- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Rivals vs. 247 sports
Posted on 8/20/13 at 1:59 pm
Posted on 8/20/13 at 1:59 pm
Can someone explain to me the difference between the rankings of top 100 players in Rivals vs 247 sports, because some players are ranked extremely higher on one site than the other. & do you think the real evaluators agree with Rivals or 247 sports.
8
Posted on 8/20/13 at 2:05 pm to 504 SOULJA
Which ever one likes us more.... You should know that! 
Posted on 8/20/13 at 2:07 pm to 504 SOULJA
Back in the day, Rivals was the best. Now, a lot of the top analysts from Rivals are at 247 now.
Rivals goes more off of the glamour players and camps, while 247 goes more off of what the players do on the field and in pads. I mean people that werent even in the Rivals250 originally have made leaps into the top 50 players in the nation, based off of camps. Which is crap. Rivals also will drop a guy in the rankings because he didnt go to camps or participate in camps. I mean dont get me wrong. Camps and showcases should help or hurt players. But it shouldnt make a guy who was unheard of with mid level offers vault into the top100 based off what that player did in gym shorts. And it shouldnt hurt a player who is an abosulte animal on the field and has legit offers just because he ran .2seconds slower in the 40 with shorts on.
I love 247 rankings way better than rivals. The only reason i still subscribe to Rivals is so i can read Tigerbait articles. Thats it.
Rivals goes more off of the glamour players and camps, while 247 goes more off of what the players do on the field and in pads. I mean people that werent even in the Rivals250 originally have made leaps into the top 50 players in the nation, based off of camps. Which is crap. Rivals also will drop a guy in the rankings because he didnt go to camps or participate in camps. I mean dont get me wrong. Camps and showcases should help or hurt players. But it shouldnt make a guy who was unheard of with mid level offers vault into the top100 based off what that player did in gym shorts. And it shouldnt hurt a player who is an abosulte animal on the field and has legit offers just because he ran .2seconds slower in the 40 with shorts on.
I love 247 rankings way better than rivals. The only reason i still subscribe to Rivals is so i can read Tigerbait articles. Thats it.
This post was edited on 8/20/13 at 2:14 pm
Posted on 8/20/13 at 2:09 pm to KG5989
247 all day
Posted on 8/20/13 at 2:10 pm to 504 SOULJA
I think the general consensus around here is that 247 has the most resources in the business now. 247 composites are probably the best overall take on rankings because they incorporate all 4 sites. It's almost impossible to know exactly what each site is looking for in players and why one rates someone ahead of the other.
Posted on 8/20/13 at 2:13 pm to KG5989
I feel that because I know a few players that just doesn't test well at some of these camps but will have an ooutstanding season and make all district and or all state and earn a Div 1 scholarship.
Posted on 8/20/13 at 2:18 pm to 504 SOULJA
I couldnt agree more. I would rather have a stud on the football field with pads on than a guy who testes amazing in gym shorts(ala TM)
They should use the showcases and camps like the NFL uses the combine. They use it to solidify what they think a big time player is, and to get to know some of the guys in the later rounds. Very rarely do you have a guy nobody has really heard of that tests amazingly, then becomes a 1st rounder. Those guys might move into the 3rd round, but you dont become a top player just because you test great at the combine. Ford had 1 of the best combines out of all the RBs, but still went undrafted. And very rarely do you see a guy that is an animal on the field and a consensus 1st rounder drop because of a bad combine(ala Jarvis Jones). Rivals moves players that were unranked into the top 100 based off what they do in gym shorts. And if a guy has a great combine or showcase it should help him some, but it shouldnt turn that guy into 1 of the best players in the nation. If he was a 3* guy that impressed, turn him into a 4, or put him somewhere in the backend of the 250. Dont make him a top 100 player based off of what someone did in gym shorts.
Film always and will always weigh more than a showcase or a combine. And i feel like 247 weighs film more heavily that what a guy does at a showcase.
They should use the showcases and camps like the NFL uses the combine. They use it to solidify what they think a big time player is, and to get to know some of the guys in the later rounds. Very rarely do you have a guy nobody has really heard of that tests amazingly, then becomes a 1st rounder. Those guys might move into the 3rd round, but you dont become a top player just because you test great at the combine. Ford had 1 of the best combines out of all the RBs, but still went undrafted. And very rarely do you see a guy that is an animal on the field and a consensus 1st rounder drop because of a bad combine(ala Jarvis Jones). Rivals moves players that were unranked into the top 100 based off what they do in gym shorts. And if a guy has a great combine or showcase it should help him some, but it shouldnt turn that guy into 1 of the best players in the nation. If he was a 3* guy that impressed, turn him into a 4, or put him somewhere in the backend of the 250. Dont make him a top 100 player based off of what someone did in gym shorts.
Film always and will always weigh more than a showcase or a combine. And i feel like 247 weighs film more heavily that what a guy does at a showcase.
