Scout v. Rivals

[Cadillac]

I don't get it. I mean, I've really enjoyed CFN over at Scout but when it comes to recruiting I can't figure them out.

At first I just assumed that Scout had a higher standard of evidence for reporting commits, or simply less effective sources of information. I mean, Rivals always scoops them, but they do ultimately catch up.

But then the Dallas Morning News reports that Bradon Smith has committed. Rivals then moves and gets the commit listed, yet as of right now, Scout still hasn't picked up on it.

I understand that this is some pretty thin information that these services are dealing with (reporting a "soft verbal" for example), but really is Scout just that much worse than Rivals when it comes to recruit reporting? Or is there something redeeming about them?

-CoS

[smupony94]

Stallion's reply in 3, 2, 1.....

[Cadillac]

Stallion's reply in 3, 2, 1.....

well, sure, I figured Stallion could answer the question as well or better than anyone else. If it wasn't such a dead time on the boards, I'd probably just PM him.

-CoS

[mavsrage311]

As discussed here before, Scout's ranking systems are a bit puzzling. They rank some recruits 4/5 stars whereas they are no where near that on Rivals. IMO, they tend to overestimate a lot of recruits. That said, I can't give you specific evidence as I really don't even pay much attention to scout anymore. Rivals has its downfalls too, but i'd trust it any day of the week over Scout

[HFvictory]

Both are oriented to team sites and whoever "owns" the SMU team site on scout.com is the one who is lacking. Unless another team happened to be following Smith that update won't happen until the SMU guy does it, Scout.com itself won't update recruits unless followed nationally. Sounds like the person running the Rivals SMU site is much more on the ball and it probably has the larger membership.

FWIW Scout.com is much stronger for SEC schools while Rivals is huge for Big XII schools.

[PK]

For what it is worth, there are only two non-official SMU fan sites. One has linked up with rivals...this one, PonyFans, is independent. Therefore, there is no Scout site owned by anyone (to the best of my knowledge).

[Grider]

http://smu.scout.com/

not sure who's running it, but there is a site.

[smupony94]

The SMU Rivals site is getting better.

[Otto]

This site is the only one needed.

[PK]

http://smu.scout.com/

not sure who's running it, but there is a site.

Well, that's a new one on me. Never seen that site before. How did you know about it?

[Stallion]

its been around for about 2 years

[Cadillac]

http://smu.scout.com/

not sure who's running it, but there is a site.

Whoever it is, they're alseep at the wheel.

-CoS

[smupony94]

its been around for about 2 years

Why don't you quote them along with Rivals?

[Stallion]

I don't think they've ever broken a commitment on SMU-maybe in BB. I dropped my subscription a long time ago.

[Webmaster]

Both Rivals and Scout have pursued us aggressively for several years. But in the final analysis, as much as we'd love to make a living covering the Ponies, we didn't feel that given the current state of the program enough people would be willing to Pony Up (if you'll pardon the pun) $10 a month to make up for what we (and you) would lose by PF.com joining one of the subscription networks.

As a member of the SportsWar Network, you get all this content for free because our sponsors -- not the fans -- keep us up and running. And as we continue to grow, we'll be providing the same type of scouting currently provided by the subscription services in addition to the more in-depth scouting coverage we provide in our Recruiting Roundup and Season Outlook. We'll also be doing this for most of our sports -- both men's and women's -- not just football.

That's why most of the stronger independent fan sites, like those from UT, A&M, Notre Dame, and now KillerFrogs.com, have either resisted joining the subscription networks or are now leaving them.