InterestingDisparity

[DyeEraTiger 0]

With it being Super Bowl Sunday and having little else to interest myself this afternoon, I conducted somewhat of a scientific analysis of the the Rivals vs. the Scout team rankings.

What I found was quite interesting, at least to myself. I looked at the top 30 teams in the Scout rankings and compared them to where Rivals has them ranked. Most of us have seen and heard the talk about Rivals being owned and/or operated by UAT homers. It has really become a joke to many of the other team fans in the SEC. Well, my analysis only lends credence to our jest.

The vast majority of the teams in the Scout top 30 classes differed by a single digit margin from Rivals, or were even (25 teams). Of the five remaining teams that differed by a double digit margin in rankings, guess where the biggest disparity was. No. You were wrong. The biggest disparity was with Texas A&M!

Scout has A&M at #23 and the Rival's "experts " have them at #40. A whopping 17 spot disparity.

Now, guess where the second biggest difference was. Wrong again. It was with West Virginia. Scout has them at 22 and Rivals at 38.(editors note: Do they only hate Fran 1 spot worse than Rich?)

The interesting thing is that the 3rd biggest disparity is with, you guessed it this time: UAT !

Scout has the Bammers at #28 and the homers have them at #13. A 15 spot.

So, I unveil my research and post for the world to see the top 3 "biggest differences" in rankings between Scout and Rivals. Who would have ever thunk that 2 of the top 3 would be Texas A&M and UAT. With the Rivals homers having UAT 15 spots higher than Scout and A&M 17 spots lower than Scout.

Biggest Disparity

1. Texas A&M--17 spots(former UAT Head Coach Fran that said "Adios")

2. West Virginia--16 spots(former UAT Head Coach Candidate Rich Rodriquez that said "No Thanks")

3. Bama--15 spots

4. Pitt.--13 spots

5. Virginia--10 spots.

[Aubie16 1]

I did this a while back and posted it on the Rivals Premium board but forgot to post it here too.

Here is a breakdown in the differences between Scout and Rivals Rankings...

Rivals

(Parentheses = Number of positions off from scout)

(example- Texas is 2 in scout and 3 in rivals..so they fell 1 = (-1)

Notre Dame is 3 higher in Rivals...so they have a (+3)

1 Florida (0)

2 Tennessee (+1)

3 Texas (-1)

4 Notre Dame (+3)

5 LSU (0)

6 South Carolina (0)

7 Southern Cal (-3)

8 Georgia 23 (+8)

9 Auburn 24 (+1)

10 Nebraska (+2)

11 Oregon (-2)

12 Michigan (-1)

13 Alabama (+15)

14 Illinois (+1)

15 Ohio State (-1)

16 Georgia Tech (-3)

17 Clemson (+3)

18 Ole Miss (+6)

19 Virginia (+10)

20 Oklahoma (+22)

21 Pittsburgh (-13)

22 Penn State (-4)

23 Miami-FL (+3)

24 California (-7)

25 Virginia Tech (-6)

The biggest differences are:

Oklahoma (+22)

Alabama (+15)

Pittsburgh (-13)

Virginia (+10)

Georgia (+8)

Scout

1. Florida

2. Texas

3. Tennessee

4. USC

5. LSU

6. South Carolina

7. Notre Dame

8. Pittsburgh

9. Oregon

10. Auburn

11. Michigan

12. Nebraska

13. Georgia Tech

14. Ohio State

15. Illinois

16. Georgia

17. California

18. Penn State

19. Virginia Tech

20. Clemson

21. Oklahoma State

22. West Virginia

23. Texas A&M

24. Mississippi

25. Rutgers

[DyeEraTiger 0]

Aubie--I like the way you did it but your info isn't current. The latest rankings have changed since you posted this. My point was really to emphasize the biggest diparities: Texas A&M, West Virginia and Bama--and the fact that they all have a Bama connection.Thanks.

[kingfish 73]

With it being Super Bowl Sunday and having little else to interest myself this afternoon, I conducted somewhat of a scientific analysis of the the Rivals vs. the Scout team rankings.

What I found was quite interesting, at least to myself. I looked at the top 30 teams in the Scout rankings and compared them to where Rivals has them ranked. Most of us have seen and heard the talk about Rivals being owned and/or operated by UAT homers. It has really become a joke to many of the other team fans in the SEC. Well, my analysis only lends credence to our jest.

The vast majority of the teams in the Scout top 30 classes differed by a single digit margin from Rivals, or were even (25 teams). Of the five remaining teams that differed by a double digit margin in rankings, guess where the biggest disparity was. No. You were wrong. The biggest disparity was with Texas A&M!

Scout has A&M at #23 and the Rival's "experts " have them at #40. A whopping 17 spot disparity.

Now, guess where the second biggest difference was. Wrong again. It was with West Virginia. Scout has them at 22 and Rivals at 38.(editors note: Do they only hate Fran 1 spot worse than Rich?)

The interesting thing is that the 3rd biggest disparity is with, you guessed it this time: UAT !

Scout has the Bammers at #28 and the homers have them at #13. A 15 spot.

So, I unveil my research and post for the world to see the top 3 "biggest differences" in rankings between Scout and Rivals. Who would have ever thunk that 2 of the top 3 would be Texas A&M and UAT. With the Rivals homers having UAT 15 spots higher than Scout and A&M 17 spots lower than Scout.

Biggest Disparity

1. Texas A&M--17 spots(former UAT Head Coach Fran that said "Adios")

2. West Virginia--16 spots(former UAT Head Coach Candidate Rich Rodriquez that said "No Thanks")

3. Bama--15 spots

4. Pitt.--13 spots

5. Virginia--10 spots.

DET, this is a very interesting connection ... good observation.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Rivals just jumped Journet from 0 stars to 3 stars. Must be a conspiracy.

[The Prowler 1]

Yea........zero star, whatever. He was the 5A Defensive Player of the Year.....0 Star, that just shows

you who didn't do their homework. And, by the way, Luther Davis also played in 5A.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Yea........zero star, whatever. He was the 5A Defensive Player of the Year.....0 Star, that just shows

you who didn't do their homework. And, by the way, Luther Davis also played in 5A.

When they arent rated and go to a 3 star for bama...its not "they didnt do their homework"...its always "Rivals overrates bama players"

[DyeEraTiger 0]

Rivals just jumped Journet from 0 stars to 3 stars. Must be a conspiracy.

It takes at least two to conspire BamaGrad and only one to look like an idiot (Rivals, not you). As they say in the sales field, the numbers don't lie.

[whiteplainstiger 0]

Journet wasnt given any stars because everybody knows he is headed to junior college. Even LSU fans are saying he is one of top 5 players in the state of Louisiana in terms of his football ability.

This is what a writer for the New Orleans Times Picayune had to say about Wilfred Journet.

If he were not bound for copiah-lincoln (Miss.) community college, defensive end Wilfred Journet, six foot three, 240, of state-champion Acadiana would have certainly been ranked among the states top five prospects. Journet will hope to become qualified during the next two seasons. The Class 5A All-State MVP visits Auburn this weekend and says he plans to sign Wendesday. Journet compiled staggering statistics as a senior: 126 tackles, 48 tackles for losses, 19 sacks, 6 blocked kicks, and two interceptions

[DKW 86 7,426]

I thought about this over the weekend and finally came to a sound conclusion. The way Rivals works is this:

If signs a player, gains stars either equal to or greater than the star rating of the player we just signed.

If doesnt sign a a player, loses stars.

If signs a player, he gains stars.

Overall, we get the player and his stars, until he shortly after he signs. He will then be de-evaluated.

Overall, almost all Bama signees, gain stars over time. Ours signees lose stars over time.

[GalensGhost 0]

Yea........zero star, whatever. He was the 5A Defensive Player of the Year.....0 Star, that just shows

you who didn't do their homework. And, by the way, Luther Davis also played in 5A.

When they arent rated and go to a 3 star for bama...its not "they didnt do their homework"...its always "Rivals overrates bama players"

Once again, BG, instead of addressing the obvious issue, you reached into the vault and pulled out your only trick:

"Oh yeah, well look at this AUBURN guy!!"

Your predictable response in no way addresses the overwhelming disparity that DET clearly -- and I do mean clearly -- illustrated.

What I find funny is how your fellow Bama fans explain the differences in rankings. Here's an example from Tidesports:

Rivals rankings are based on the overall player skills. Scout is based on like or dislike of certain schools, BAMA being one of those they dislike. Can't think of any other reason.

[quietfan 233]

One thing, however: If Rivals apparent bias includes prejudice against coachs at aTm & West Virginia, wouldn't it be expected that SPUAT's public enemies # 1a & 1b--Auburn & Tennessee--would see more of the same disparity? Seems like the Tigers and VOls would be among their top 5 of any measure of bias, ahead of Pitt & Virginia.

[DyeEraTiger 0]

One thing, however: If Rivals apparent bias includes prejudice against coachs at aTm & West Virginia, wouldn't it be expected that SPUAT's public enemies # 1a & 1b--Auburn & Tennessee--would see more of the same disparity? Seems like the Tigers and VOls would be among their top 5 of any measure of bias, ahead of Pitt & Virginia.

