(02-20-2009 10:20 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  

(02-05-2009 12:07 PM)TUknowitall Wrote:  

(11-09-2008 10:21 PM)Tallgrass Wrote:  Thanks! I will correct the summary. I have seen these references on the Rivals Board general discussion a couple times. I assume it is coming from the Premium subscription board....I don't have a premium subscription nor do I like to cite them since you are suppose to pay for that info. Although the info I have in my recruiting listings I know is not 100% accurate, my gut feeling is that it is understated because of the lack of Premium information...where all the known offers are listed.

I subscribe to the Tulsa Rivals site, and I can confirm that your info is not 100% accurate. I can also confirm that some somes from the premium content over there. So this is a mixture of stuff ripped off from premium service and stuff that is not even accurate.

Just curious, but why not just subscribe to the Tulsa Rivals site and get all the accurate info -- plus a TON MORE INFO than this? This seems like a waste of effort.

FWIW, there are different results reported by Rivals concerning recruits. Many Rival school sites will not acknowledge a player was recruited by Tulsa; in a couple instances, TU Rivals has not acknowledge making an offer to a high school player that subsequently signed with another school. My data is not perfect and I acknowledge that. But Rivals is not perfect either. And, to complicate matters, Rivals and Scout often contradict each other.

The recruiting info published by newspapers has increased substantially. Sites like Tulsa World Sports Xtra, NW Arkansas News online, Dallas Morning News, Daily Oklahoman, provide a ton of info.

Recruiting sites like ESPNInsider, Texashighschool.com, Texasfootball.com, and many other recruiting sites also provide a ton of info.

It is not a waste of effort. I do this for my own enjoyment, with football recruiting my favorite sport after football. Basketball is a distant second. It goes back many, many years when I subscribed to Max Emfinger's newsletter and the many recruiting sites of today did not exist at that time. He did not list stars or any kind of ratings.....just what schools had offered. I like that then and I like that now.

I have not "ripped off" Rivals. All info in my data is published public info. Just check the links.

Regarding subscribing to Rivals, two points. First, I will use that subscription money for All Access telecasting of Tulsa football games and basketball games instead. Second, I find the recruiting reports from so many sources very revealing and informative. For example, there are about a dozen Arkansas recruiting sites. All you have to do is a simple google on any player and you will get a ton of info.

I used to work as an economist with the federal government. We knew our "absolute" measures of economic data were not accurate. Our primary concern was that we captured trends 100% accurately, and if we were a bit above or below the truth....that didn't matter if we got the trends correct. To repeat, the accuracy of capturing trends was important....recognizing that capturing statistically coorect absolute measures was an impossibility. The trend is clear. Tulsa football recruiting is heads and shoulders this past two years of anything I have seen going back to the mid 1960s.

Rivals and Scout may contradict each other, but that's because Scout has no clue...I don't believe they even have a publisher for their Tulsa site. The Tulsa Rivals site seems to be 99.9% accurate on recruiting. I pay attention to all the C-USA Rivals sites...and the Tulsa one is by far the best. If you love recruiting, as you claim, I'd be paying attention to the Tulsa Rivals site.