NCAA dealing a heavy blow to Rivals.com ...

I don't think following recruiting makes you inherently "ignorant." I think that it can be interesting, and I know plenty of normal people and reporters who keep it in perspective while at the same time following it. I'm a little hypocritical because I prefer someone else to be doing the dirty work of actually calling the kids and reporting, though I do think that a lot of the real work is done by the people who are good at it by building the stronger relationships with the parents instead of the kids. Or, rather, with the kids through the parents. And it can pay off in spades later because those same parents can be tremendous sources into what goes on behind closed doors once their children are on campus.

I read Baseball America, as do a lot of people here, so I always have a tough time getting too critical of people who follow recruiting as a hobby.

 

Rather than ban them all - I'm surprised the NCAA doesn't appoint "official" status to one site, kind of like the MLB scouting service. Makes it easier for the NCAA to monitor, everything is out there, everyone has access, maybe even pays for itself.

 

Can't imagine that happening. To have as much contact with recruits as recruiting sites do, they can't have any official ties to the schools they cover, or their contact would count toward the same contact restrictions the coaches face.

 

The NCAA would never buck its high standards and ethics for a dime.

 

Didn't schools just start (within the last five years) issuing credentials to Rivals sites?

 

This is the only salient post in the entire thread.

The NCAA damn well knows what it's after. Rivals and Scout often function as tools of college programs, acting as conduits between coaches and recruits. It's common - although a NCAA violation - for a college coach to pull aside or call the Rivals or Scout reporter and plug them for a bit of info.

It's relatively innocuous, as I understand it, but coaches seek any kind of goofy edge. In exchange for that bit of revelation, the recruiting sites will typically get, in return, "hey, we offered this kid, call him up and do a story" which in turn creates buzz and subscribers. The recruits themselves sometimes view these sites - whether they should or not - as an extension of the program, which often sells prospects on media coverage, etc.

 

Yes, and they didn't have much reason to do so before that. Recruiting sites were the Wild West in the late 1990s/early 2000s. A lot of the Internet was; this place, too, although, because of unbelievably high intellect around this joint, people were more civil for far longer than most.

 

Coaches use rival to keep up where kids are going and what other schools have offered. Rivals and scout are seedy parts of the recruiting. first off, I would say for every legit independent site like Orangebloods, there is a site that the writer is all but a booster.

He calls recruits, that are given to him by the coaches, and then contacts the recruit and gets info. then, he relays the info (how are you leaning, where are you going?) back to the assistant coach. When the rivals/scout guy are in good graces with the football coaches, they become a recruiting extension. They might not sway recruits, but they get info and keep good track of them.

The fact there is so much recruiting info out there speaks largely to the fact nearly every football or college coach breaks the rules about talking about recruits to the media. Some coaches won't speak to me at first, but once you get to know them we all know the deal.

I hate covering recruiting. I found I write more stories about the kid before he gets to campus than his 3 years he spent on campus. What's the logic there? Also, what's the logic in writing 5 stories on the kid who never came?

It's ridiculous.

 

You're 100 percent right. I think people justify recruiting coverage during the summer months when "there's nothing else."

 

You make some good points in second-to-last paragraph, though I sort of think if people want to read about recruits that's fine, reporters just need to be responsible and level headed about it.

But in my experience, most of the writers at Rivals sites act like professionals, even if deep down they are fans of the teams they cover. It may be different where you are at, but I'd say in my experience about 75 percent are good and 25 percent are homers and/or hacks. Those percentages aren't much different than local newspapers in college towns.

 

They way I read it, the new rule only says the coach or school can't subscribe to Rivals.com and its ilk, not that they can't visit the sites.

It's common practice for recruiting sites to "comp" user names and passwords to someone on the coaching staff (usually a recruiting GA) so that they can read the site for free in exchange for contact information for recruits and updated offer/commitment lists. So I don't see how this is going to stop the "problem" unless they make all schools block access to these sites on school-issued computer networks and Blackberrys.

Still, that wouldn't stop a coach from accessing the site on his personal smart phone or laptop.

 

There's just not enough blue in this font.

Wait, that's better.