Which recruiting service has been the most accurate historically?

[eRUPPtion78]

Rivals
Scout
ESPN

Which of the 3 have been the most spot-on when it comes to ranking prospects throughout the years? Has there ever been any analysis done with regards to rankings vs. draft position or NBA success? I'd be interested to see the results...and to know if any service has gone back and edited their projections (ala Chad Ford).

 

[BigKari]

ESPN had Bradley number 1 and Wall number 5 in the 2009 class. Rivals had Austin Rivers #1 over Anthony Davis and Selby #1 over Kyrie Irving and Brandon Knight. Scout probably gets less attention than ESPN and Rivals I feel like, but they are basically the best of the 3 by default.

 

[Roe07]

I've always thought rivals was the best (just my personal opinion) so it's really the only one I follow.

 

[MWes11]

I think 247 ranks them the best, but their "educated guesses" on their crystal ball can be pretty bad at times.

 

[BigAbe4UK]

ESPN is usually the worse one. That would be the last one I would put any stock in. That Wall ranking was all I needed to see to know to never take there rankings into account. That was a HUGE miss. I think Rivals and Scout are about the same. They all have their whiffs

 

[wcc31]

Rivals
Scout
ESPN

Which of the 3 have been the most spot-on when it comes to ranking prospects throughout the years? Has there ever been any analysis done with regards to rankings vs. draft position or NBA success? I'd be interested to see the results...and to know if any service has gone back and edited their projections (ala Chad Ford).

They hire different analysts every couple of years, so it's hard to say.

 

[Ben101er]

I have always felt that the best was Hoop Scoop, with Clark in the dark, and then everyone else.

 

[mj2k10]

I've always thought rivals was the best (just my personal opinion) so it's really the only one I follow.

The same Rivals that had BJ Mullens, Josh Selby, and Austin Rivers as #1 overall players?

They all have hits and misses. And they all generally watch the same things, so there's usually a pretty strong consensus, with only minor variation. People jump on the "ESPN had John Wall 5" thing, and that was heroically stupid (especially the way that ESPN kept referring to that rating after the 09-10 season started, and it became obvious within a few weeks that Wall was going to challenge for NPOY), but people forget that Derrick Favors was the consensus 1 in that class, not Wall, and it's not like ESPN had Wall 20th or something.

The one guy I will criticize a little is Jerry Meyer. I've always had the distinct sense that he'll jiggle his ratings not because of any actual evaluation, but just to separate himself from the pack. He was the guy at Rivals most responsible for Mullens and Selby at #1, and even this year, he has things like Jayson Tatum at 14. Maybe that's a legit opinion, but I think the motivation behind it is mostly to get attention. But hey, it kind of makes sense to go out on a limb that no one else will walk out on just to stand out from a crowded field, and if you're right, you look smart (if not, people like me remember you looking dumb).

 

[Smashcat]

They hire different analysts every couple of years, so it's hard to say.

I agree. I think Scout was by far the best when Dave Telep was in charge. But at the time a lot of people didn't like him.

 

[mj2k10]

I agree. I think Scout was by far the best when Dave Telep was in charge. But at the time a lot of people didn't like him.

And then Telep went to ESPN for about 3 years, before taking a job with the Spurs. So the ESPN ratings from 2011 to 2013 were probably what the Rivals ratings would have been, except Rivals at that time was being done by someone different. Which goes to show why you can't just tag any site as automatically better than any other.

 

[LineSkiCat14]

I remember the ESPN/Rivals difference back in 2009 and 2010 with Wall, Cousins and such.

None are perfect ti seems. But I remember Rivals seemed to have better talent at one point, but then one of their top guys (King?) left for another service and they dropped off. Someone here will remember better.

They are make mistakes, but ESPN shows bias AND makes mistakes. UNC and Duke players always seem to get a boost.

 

[Smashcat]

And then Telep went to ESPN for about 3 years, before taking a job with the Spurs. So the ESPN ratings from 2011 to 2013 were probably what the Rivals ratings would have been, except Rivals at that time was being done by someone different. Which goes to show why you can't just tag any site as automatically better than any other.

Which is why I agreed with that sentiment but singled out Scout when Telep was Scout. Make sense?

 

[LineSkiCat14]

Telep.. dammit, that's who I was thinking of.

 

[Bigblueforever]

I like Rivals & 247 best.

 

[mj2k10]

Which is why I agreed with that sentiment but singled out Scout when Telep was Scout. Make sense?

If Telep is the guy responsible for Scout being good, and then Telep goes to ESPN, why wouldn't ESPN then be good? At least while he's there.

 

[ORCAT]

I think it's just a matter of opinion, as we are seeing in the posts above. My personal choices are #! Rivals and #247 but I don't really care for the crystal ball stuff.

 

[bthaunert]

I wish RSCI had more updates. That is the one I always use after the fact, but they don't do any updates during the year.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

I think Cal's rankings are the best.

 

[Jkwo]

If Telep is the guy responsible for Scout being good, and then Telep goes to ESPN, why wouldn't ESPN then be good? At least while he's there.

I personally thought they were, but he wasn't there all that long.

If you get hired by a pro team from a silly recruiting rankings website, that says something, imo - particularly the Spurs, who are known as maybe the smartest hiring organization in the league.

 

[Mojocat]

I think Cal's rankings are the best.

Winner.

I think for a while i had the notion that Scout was better for hoops, Rivals better for football. But like everyone says, it depends on the people at each place, so it changes....

 

[caneintally]

I think 247 ranks them the best, but their "educated guesses" on their crystal ball can be pretty bad at times.

247 is by far the best IMO as well . Rivals is good as well . ESPN not so much and Scout just LOL at that graveyard of a site in general.

 

[AllCats22]

Not ESPN. Their rankings suck for the most part. Also on the players lists of schools they don't always have the key schools involved on the list.

 

[UK90]

I have always felt that the best was Hoop Scoop, with Clark in the dark, and then everyone else.

Wasn't Clark Francis one of the guys who fell hardest for the Ivan Renko hoax? That moment should've ended his career right there.

 

[heckwithtech]

Not ESPN. Their rankings suck for the most part. Also on the players lists of schools they don't always have the key schools involved on the list.

ESPN is all in on Football, College Hoops recruiting is clearly secondary. It's all about what they can control and creating a narrative for ratings. They do not have such control with College Hoops thanks to Turner/CBS and it is a good thing.