re: Derek Edinburgh, per scout, for star-gazers

quote:

---

Scout has better rankings. There are a couple of differences from Rivals that causes theirs to look a little strange or wrong. 1st they don't have an athlete category so they slot guys at the positions they prefer them at so some positions,particularly rb,wr,cb,qb and safety, have guys ranked at positions that skew the position rankings a bit. The 2nd and most important and misinterpreted part of Scoutt's rankings are the * ratings. They have slotted * ratings that don't necessarily reflect the difference in talent like Rivals and 247 do. The national top 50 are all 5* and that is the reason Fowler lost his 5th. He fell out of the top 50. Rivals usually has around 25 5* kids a year and those kids are considered to be the elite guys in the class. The 5th * on Rivals is based on merit not slotting. Also on Scout #s 51-300 are the 4* kids. No kid ranked below 300 is a 4*. Again pure slotting not based on merit. Rivals has somewhere close to 350 4* kids right now and they used to have many more in past years but have strictened the * ratings. The top 3 * guys on Scout are guys that would be 4* kids on Rivals. It's all on how you personally choose to view the * ratings. The only thing that matters on Scout are the positon rankings. The reason Monroe lost his 4th * is because he fell out of the top 300. He likely only fell a spot or 2 in the position rankings if any at all. His * rating is based purely on the fact that he fell out of the top 300. If Edinburgh hadn't risen into the top 300 he would still be a 3* but still would have gotten a big bump in the OT rankings. It's all perception .

---