This post was edited on 8/20/13 at 2:27 pm
Posted on 8/20/13 at 2:20 pm to 504 SOULJA
Rivals = dogshit
24 = kingshit
24 = kingshit
Posted on 8/20/13 at 2:34 pm to Geauxld Finger
Rivals is hot garbage now ... The LSU site is ran by a goon ...
Posted on 8/20/13 at 2:46 pm to 504 SOULJA
quote:
Can someone explain to me the difference between the rankings of top 100 players in Rivals vs 247 sports, because some players are ranked extremely higher on one site than the other. & do you think the real evaluators agree with Rivals or 247 sports.
I personally think their is an agenda behind both sites to rank kids higher (not by much) if they can justify it for teams that have higher sub rates.
I also think some sites give benefits of doubt to certain coaches ability to evaluate prospects.
With that said, it's a crapshoot. Maybe they saw a kid one day and he performed well, when another site saw a kid the next day and he didn't perform well
Also, the team scouts have some say in promoting kids to the higher ups. If S/S think a kid is good they can push him to be higher in the rankings. With their record and reputation, those higher ups will take it into more consideration.
A lot of people think the rivals site doesn't have good scouts, so think about that.
This post was edited on 8/20/13 at 2:48 pm
Posted on 8/20/13 at 2:54 pm to 504 SOULJA
247 is much better imo. This has nothing to do with the LSU player rankings.
Posted on 8/20/13 at 2:57 pm to Duckie
Duckie do you think if a player is ranked lower on one site it will have some sort of effect with Scouts on the other site.
Posted on 8/20/13 at 3:09 pm to 504 SOULJA
To me it seems like Rivals has a tendency to over analyze and over think things. I think they put too much value on certain positions and instead of projecting how a kid would perform at the next level, the tend to grade them as a professional prospect.
Posted on 8/20/13 at 3:16 pm to Section225
quote:
Rivals is hot garbage now ... The LSU site is ran by a goon ...
Mike S. Does a great job...well worth the script...
Posted on 8/20/13 at 3:30 pm to doya2
It would be nice to see a score card comparison between the top pay sites from the last 5-10 years based on how the players finished the college careers and/or performed/flopped beyond.
Sometimes it's easy to rank a kid based on how physically fit or intimidating he looks and performs compared to his HS competition.
But, when the 2,3,4*'s get in a great strength and conditioning program for the same amount of time, they frequently become more solid and consistent heading into the pros.
Sometimes it's easy to rank a kid based on how physically fit or intimidating he looks and performs compared to his HS competition.
But, when the 2,3,4*'s get in a great strength and conditioning program for the same amount of time, they frequently become more solid and consistent heading into the pros.
Posted on 8/20/13 at 3:46 pm to 504 SOULJA
I'm no expert, but I would imagine it does. I'm sure they all look at each other's rankings.
I also think some services try to "differentiate" their product from others. Personally I think ESPN does this a lot; meaning they may put their top 50 in a different order on purpose.
This is not an arms length business. They are profit driven and will do their best to balance profit and rankings. The truth of the matter is this: the Bamas, LSUs, Texas', Auburns have more people on staff at their sites than the Vandys, NOrthwestern, and other smaller schools. More staff = more production and more evaluations. That makes things better for those schools.
I also think that some sites won't put a bunch of 5 stars in one area. Don't know why, but they just won't. Texas, Florida and Cali will always get more because they are allotted more due to population. Is that wrong? Maybe.
In the words of the wu tang...
C.R.E.A.M.
I also think some services try to "differentiate" their product from others. Personally I think ESPN does this a lot; meaning they may put their top 50 in a different order on purpose.
This is not an arms length business. They are profit driven and will do their best to balance profit and rankings. The truth of the matter is this: the Bamas, LSUs, Texas', Auburns have more people on staff at their sites than the Vandys, NOrthwestern, and other smaller schools. More staff = more production and more evaluations. That makes things better for those schools.
I also think that some sites won't put a bunch of 5 stars in one area. Don't know why, but they just won't. Texas, Florida and Cali will always get more because they are allotted more due to population. Is that wrong? Maybe.
In the words of the wu tang...
C.R.E.A.M.
This post was edited on 8/20/13 at 3:54 pm
Posted on 8/20/13 at 5:35 pm to Duckie
quote:
In the words of the wu tang... C.R.E.A.M.
For those that do not know....
Cash Rules Everything Around Me
Posted on 8/20/13 at 5:36 pm to Cousin
Yea, 247 used to be way better than Rivals...But after today's BS they are about on par with one another.
Posted on 8/20/13 at 5:40 pm to Mrs. Amaro
quote:
Yea, 247 used to be way better than Rivals...But after today's BS they are about on par with one another.
what happened?
Posted on 8/20/13 at 6:01 pm to Cousin
Which site is better overall?
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News