The disparity between Rivals and Scout is pretty amazing... (Other site's ranking when out of Top 11) Bold = Big Disparity Ranking: Rivals/Scout 1: Bama / Bama 2: Notre Dame / Notre Dame 3: Florida / Miami 4: Miami / Georgia 5: Oklahoma (12)/ Florida State 6: Georgia / LSU 7: USC (13) / Ohio State 8: Florida State / Michigan 9: Ohio State / UCLA (13) 10: Michigan / Clemson (12) 11: LSU / Florida I realize that the points awarded have no direct relationship with other teams. But rather than nitpick individual recruits ratings, I'm choosing to take a macro view and just look at the big picture. It doesn't EXPLAIN anything, but I think it shows just how - cough - random some of these individual player ratings are. Florida: Rivals has them 230 Rival-points behind Bama, about 92%. Scout has them 1250 Scout-points behind, or about 75%. Wow. Oklahoma: Rivals has them 414 behind Bama or 85%. Scout has them 1272 behind Bama or 74%. Again, not an insignificant difference. USC: Rivals has them 524 behind Bama or 82%. Scout has them 1357 behind or 73%. Almost as big as the Oklahoma disparity. LSU: Rivals has them 702 behind Bama or 75%. Scout has the Tigers 1048 behind or 79%. Even though the difference between an 11 and a 6 ranking seems HUGE, the actual scores relative to the top of the class is far closer than Florida, Oklahoma or USC. UCLA: Rivals has the Bruins 912 behind Bama or 68%. Scout shows them 1152 behind Bama or 81%. Only Florida (in my sample of the Top 11) has a bigger disparity. I'm sure there are even bigger disparities as you flow down the list, but I would imagine that the further you get from 4 and 5 star athletes, the more disparate and inaccurate the player ratings will be. Rivals gives Florida 12 4-star athletes, but Scout says they only have 8. This is where the bulk of the ratings difference comes to play. Similarly, Rivals gives UCLA 0 5-stars and 12 4-stars, Scout gives them 2 5-stars and 11 4-stars. This doesn't account for all the disparity - Rivals and Scout agree fairly closely on LSU and Oklahoma's star count. But they assign points very differently, so their overall rankings vary. Bottom line: Smoke and Mirrors. This is just another data point to prove that the rankings are interesting but irrelevant. The key is for the coaches to accurately assess needs and match quality signees to those needs. Whether Rivals or Scout agree is a matter of history, not prescience. Fill....and fall.
To make money they aren't going to have everyone the same. Even if they agree they will go out on a limb to try to better their service. It is a business first.
Scout takes need into account. Therefore if they think you dont have a need at WR, your 6 4* Wrs won't count as much for you. The same works conversely. They think we filled our needs very well. As do I.
Wonder how closely their assessment of LSU's needs matches the coaches' assessment. Still have to wonder how they can be so different on Florida's signees from a ratings standpoint. 4 players got one less star. Wonder how many other teams had that many players rated so differently. Yea, verily. :hihi: This is a great point.
The bottom line ticker on ESPN last night said ESPN/Scout Rankings had LSU at 11. Is that different from plain Scout Rankings?
I don't understand that. I'm not even sure how Scout would really know where a team has a need. Either way I think Scout had USC rated the lowest of all the services (?) and yet this was a MAJOR year for filling the needs particularly on the Oline.