That is a good point quietfan. I thought about that myself but, first of all, this is a very subjective thing and there is no way to prove it. I personally feel that there is at least some preference shown toward Bama from Rivals but it's speculation. Based on years of observation, who's to say that Tenn. and AU haven't been the targets? I just think that WV and A&M could be even more hated at this point. But, again, I have no other proof than my speculation in the thread-starting post. To me though, the 3 biggest disparities between Scout and Rivals being: WV, A&M and Bama is at the very least suspicious, if not telling.

[rebdawg 5]

One of the recruiting writers for the Mobile Press Register addressed the Scout/Rivals issue last year after TX QB McLeroy changed his commitment from Texas Tech to Bama and was awarded with another star from Rivals upon doing so. He (Neal McCready) said that Rivals was co-founded by an Alabama grad and that Scout was started by a UTK grad and a Notre Dame grad. Pretty much Rivals over hypes Bama's signings and Scout downplays them so if Rivals has them at 16 and Scout has them at 30 commonsense would say that they are probably around #23 which is still pretty good out of 100+ D1 schools.

The Rivals over-hype hurt Bama's cause back when DuBose was coach. Remember those "underachieving" teams of his? The talent was not accurately represented and it gave false hope. Plus, sometimes these rankings just plain stink. Rivals and Scout had Auburn's 2000 class ranked around 20 or so and when they revisited them four years later they ranked it the #1 class from 2000. Of course those rankings equate to Potential vs. Production.

[BamaGrad03 0]

One of the recruiting writers for the Mobile Press Register addressed the Scout/Rivals issue last year after TX QB McLeroy changed his commitment from Texas Tech to Bama and was awarded with another star from Rivals upon doing so. He (Neal McCready) said that Rivals was co-founded by an Alabama grad and that Scout was started by a UTK grad and a Notre Dame grad. Pretty much Rivals over hypes Bama's signings and Scout downplays them so if Rivals has them at 16 and Scout has them at 30 commonsense would say that they are probably around #23 which is still pretty good out of 100+ D1 schools.

The Rivals over-hype hurt Bama's cause back when DuBose was coach. Remember those "underachieving" teams of his? The talent was not accurately represented and it gave false hope. Plus, sometimes these rankings just plain stink. Rivals and Scout had Auburn's 2000 class ranked around 20 or so and when they revisited them four years later they ranked it the #1 class from 2000. Of course those rankings equate to Potential vs. Production.

Thats funny considering McElroy was a 3 star when he commited to Tech and finished a 3 star. Not even their highest rated 3 star either. He was a 5.7.

[auskull 239]

Just goes to show that the coaches are the real talent evaluators. Rivals and Scout must wait four or five years to see how bad they did. I'll take CTT's evaluation of players against the "experts" anyday.

[WAR-MATT 2]

Who cares about the stars? Our's are better than their's, period.

[SKCAUB 0]

Yea........zero star, whatever. He was the 5A Defensive Player of the Year.....0 Star, that just shows

you who didn't do their homework. And, by the way, Luther Davis also played in 5A.

When they arent rated and go to a 3 star for bama...its not "they didnt do their homework"...its always "Rivals overrates bama players"

That is correct, Sir. Glad you FINALLY understand!

[SouthLink02 8]

He (Neal McCready) said that Rivals was co-founded by an Alabama grad and that Scout was started by a UTK grad and a Notre Dame grad. Pretty much Rivals over hypes Bama's signings and Scout downplays them so if Rivals has them at 16 and Scout has them at 30 commonsense would say that they are probably around #23 which is still pretty good out of 100+ D1 schools.

I am sure chuck can back me up but I had the pleasure of interviewing with Rivals for a position out of UGA and still talk to 2 of the people that work at the main office in Brentwood....no one person at Rivals can get a player's star up and I don't remember any co-owner going to bama....even if that is true, it is garbage to think that person got a players star up

[DyeEraTiger 0]

He (Neal McCready) said that Rivals was co-founded by an Alabama grad and that Scout was started by a UTK grad and a Notre Dame grad. Pretty much Rivals over hypes Bama's signings and Scout downplays them so if Rivals has them at 16 and Scout has them at 30 commonsense would say that they are probably around #23 which is still pretty good out of 100+ D1 schools.

I am sure chuck can back me up but I had the pleasure of interviewing with Rivals for a position out of UGA and still talk to 2 of the people that work at the main office in Brentwood....no one person at Rivals can get a player's star up and I don't remember any co-owner going to bama....even if that is true, it is garbage to think that person got a players star up

Why would you think it's garbage to get a players stars up? Can you accurately explain the procedure for us? Does it take some sort of congressional intervention or judicial procedure? Dosesn't seem like it would be that hard for some moron to click the "add star" or "subtract star" button.

[Legionfield 0]

One of the recruiting writers for the Mobile Press Register addressed the Scout/Rivals issue last year after TX QB McLeroy changed his commitment from Texas Tech to Bama and was awarded with another star from Rivals upon doing so. He (Neal McCready) said that Rivals was co-founded by an Alabama grad and that Scout was started by a UTK grad and a Notre Dame grad. Pretty much Rivals over hypes Bama's signings and Scout downplays them so if Rivals has them at 16 and Scout has them at 30 commonsense would say that they are probably around #23 which is still pretty good out of 100+ D1 schools.

The Rivals over-hype hurt Bama's cause back when DuBose was coach. Remember those "underachieving" teams of his? The talent was not accurately represented and it gave false hope. Plus, sometimes these rankings just plain stink. Rivals and Scout had Auburn's 2000 class ranked around 20 or so and when they revisited them four years later they ranked it the #1 class from 2000. Of course those rankings equate to Potential vs. Production.

Neal Mcready, now there is a bastion of journalism. This is the same idiot that was the first guy to play the Saban comment in Alabama. He is, and always will be, a Bama-hater. So do not take his word as the truth.

[Legionfield 0]

He (Neal McCready) said that Rivals was co-founded by an Alabama grad and that Scout was started by a UTK grad and a Notre Dame grad. Pretty much Rivals over hypes Bama's signings and Scout downplays them so if Rivals has them at 16 and Scout has them at 30 commonsense would say that they are probably around #23 which is still pretty good out of 100+ D1 schools.

I am sure chuck can back me up but I had the pleasure of interviewing with Rivals for a position out of UGA and still talk to 2 of the people that work at the main office in Brentwood....no one person at Rivals can get a player's star up and I don't remember any co-owner going to bama....even if that is true, it is garbage to think that person got a players star up

Finally, someone who does not believe that conspiracy theory...... The fact is that Scout and Jamie Newburg are clowns. Rivals is more respected and usually gets them right.

[Legionfield 0]

Who cares about the stars? Our's are better than their's, period.

Just keep telling yourself that........over....and over.......and over......

[BamaGrad03 0]

I am sure chuck can back me up but I had the pleasure of interviewing with Rivals for a position out of UGA and still talk to 2 of the people that work at the main office in Brentwood....no one person at Rivals can get a player's star up and I don't remember any co-owner going to bama....even if that is true, it is garbage to think that person got a players star up

The co-founder is a bama guy. But the guys on the rivals board (all have percentage ownership) are a Florida guy, an Ole Miss guy, a Texas guy, a Princeton guy ...and a few others. Shannon, the guy who is the Bama fan has zero say in evaluations. He has said numerous times that he's got a team of guys who are responsible for player evaluations and he wouldn't know where to start on evaluating players. He is completely removed from the proces.

[DKW 86 7,426]

I am sure chuck can back me up but I had the pleasure of interviewing with Rivals for a position out of UGA and still talk to 2 of the people that work at the main office in Brentwood....no one person at Rivals can get a player's star up and I don't remember any co-owner going to bama....even if that is true, it is garbage to think that person got a players star up

The co-founder is a bama guy. But the guys on the rivals board (all have percentage ownership) are a Florida guy, an Ole Miss guy, a Texas guy, a Princeton guy ...and a few others. Shannon, the guy who is the Bama fan has zero say in evaluations. He has said numerous times that he's got a team of guys who are responsible for player evaluations and he wouldn't know where to start on evaluating players. He is completely removed from the proces.

Schurburtt is bama too BTW and he does do the evaluations. What I want to know is how can a guy like Carnell Williams be a 5 star one day, committ to , and be a 3 star the next? Anyone that cannot see the Rivals bias is crazy... What evaluations are you doing in February anyway? They quit playing ball two freakin months ago. Anyone want to prove that they are actually finding some new nuggets of insight that they havent see for the last two months of film they have been watching?

BG, I am calling you out on this one. That was the lamest, most full of BS post you have ever put up on this board in 4-5 years. You know that Schurburtt does the evals, not some distant "owner."

This goes on year after year and we all make fun of it. Last year, Rivals had national admins coming in and deleting and editing posts over on the Auburn Rivals board. Why? We were questioning about a half a dozen de-evaluations on our recruits that all happened within minutes of each other. All half a dozen or so were DE-evaluations too.

Right now, is about 8-9 on every service. You can find from 6th to 34th. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot is up with that? Emfinger, Davis, Culpepper, and others have made fortunes off of selling recruiting ENTERTAINMENT as facts for years. They are the paper versions of Finebaum. They write what sells.