting and because of that they were able to be sloppy with their coverage of the low mid majors. Anyone who cared about their borderline indifference, like Buffalo fans, had no place else to look so why would rivlas care? But over the past 5 years things have changed dramatically.
So if my team's recruiting class is ranked in the Top 50 or so, is it worth paying for info from them?
(02-11-2013 01:26 PM)The Optimist Wrote: [ -> ]So if my team's recruiting class is ranked in the Top 50 or so, is it worth paying for info from them?
Paying for info? depends on why you need it and how much money you have. But if you're in that neighborhood at least the info you are buying might have some meaning.
I get by with the basic site listings and twitter/google.
If you really want to pay for player insights join ESPN as an insider. The scouting reports are pretty decent compared to what the other guys have. 247 may be good to buy I've not availed myself of their free trial to see how in depth the reports are.
ESPN is crap. For the MAC, they have a history of grabbing info from other recruiting websites passing off it as their breaking info and now twitter, which they rush to post and is inaccurate too often. There are also alot of top recruits they don't evaluate-that effects their rankings of teams and players. The Rival sites are as good as the individuals dedicated to running them. I can tell you the Toledo site pointed out inaccuracies that were found on twitter and other recruiting sites. They also had very accurate info right up to signing. They were very spot on for the class. During the FB season they did a real nice job of scouting pieces on opponents. Kudos to Brian and his crew@TheRocketNation.com
(02-11-2013 02:39 PM)Boca Rocket Wrote: [ -> ]ESPN is crap. For the MAC, they have a history of grabbing info from other recruiting websites passing off it as their breaking info and now twitter, which they rush to post and is inaccurate too often. There are also alot of top recruits they don't evaluate-that effects their rankings of teams and players. The Rival sites are as good as the individuals dedicated to running them. I can tell you the Toledo site pointed out inaccuracies that were found on twitter and other recruiting sites. They also had very accurate info right up to signing. They were very spot on for the class. During the FB season they did a real nice job of scouting pieces on opponents. Kudos to Brian and his crew@TheRocketNation.com
See but thats the point... It's as good as the guy running them, the problem is that half of the mid majors have nobody running the,
(02-11-2013 02:49 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote: [ -> ] (02-11-2013 02:39 PM)Boca Rocket Wrote: [ -> ]ESPN is crap. For the MAC, they have a history of grabbing info from other recruiting websites passing off it as their breaking info and now twitter, which they rush to post and is inaccurate too often. There are also alot of top recruits they don't evaluate-that effects their rankings of teams and players. The Rival sites are as good as the individuals dedicated to running them. I can tell you the Toledo site pointed out inaccuracies that were found on twitter and other recruiting sites. They also had very accurate info right up to signing. They were very spot on for the class. During the FB season they did a real nice job of scouting pieces on opponents. Kudos to Brian and his crew@TheRocketNation.com
See but thats the point... It's as good as the guy running them, the problem is that half of the mid majors have nobody running the,
So if your team doesn't have a dedicated site then individuals from the fan base need to get involved. It's like complaining about City Hall and not stepping up to make a difference.
(02-11-2013 03:18 PM)Boca Rocket Wrote: [ -> ] (02-11-2013 02:49 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote: [ -> ] (02-11-2013 02:39 PM)Boca Rocket Wrote: [ -> ]ESPN is crap. For the MAC, they have a history of grabbing info from other recruiting websites passing off it as their breaking info and now twitter, which they rush to post and is inaccurate too often. There are also alot of top recruits they don't evaluate-that effects their rankings of teams and players. The Rival sites are as good as the individuals dedicated to running them. I can tell you the Toledo site pointed out inaccuracies that were found on twitter and other recruiting sites. They also had very accurate info right up to signing. They were very spot on for the class. During the FB season they did a real nice job of scouting pieces on opponents. Kudos to Brian and his crew@TheRocketNation.com
See but thats the point... It's as good as the guy running them, the problem is that half of the mid majors have nobody running the,
So if your team doesn't have a dedicated site then individuals from the fan base need to get involved. It's like complaining about City Hall and not stepping up to make a difference.
I'm sorry but if Rivals is going to change for a product it should exist. If it does not exist changring for emtyp useless boards and sporry information it not really going to fly.
Its why the other services are starting to eart their lunch.
(02-11-2013 01:26 PM)The Optimist Wrote: [ -> ]So if my team's recruiting class is ranked in the Top 50 or so, is it worth paying for info from them?
No. Waste of money if you want it solely for recruiting purposes.
I subscribe to WMU's Rivals page because they have 4 guys writing about and covering WMU sports. Some of their content is premium. Lots of times they post in the forum about what recruits are scheduled to be on campus. They also have done multiple in depth interviews. It goes beyond what our local newspaper coverage has offered. It's worth the $10 per month just on that merit alone. The contributors follow dozens of recruits and coaches on twitter. I follow the contributors so I don't have to follow the recruits.
Again, it depends on if your school has a team of writers/contributors that provide content. If they do, then yeah, you will likely find it worth your money. If they don't, it's likely that the recruiting updates are not accurate.
WMU Rivals site is just as good as any BCS school out there. Our guys take the time to cover WMU sports because nobody else would.
Maybe if somebody at your school took the time to do it, your site wouldn't be crap. You can't just expect SOMEONE to cover your school in-depth. Be proactive. Do something about it.
(02-11-2013 04:37 PM)ColinApocalypse Wrote: [ -> ]WMU Rivals site is just as good as any BCS school out there. Our guys take the time to cover WMU sports because nobody else would.
Maybe if somebody at your school took the time to do it, your site wouldn't be crap. You can't just expect SOMEONE to cover your school in-depth. Be proactive. Do something about it.
^this
You won't find Rivals to be anywhere near accurate if your school doesn't have multiple people contributing to it.
Heck, I find Scout and 247 to be worthless. Why? Because we do not have an active contributor on either site.
Personally, I already ignore Toledo.
247 has a pretty good handle on Florida...that came in handy for BG this year. We had 22 LOI's come in on signing day. 10 of those guys were *** by at least one of the services and one was a ****. The others had multiple offers from other MAC or FBS schools (other than the punter). You take all of that into account in February and it sounds impressive. It won't make a bit of difference in August when you look at who qualifies and actually shows up and it will be completely irrelevant when they start practicing. I doubt the coaches will care if a WR was a *** guy if he can't get open and catch the ball.
But...it's fun to talk about this stuff now
Recruiting sites aren't meant to be informative. They're meant to be lucrative. How can they do that? Rumor monger and throw out teasers all the time. You mean (insert recruit here) who went from a MAC school to a B1G school at the last second got extra stars added? YOU DON'T SAY.
Calvin Johnson was a low 4-star by all the recruiting services. But magically he got a retroactive extra star from (IIRC) Rivals. Wouldn't want to look like the fools they are you know. Joe Hamilton ... Heisman runner-up ... 2-star.
Stop feeding the beasts of Rivals/Scout/247. If you don't use CSNbbs ... for heaven's sake please use some other independent board.
(P.S. -- Look forward to further putting the squeeze on all three when CSN Pressbox launches
)
So what we are hearing here is that if your team has a big rivals following the players who sign get more coverage. Is it any wonder that UB went into signing day with just 9 of their 18 commits listed and magically nine guys appear the next day with various ** ratings?
Look the Scout BB's can be fun and yes they do cover the guys of teams that they cover just fine. But their overall rankings are meaningless.