Thoughts on Scout and Rivals...

[Hoops4Me]

What do you guys think about the recruiting sites like Scout.com and Rivals.com? I've noticed many print journalists have a hatred for these kind of sites....but at the same time they seem to be quoted in newspapers a lot. I'm just curious on what you guys think?

 

[JBHawkEye]

Rivals is a better site, but they're both pretty good. Great for finding information on recruits.

For beat writers, a good source.

 

[rgd]

They also seem to be credible enough for many newspapers to cite them as a source, as in "Joe Blow committed to XYZ University, according to rivals.com." I've seen this done in briefs for HS kids who are not local superstars or going to Home State U.

 

[Shaggy]

Rivals is a good source for recruiting, and in my neck of the woods anyway, the only one of the two that encourages the media to use their information so long as attribution is included.

 

[Omaha]

One of the main reasons print journalists have issues with Rivals is because they tend to always break anything and everything before the online newspapers, etc. Also, the salaries of most writers on the Rivals.com network dwarf those of most print journalists, hence Olin Buchanan now being the national football writer. With guys like Buchanan writing National College Football, Andrew Skwara doing National College Basketball and Kendall Rogers doing National College Baseball, Rivals.com has some outstanding national coverage in all three major sports.

 

[HoopsMcCann]

One of the main reasons print journalists have issues with Rivals is because they tend to always break anything and everything before the online newspapers, etc. Also, the salaries of most writers on the Rivals.com network dwarf those of most print journalists, hence Olin Buchanan now being the national football writer. With guys like Buchanan writing National College Football, Andrew Skwara doing National College Basketball and Kendall Rogers doing National College Baseball, Rivals.com has some outstanding national coverage in all three major sports.

thanks for checking in rivals guy...

'tend to break anything and everything' -- you mean, recruiting. sure.

other 'breaking' stories... let me know one. actual news? besides stalking a 17-year old? haven't seen much

that's not to say there are good guys at both. on my beat, the scout site does really good stuff. the rivals site? well, they make up some stuff and are hitting about .300 -- too bad this isn't baseball

hey, they kick the pants off newspapers in recruiting, and let them have it. that **** is diiiirty. don't want a single part of it. hell, some of those guys work as extra recruiters for those schools. is a dirty, dirty business

 

[MU_was_not_so_hard]

Rivals carved a niche for recruiting. They realized most paper couldn't hang in that neck of the woods, and they do a good job because of it. To compare the basic Rivals site w/ a paper, or vice versa, though, is like comparing TV to print. They're different venues -- with different aims.
Every now and again, Rivals will bust a big-time nonrecruiting story. Every now and again, a paper will break a big recruiting story. Just sort of the way it goes.

 

[SouthernScribe]

hell, some of those guys work as extra recruiters for those schools. is a dirty, dirty business

Hoops hit the nail on the head. The national beats are one thing, but I'd venture to say 90 percent of the individual team "coverage" is done by shills who are in bed with the coaching staffs. Funny how you always see headlines that say "Joe Blow loved visit to Podunk U." I'm still waiting on the story about players who didn't enjoy their visit; players whose offers have been rescinded; or players who are clearly fallback prospects.

It's not hard to kick ass on a beat when you're the unofficial propaganda machine. I'm not saying a lot of these guys don't work hard, but this ain't journalism, folks. And the NCAA is going to realize this sooner rather than later.

 

[SouthernScribe]

That said, I think Rivals is a good company and their rep will change from a rah-rah fanboy orginization to legit sports player over time.

It could happen. But only when they get rid of the lap dogs and hire real reporters.

 

[ECrawford]

I happened to talk to the Rivals COO for a piece I ran on Wednesday and he told me that Rivals has agreed to a deal with Gannett to provide online recruiting information for USA Today.

Can the rest of Gannett be far behind?

It creates a scenario like this in my city: The Rivals web site is affiliated with the local U.'s fan magazine. That fan magazine is, of course, affiliated with the school. It's run as a separate company, but the school is its largest subscriber, purchasing x-thousand subscriptions to offer as a perk with certain donor levels.

So if it isn't careful, Gannett could wind up with an agreement where not only its local newspapers are linking up with competitors, which is one thing, but basically allowing a school-affiliated organization to publish its recruiting stuff on legit newspaper sites.

Having said that, Rivals is only going to get bigger. They've got too many people (working for very little) out there churning stuff out, not to mention the grass-roots message board element. At the ABCD camp this year, there were more credentialed online reporters than players.

 

[Moderator1]

Have had no dealings with Scout. None.
The Rivals folks I've dealt with have been exceptionally helpful and they know their stuff. They have made recruiting their world and, at least in my area, done a great job with it. When we write recruiting stories, we use their rankings without hesitation. I also have no hesitation quoting their people about kids local schools recruit who aren't from the state/area. They know more about them than we do, it's that simple.

Don't know if it is the same everywhere.

 

[Shaggy]

hell, some of those guys work as extra recruiters for those schools. is a dirty, dirty business

Hoops hit the nail on the head. The national beats are one thing, but I'd venture to say 90 percent of the individual team "coverage" is done by shills who are in bed with the coaching staffs. Funny how you always see headlines that say "Joe Blow loved visit to Podunk U." I'm still waiting on the story about players who didn't enjoy their visit; players whose offers have been rescinded; or players who are clearly fallback prospects.

It's not hard to kick ass on a beat when you're the unofficial propaganda machine. I'm not saying a lot of these guys don't work hard, but this ain't journalism, folks. And the NCAA is going to realize this sooner rather than later.

What he said.

 

[Bubbler]

I checked my school's Scout site the other day.

I mean, it's a good reference source of sorts, but there were a ****load of factual errors -- including a glaring one where a kids' high school was misidentified. He had been gone from the high school he was listed under for well over a year in a recruiting transfer situation. That can't be good.

The other problem is that they take as gospel whatever these kids tell them. An assistant coach from a school might have talked to them once and only once, and these sites list it as a school that's interested in them. There's one example of a prominent national recruit (prominent more because of his connection to someone famous than his balling ability) who is listed as a recruit right now, and I know for a fact he isn't being considered, never really was.

But to Moddy's point, these sites can be helpful, and they sure as hell have more time and less of a moral compass than I do to manage it.

 

[SouthernScribe]

Have had no dealings with Scout. None.
The Rivals folks I've dealt with have been exceptionally helpful and they know their stuff. They have made recruiting their world and, at least in my area, done a great job with it. When we write recruiting stories, we use their rankings without hesitation. I also have no hesitation quoting their people about kids local schools recruit who aren't from the state/area. They know more about them than we do, it's that simple.

Don't know if it is the same everywhere.

I don't doubt that, for the most part, these guys know recruiting forward and backward. But that's not the real issue here. When you have people "covering" a team who have a vested interest in that team doing well (in recruiting, on the field, everywhere), you open the door for all manner of shadiness.

The NCAA has greatly limited the amount of time coaches can speak with recruits. So in a lot of cases, the yahoos who run these web sites have essentially become extensions of the coaches. And don't think for a minute that they don't post stories at the behest of coaches who are trying to play mind games with recruits.

 

[MU_was_not_so_hard]

Have had no dealings with Scout.  None.
The Rivals folks I've dealt with have been exceptionally helpful and they know their stuff.   They have made recruiting their world and, at least in my area, done a great job with it.   When we write recruiting stories, we use their rankings without hesitation.  I also have no hesitation quoting their people about kids local schools recruit who aren't from the state/area.   They know more about them than we do, it's that simple.

Don't know if it is the same everywhere.   

I don't doubt that, for the most part, these guys know recruiting forward and backward. But that's not the real issue here. When you have people "covering" a team who have a vested interest in that team doing well (in recruiting, on the field, everywhere), you open the door for all manner of shadiness.

The NCAA has greatly limited the amount of time coaches can speak with recruits. So in a lot of cases, the yahoos who run these web sites have essentially become extensions of the coaches. And don't think for a minute that they don't post stories at the behest of coaches who are trying to play mind games with recruits.

You sound like you have someone in mind.

 

[FlyOnTheWall]

24/7 badgering of 17-year-olds and their coaches aside, Rivals.com is great in terms of being on top of recruits and schools in the running and gauging the caliber of recruit each kid is.

 

[HoopsMcCann]

24/7 badgering of 17-year-olds and their coaches aside, Rivals.com is great in terms of being on top of recruits and schools in the running and gauging the caliber of recruit each kid is.

other than that, mrs lincoln, how was the play?

 

[Pringle]

At some point, does the journalism world need to make some kind of stand/statement (maybe APSE?) about its thoughts on recruiting coverage?

 

[torrie_wilson]

With so much uncertainty surrounding the future of the newspaper industry, does anyone think that rivals could become a major player - in areas other than recruiting - if they used their money to go out and hire 10-12 experienced, respected, successful journalists to be their national writers?

 

[Pringle]

With so much uncertainty surrounding the future of the newspaper industry, does anyone think that rivals could become a major player - in areas other than recruiting - if they used their money to go out and hire 10-12 experienced, respected, successful journalists to be their national writers?

Yes. But I think you or I could do the same thing if we created a Web site together and make the commitment to the right talent.