In partnership with CBSSports.com
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
I don't think it's really possible to say who has more accurate rankings until after the camp circuit.
There are players that probably should be higher or lower than they are at on both lists.
Yeah. I'm basing this off of nothing but film so my opinion is pretty flimsy, but it's pretty much the only thing we can go off of as of now. Camp circuit will be fun.
I agree. Also, people forget that in the last year, 247 has poached a lot of TOS better analysts. It will only get better and better while the others start to eventually fall behind.
If that's the case shouldn't all of spartys commits b moved up to 5* lol
Whether or not they poach the better analysts though, it all comes down to methodology. I disagree with some of the things 247 puts into their ranking methodology. That's not a knock on 247 or anything, I would just approach rankings a bit differently.
If the trend continues, then I would assume some of the input of the other methodologies would start to suffer. You need analysts to rank the players and it seems 247 keeps getting better in that regard.
This post was edited by MichRedWingFan7 17 months ago
It didn't seem to affect the number one ranking of all the Ole Miss recruits. I think the drop in rankings only comes into play if the prospect signs with a non SEC school.
Recruiting is a fluid process, and so 247's kinetic rankings changes are a reflection of that process
I like Scout, not necessarily just for the rankings, but more for how the site is set up. Maybe it's because Scout is what I used when I started following recruiting, but I do think the site overall is easier to use. They are generous with their rankings, and I don't mind that either. Plus, they don't have an all-star game affiliation, and let's not forget Allen Trieu.
Disclaimer: This isn't a knock on this site. Rivals ranking predict future success better than any other. That is a fact and there is no room for interpretation.The jury is still out on 247. Have a look at the analysis for yourself if you're skeptical. In a few years, I'm sure someone will take it upon themselves to look at the data again once the first class of 247 ranked recruits hits the nfl.
To the OP: The idea that you could look at Rivals 2014 list and make any conclusions about it is absurd. Should I list the reasons why? 1)Who are you to judge? 2)They aren't final 3)They're junior rankings 4)None of the players are in college or pros yet... etc
To be clear, the time to judge who put together the best 2014 list will not come until at least 2020.
() () Matthew Stafford (Rivals #6 overall, 2006) and Mitch Mustain (Rivals #10 overall, 2006) With the ESPN150 hot off of the presses yesterday, all four major sites now have an updated Top 150/247/250/300 list available for the 2013 class. I wanted to dive in and look at how each service has performed over the years.
This post was edited by DJNiteFlite 17 months ago
Nobody on this board can define the word regression.... but it sure gets used a lot.
Thanks! I know all of us put a lot of work into the site and hope everyone enjoys it!
Basketball Analyst For BTPowerhouse & Wolverine 247 - Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/tbeindit
Each site has its strengths and weaknesses. I haven't looked at Rivals' rankings yet, but I think 247 overall does a very good job. There was only one prospect that I really disagreed with their rating on for Penn State's 2013 class (Brendan Mahon).
I think it's a positive that they're always looking to change their rankings.
I certainly don't agree with everything, especially something like having 32 5* players each year, but it is what it is.
I would have agreed with this in the past, but the fact is that all those analysts that made Rivals great are now at 24/7. If anything, Rivals is up to debate if they can continue their success they have had in the past.
Go Blue and Go Titans!
Disagree. Rivals has a track record we can measure. 247 does not. It's too new. Until 247 builds up a similar track record, you can't just assume it's as good or better because they hired some of Rivals' people.
We have no idea how the rankings are created by any of the services. Who has input? What is the process? Is it fair and objective or is it intentionally or unintentionally biased in certain ways? We don't know. All we see is the end result so that's all we really can judge. And the reality is that we have years of data on Rivals and Scout and ESPN, but we don't have enough data to make a fair assessment of 247 yet. Until we do, it's pure guesswork whether 247's rankings will prove to be more or less predictive of future success than any of the other services.
But the guys who made that track record at Rivals are now here. So you're saying that their track record matters less than the company they work for?
Like if you have a CEO/founder and his BOA of a very successful and profitable consulting firm leave to go to a startup, wouldn't you rather work with the startup that has the proven employees as opposed to the firm that has a good track record but new employees?
... a track record that was created by the analysts that moved to 24/7.
And it wasn't just "some" of their people, it was darn near every single good one they got. Sure, a few stayed, but I would take a venture and say about 85-90% of their top people are now on 24/7. Heck, the person who created Rivals is the person who created 24/7.
Thank you. Empiricism isn't hard to understand. Just look at the data. Anything short of that is pointless. Doesn't matter who produced it or where they work now . In fact I said too much when I said Rivals is the best at predicting success. What I should have said was for THAT period Rivals rankings were the best predictors of future success.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports