Whats the difference between Rivals and Scout beside LSU being 4/2 and Bama being 10/19? Is one more reputable or better than the other? Which do you recommend? Or are they both worth perusing?
IMHO, Rivals does NOT have the better info and even less credibility. The fact they rank that lame gump class at 10 should be proof enough.
Rivals has the better layout and their prospect rankings are regarded by many as top notch....as well as the videos Their team ranking system on the other hand is suspect.
One day last week, Bama moved from 15th to 14th in a matter of 2 hours, with No commits, and No changes to the team in front of them. Nothing..they just moved up. Someone at Rivals is loving the Saban hype, because the class they signed just isn't worthy of a #10 ranking. Also Rivals Radio & Bill King have become "All things Bama" for a solid month. Looking at Scout, they have Bama's class ranked at #19, which is more realistic. LSU just signed one of our best classes, maybe ever. We have a whopping 21 Signees (4 Star) & better. Bama has 10 (4 Star) Signees, the rest are 3 & 2 stars. I don't mean this vindictively, but Bama has less than 1/2 the talent we have pulled in, yet Rivals is telling us Bama came within 6 spots of LSU?? Bama hopping into the Top 10 does a disservice to all the coaches who busted ther butts to get there. I am now looking seriously at Scout. (Sorry for the long reponse, just wanted to give my reasoning)
To each his own I guess. I just like Scout better. If you think Rivals prospect ranking system is top notch then you believe that Bama has a class only marginally worse than ours. If someone considers their ranking system better than Scout than a player going to Bama warrants an immediate increase to 4 stars even though the only scholly offer they had was from Kentucky. How about a guy who gets raised from 2 to 4 stars by Rivals when his offers are from Bowling Green, UCon & Temple but then commits to Bama? I've paid for both services but got fed up with Rivals bias years ago. Scout isnt completely innocent either because they tend to raise stars if Rivals does but they dont go crazy with obvious bias and it isnt just in Bama's case either. Rivals has always placated their paying members by feeding them exactly what they want to hear.
I was a member of both services as well and liked scout better. Now I believe scout is much, much better in terms of relevent information and integrity with Sonny Shipp back full time at Tiger Rag. Both sites have their highs and lows though and I think you'd be happy with either one, although I have to say the TB message noards, while much busier, were horrible in my opinion. Way too much fighting, bashing, attacks, posting of bad info, etc. and that included the TB staff.
From what I understand...Rivals does better with content and coverage of the southeastern and east coast regions. Scout does better with content and coverage of the North and west regions of the country. Thats why we prefer rivals.
I don't know that I would definately say one is "better than the other", but I do subscribe to Rivals--and have for 3 years now. I just prefer the layout.
