POLL: Rivals or Scots .. or other/trout?

DeToxRox · 12-14-2007, 07:00 PM

I am prefacing this with I am not a given to even get a scrip to either but I am curious how people who follow recruiting and know either site feel about them?

Which is the better one? Is there much difference? If you do have it, is it really worth it, or is it something you regret blowing dough on?

And am I missing a better potential site?

Anyhow, any help is appreciated.

dawgfan · 12-14-2007, 07:12 PM

Really depends on the individual sites you plan to spend most of your time with. For me, by far the best recruiting site for Huksy football is a Scout.com affiliate. I think Rivals has a better recruiting database, but the difference is not huge IMO and the much better reporting and forum moderation for the UW Scout.com site easily wins out.

MrBug708 · 12-14-2007, 07:14 PM

Rivals generally gets information out there quicker then Scout does and is generally better overall in football. But in terms of basketball, Scout blows Rivals out of the water.

But it depends on the site. Like dawgfan said, Washington's Scout site is better then the Rivals because of the writers there. The Rivals site is atrocious, especially for basketball. For UCLA, scout is also better. For Arizona though, Rivals is better then the scout affiliate.

sabotai · 12-14-2007, 07:16 PM

I personally never trust Scottish people.

SnDvls · 12-14-2007, 07:38 PM

ditto what everyone else is saying.

For ASU there is an independent site I stay on as it has some of the best info, then the Scout site...the rivals site for ASU is a ghost town.

Ryan S · 12-14-2007, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sabotai

I personally never trust Scottish people.

Somebody wants a trip to the penalty box

sabotai · 12-14-2007, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan S

Somebody wants a trip to the penalty box

I meant to say "I love Scottish people. Especially their cooking."

path12 · 12-14-2007, 09:00 PM

Mmmmmmmmmmmm.......haggis.

BYU 14 · 12-14-2007, 09:32 PM

If it's not scottish it's crap.

Honestly scout is probably a little better, but you have to take both with a grain of salt. It is really the off Season camps that drive recruit ratings for these sites, and oftern more appearances at a camp equal an extra star.

I know one kid here in AZ who has been rated a 3 star since he was a sophomore and the reason is camp exposure, otherwise he would be a two star. IMO there are at least 5-6 backs in the state rated lower than him who are easily as good as or better. I know it is not an exact science, but just getting your face out there can influence things.

WSUCougar · 12-14-2007, 09:33 PM

BYU 14 · 12-14-2007, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

Ryan....is that you?

View Poll Results: Which is better?
Rivals.com	5	50.00%
Scout.com	4	40.00%
Other.com	0	0%
Trout.com	1	10.00%
Voters: 10. You may not vote on this poll

12-14-2007, 09:00 PM	#8
path12 Coordinator Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Seattle, WA	Mmmmmmmmmmmm.......haggis. __________________ We have always been at war with Eastasia.

12-14-2007, 09:33 PM	#10
WSUCougar Rider Of Rohan Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Port Angeles, WA or Helm's Deep	__________________ It's not the years...it's the mileage.

12-14-2007, 07:12 PM	#2
dawgfan Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Seattle	Really depends on the individual sites you plan to spend most of your time with. For me, by far the best recruiting site for Huksy football is a Scout.com affiliate. I think Rivals has a better recruiting database, but the difference is not huge IMO and the much better reporting and forum moderation for the UW Scout.com site easily wins out.

12-14-2007, 07:14 PM	#3
MrBug708 Head Coach Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Whittier	Rivals generally gets information out there quicker then Scout does and is generally better overall in football. But in terms of basketball, Scout blows Rivals out of the water. But it depends on the site. Like dawgfan said, Washington's Scout site is better then the Rivals because of the writers there. The Rivals site is atrocious, especially for basketball. For UCLA, scout is also better. For Arizona though, Rivals is better then the scout affiliate.

12-14-2007, 07:16 PM	#4
sabotai General Manager Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: The Satellite of Love	I personally never trust Scottish people.

12-14-2007, 07:38 PM	#5
SnDvls Pro Starter Join Date: Jul 2001	ditto what everyone else is saying. For ASU there is an independent site I stay on as it has some of the best info, then the Scout site...the rivals site for ASU is a ghost town.

12-14-2007, 09:32 PM	#9
BYU 14 Coordinator Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: The scorched Desert	If it's not scottish it's crap. Honestly scout is probably a little better, but you have to take both with a grain of salt. It is really the off Season camps that drive recruit ratings for these sites, and oftern more appearances at a camp equal an extra star. I know one kid here in AZ who has been rated a 3 star since he was a sophomore and the reason is camp exposure, otherwise he would be a two star. IMO there are at least 5-6 backs in the state rated lower than him who are easily as good as or better. I know it is not an exact science, but just getting your face out there can influence things.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)