Gopher's ranked #49 on Scout? What?

Donate To GopherHole
F

froggopher

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2009
Messages
549
Reaction score
1
Points
18
Scout must be a joke compared to Rival's. They have Green, Thornton and Eure rated at only 1 star? I thought they were all 3 stars? MMMMMMM!

Go Gopher's!!!!
 

froggopher said:
Scout must be a joke compared to Rival's. They have Green, Thornton and Eure rated at only 1 star? I thought they were all 3 stars? MMMMMMM!

Go Gopher's!!!!
Click to expand...

Frog, I'm going to venture a guess that the 1 star means they haven't been rated yet. Much like our 3 "5 stars" on Rivals the other day. The rating services differ, but I sincerely doubt that Green is actually rated as a 1 star.
 

Who cares? It only matters on the field.
 

NateDawgUM said:
Who cares? It only matters on the field.
Click to expand...

God its nice to see SOMEONE on the gopherhole realize that its about more than just how many stars Scout or Rivals gives a high schooler.

Who cares where they are ranked? if you find tough, smart kids with character and talent who WANT to be golden gophers and have coaches who can develop that talent, you will have a winning program.
 

GoAUpher said:
Frog, I'm going to venture a guess that the 1 star means they haven't been rated yet.
Click to expand...

This is correct. Still, Scout is known for their poor judgment of talent. Not sure how ESPN stacks up...
 


Recruiting Services

I love how people b!tch about Scout and Rivals. Tell you what.....start your own website and rate the thousands of high school players yourself. See what you come up with. Try to distinguish a 3* in a terrible high school football state like Minnesota with a 3* in Texas or Florida.

These rankings are for nothing more than selling subscriptions and golly gee....what programs always have the highest rated classes every year? Hmmmm....could it be the schools with the largest fan bases that have the most lemmings willing to plop down $9.95/month?!?!? What a coinky dink.

Unbeknownst to most fo you, Vandelay Industries just launched a spin off company called "Scouvals" and we rank high school athletes as well.

FWIW, Seantrel Henderson is only a 3.7* and this Green kid that Tennessee kicked to the curb is a 2.4*.
 

Except they're fairly predictive. So maybe worth more than a golly gee.
 

The Badgers are 40th on Scout and 62 on Rivals. That should tell you all you need to know about "rating" recruits on internet sites.
 

GVBadger said:
The Badgers are 40th on Scout and 62 on Rivals. That should tell you all you need to know about "rating" recruits on internet sites.
Click to expand...

This would seem to fit with the general consensus of the board that Scout sucks. ;)
 





Tell that to Boise St., TCU, and Notre Dame....
Click to expand...

Art, You left out a bunch of schools - like around 110 or so other schools - that help prove the point that rating services, while not 100% accurate, are a fairly good indicator of success. Even of the three you point out - how would Boise and TCU do in a major conference? I don't know either way but it is fair to point that out as a reason why they have been so successful without top rated talent.

110 to 3 - I'll go with the recruiting services.
 

But Josh, don't you know the entire way to have a debate is to pick and choose the examples that fit your argument instead of looking at the data as a whole?
 



Art Vandelay said:
I love how people b!tch about Scout and Rivals. Tell you what.....start your own website and rate the thousands of high school players yourself. See what you come up with. Try to distinguish a 3* in a terrible high school football state like Minnesota with a 3* in Texas or Florida.
Click to expand...

I've rated your post a 1*. That's not going to get you a scholarship.
 

rating services

Thanks for your responses fellow Holer's. It seems that everyone has an opinion on the cretability of these sites. It just seems that Rival's does their homework better than Scout. I think most collegians nationwide would agree with me on that. Am I right? Damn right!

Go Gopher's!!!:clap::D:D:clap:
 

Art Vandelay said:
Tell that to Boise St., TCU, and Notre Dame....
Click to expand...

The schools you mentioned are notable specifically because of the predictive nature of Rivals. We only know they over achieved or underachieved beause we understand what the strengths that their teams should be. We know Boise State and TCU are middle of the pack recruiting teams just like we use to be, and we know ND is a perennial top ten recruiting team. If we didn't know that their results would mean little.

All you've done is highlight the value of knowing where a team should finish. So that we might analyze them more accurately and fairly. Boise State's accomplishment means almost nothing if they have the team strength of Texas.

These exceptions are exactly what a person should be looking for. Ohio State winning the Big Ten says much less about their program than Boise States undefeated season specifically because of expectations derived from their recruiting standings.

I calculate team strengths not because I want confirmation that Ohio State has the top talent in the Big Ten but because I want to be able to see which teams are over achieving or under achieving. Without this process I might think that Wisconsin had a good year, when in reality they finished just where they should have, same with seven other teams. I wouldn't be able to say those coaches are doing exactly what they should be with the talent they have. I wouldn't be able to know for sure that Illinois vastly underachieved, or that Northwestern vastly overachieved. I'd unfairly praise some such as OSU or PSU, and unfairly criticize others like Indiana or Minnesota or as I often like to do Wisconsin.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom