Official Plea to Use ESPN Instead of Scout/Rivals

Donate To GopherHole
KoolAid

KoolAid

Red Drank Brewmaster
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
1,989
Reaction score
239
Points
63
My favorite topic in College Football is recruiting. It's a crazy and inexact science, but no one can downplay it's importance.

There are 4 teams in the world of College football that can take a relaxed approach to recruiting and still be successful. These schools are Florida, Texas, Ohio State and USC. Basically, none of them have to fight for the in-state kids that they want. They still have to do their homework, but for the most part - they've got an easier road than the rest of the world.

Now, on to the good stuff - recruiting services, scouting sites, whatever you want to call them. The prevalent ones are obviously Rivals and Scout, and now a newbie - ESPN. This topic has essentially been the great debate around here - and rightfully so.

Now ESPN is relatively late to the game, but they make up ground quickly. They are going to have so much fire power behind what they do that they could actually demolish both Rivals and Scout. ESPN is simply a better company and they will deliver a better product.

The purpose of this thread is to provide you with the information on why you should use ESPN instead of Scout and Rivals. Feel free to discuss this topic. I plan on posting specifics from time to time (whenever I get the motivation) to illustrate my point.

My first example:...
 

KoolAid said:
My favorite topic in College Football is recruiting. It's a crazy and inexact science, but no one can downplay it's importance.

There are 4 teams in the world of College football that can take a relaxed approach to recruiting and still be successful. These schools are Florida, Texas, Ohio State and USC. Basically, none of them have to fight for the in-state kids that they want. They still have to do their homework, but for the most part - they've got an easier road than the rest of the world.

Now, on to the good stuff - recruiting services, scouting sites, whatever you want to call them. The prevalent ones are obviously Rivals and Scout, and now a newbie - ESPN. This topic has essentially been the great debate around here - and rightfully so.

Now ESPN is relatively late to the game, but they make up ground quickly. They are going to have so much fire power behind what they do that they could actually demolish both Rivals and Scout. ESPN is simply a better company and they will deliver a better product.

The purpose of this thread is to provide you with the information on why you should use ESPN instead of Scout and Rivals. Feel free to discuss this topic. I plan on posting specifics from time to time (whenever I get the motivation) to illustrate my point.

My first example:...
Click to expand...

Don't tell Clyde...:)
 

Didn't ESPN use Rivals info or eval's or something? There is a solid chance I have no idea what I'm talking about, but I think I remember reading that.

I can't get into much of ESPN's recruiting content, but I'd be curious what they have to say about some of our recruits.
 

...I saw this the other day from Doogie and I thought it would be a good first example:

Sean Ferguson given a 3-star rating after he committed to Minnesota.

Within a couple of days of Ferguson committing, Rivals conveniently upgraded him from no stars to 3 stars. They had no film on him and had not evaluated him - but yet, he has 3 stars all of a sudden.

Both Rivals and Scout are very guilty of giving kids ratings based on who offers. You can't really blame them, they've got a lot of work to and this is an easy shortcut. ESPN didn't evaluate him and they left him unrated - WHY ON EARTH WOULD THEY DO THAT?

For the record, I've seen tape on Ferguson. He was a post-grad playing against normal juniors and seniors. The equivalent to a College Freshman still playing high school ball. He was vey far from dominant in a really weak football conference.
 

OSU did not do well with the instate Ohio kids and could only got #5, 7, 19 and 22. The prior four years they ended up with 60-70% of the top rated Rivals Ohio players.
 


gophergrad said:
Didn't ESPN use Rivals info or eval's or something? There is a solid chance I have no idea what I'm talking about, but I think I remember reading that.

I can't get into much of ESPN's recruiting content, but I'd be curious what they have to say about some of our recruits.
Click to expand...

ESPN's recruiting site says "Data provided by Scouts, Inc." I've been told that they are different then Scout. If I would have actually clicked on these I wouldn't have had to bother Clyde before for the info.

http://insider.espn.go.com/ncaa/recruiting/news/story?id=2105483

Inside the Evaluations:

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/recruiting/football/news/story?id=2105482
 

Ahh, thanks Ice (btw intimidating nickname 'Ice').

And actually after thinking about it, ESPN provides about the same amount of info for free. I was a little ticked when they stopped including the evaluation for free but they show the players' highlight reel and rivals doesn't do that.
 

People use the rankings that are most favorable to their favorite team.
 

Jimmy Gjere was a three star on ESPN even though he played in the Army All American Game. Rivals and Scout both had him as a four star. ESPN has a habit of giving the Under Armor All Americans better grades since the game is on ESPN while the Army game is on a different network. Just saying.
 



Art Vandelay said:
People use the rankings that are most favorable to their favorite team.
Click to expand...

People other than you, you mean. You go out of your way to cherry-pick the least favorable information regarding your team... all in the name of being a "realist":rolleyes:
 

StartGrayPlz said:
Jimmy Gjere was a three star on ESPN even though he played in the Army All American Game. Rivals and Scout both had him as a four star. ESPN has a habit of giving the Under Armor All Americans better grades since the game is on ESPN while the Army game is on a different network. Just saying.
Click to expand...

I have also noticed this...admittedly i may only have noticed select cases and haven't looked into it thoroughly...maybe someone else has.
 


I think ESPN provides the best scouting evaluations. Rivals is usually more accurate when it comes to up-to-date information. Personal preference.
 



StartGrayPlz said:
Jimmy Gjere was a three star on ESPN even though he played in the Army All American Game. Rivals and Scout both had him as a four star. ESPN has a habit of giving the Under Armor All Americans better grades since the game is on ESPN while the Army game is on a different network. Just saying.
Click to expand...

And this is exactly why ESPN should not be considered a reputable stand-alone source of info on anything. They are a ratings monster and they do not hesitate to seemingly go to any lengths to promote themselves....and IMO that includes the way the rank players/teams.
 


Rivals is better than ESPN hands down imo. That said, ESPN has gained ground due to their unlimited resources. Someday they may be #1, but it's not today and I certainly can't understand why someone would plead with the board to use an inferior product?
 

Costa Rican Gopher said:
Rivals is better than ESPN hands down imo. That said, ESPN has gained ground due to their unlimited resources. Someday they may be #1, but it's not today and I certainly can't understand why someone would plead with the board to use an inferior product?
Click to expand...

Because I don't like you
 

I'd agree that ESPN has the more in-depth evaluations.

Overall, how can any service claim to be the "place to go" for all high school, prep school and JCs in the country? it just can't be done.
 

Let's not act like ESPN has the edge because of any sort of advantage in resources. ESPN is a larger organization that scout or rivals, but scout is part of the Fox media conglomerate and Rivals is apparently run by yahoo sports.

ESPN is owned by the Disney Corp. now you tell me who has the better chance of evolving in the world of the 'new media': Fox corp, yahoo or the sluggish leviathan disney corp?
 

Iceland12 said:
I'd agree that ESPN has the more in-depth evaluations.

Overall, how can any service claim to be the "place to go" for all high school, prep school and JCs in the country? it just can't be done.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you could just use all three lol. Problem solved.
 

I like ESPN's system better than the Rivals ranking. 73/100 makes a lot more sense to me than a 5.6 rivals ranking, and I like ESPN's lengthy evals.
 

KoolAid said:
recruiting services, scouting sites, whatever you want to call them. The prevalent ones are obviously Rivals and Scout, and now a newbie - ESPN. This topic has essentially been the great debate around here - and rightfully so.

Now ESPN is relatively late to the game, but they make up ground quickly. They are going to have so much fire power behind what they do that they could actually demolish both Rivals and Scout. ESPN is simply a better company and they will deliver a better product.

The purpose of this thread is to provide you with the information on why you should use ESPN instead of Scout and Rivals.
Click to expand...

Blah blah blah. The whole point of America is to have choices, not monopolies. Most people choose rivals because they feel it's most accurate. You can sell ESPN all you want, but if it doesn't produce, than you may as well be equal to... Brewster.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom