In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 3223
On this Board 2546Record: 6133 (1/15/2013)
Online now 3193Record: 9097 (3/2/2012)
The No. 1 'Bama fan community on the Internet
BOL message board for off-topic posts
Tailgating, recipes, cooking, food & drink
Buy, sell or swap tickets
You have no favorite boards.
"NO GUTS, NO GLORY!!" ... "We're in the glory hole. Now we're rockin' and rollin'!"
I was just looking at Scout's formula yesterday and posted this. The problem is that their "statistical" ranking method is fundamentally bad. Their system gives you points per player depending on star level, for the team's top 25 players. That's really it. They do give "bonus" depending on the ranking of a recruit, but it's only 1 pt per spot in the position rankings. There is an 80 point difference between star levels, so the position ranking is completely inconsequential (one 3* player is more than enough to make up any difference from the #1 and #40 bonus). In short, Scout's ranking really is just based on how many 4&5 star recruits you sign, and that's it.
For example, in Scout, Buchannon, (MS Commit, #32 QB, 4*) is worth 189 points. Max Browne, (USC Commit, #1 QB, 5*) is worth 300 points. A team with two Buchannons is worth more than a team with one Browne. Yet, every single team would want to be the one with Browne. It's just a stupid system.
This post was edited by Huskypup on 2/6/2013 at 12:39 PM
Think about it. The "Scout" team. We know who's on the "scout" team, and that explains this "wanna be" recruiting site. I think every one but Scout dismisses their evaluations of players.
ESPN has the exposure and Rivals has the credentials. Scout? Who? Not a "big boy" recruiting site!
This post was edited by UAKiddSr on 2/6/2013 at 12:54 PM
Their target audience is anti-bammers!
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports