Rivals and Scout losing objectivity?

[Easton Pa ND Fan]

I compared seasonal scoring margins and win percentages
of 120 teams to 4yr-running Scout and Rivals recruiting
statistics for 2006, 2007 and 2008. Rivals edged out
Scout only if you carried out the relationships beyond
two decimals.

The best indicators were the 4yr-total "team recruiting
points" for both services.

I stopped using Scout. Their extreme range of 4yr-total
team recruitng points made for crappy prediction lines.
Rivals, despite having almost the same range, did not
have as many teams in the extremes.

The same could be said for talent star ranges.

The correlation between Scout and Rival statistics to
seasonal margins and win % slipped from 2006 to 2008.
It seems that the awarding of more high-end stars and
points inflated the ranges and dropped the accuracy.

Marketing trumps objectivity

 

[BirdmanND06]

I compared seasonal scoring margins and win percentages
of 120 teams to 4yr-running Scout and Rivals recruiting
statistics for 2006, 2007 and 2008. Rivals edged out
Scout only if you carried out the relationships beyond
two decimals.

The best indicators were the 4yr-total "team recruiting
points" for both services.

I stopped using Scout. Their extreme range of 4yr-total
team recruitng points made for crappy prediction lines.
Rivals, despite having almost the same range, did not
have as many teams in the extremes.

The same could be said for talent star ranges.

The correlation between Scout and Rival statistics to
seasonal margins and win % slipped from 2006 to 2008.
It seems that the awarding of more high-end stars and
points inflated the ranges and dropped the accuracy.

Marketing trumps objectivity

Have you looked at the ESPN recruiting rankings? Having looked back at the rankings of individual players from previous years compared to their eventual success at the college level, ESPN seems to be the most accurate service, though I have not done any statistical analysis to back up this assertion. I would be interested to see how well their rankings predict team success.

 

[Riddickulous]

Star rankings are bogus, anyways.

 

[BirdmanND06]

That's true to some extent, but five star players do tend to become impact players more often than 3 or 4 star players. Crist, Floyd, Te'o, and Rudy were all 5 stars after all, and I think it's pretty fair to say they are the impact players on this team.