I didn't look at this thread as though someone was picking on us for no reason. I just responded to some comments that I disagreed with. I still disagree with!
If we look at scouting from the scout or recruiters standpoint, the number one interest is usually pitching. At tournaments it is also the most obvious thing. Tournaments are different than showcases where we get running times, watch BP, watch fielding drills and gun throwing arms. We don't always get enough scouting info during a tournament game. However, when something really standsout, our people write it up. The bigger the tournament the more writing, but also the more players that don't get a write up. Yes, even well deserving big time prospects have gone without mention in the scouts blogs.
I truly appreciate all the nice things people say. To be honest, I'm happy their are people like "younggun" that support what we do. I also know we are far from perfect, we make mistakes and we can do better. At the same time are take a lot of pride in what we do and we have no interest in being second best. We have a very large staff that is extremely talented and qualified.
And I can't ever recall, not even once, any college coach telling us what to post on our website or to give special attention to their recruits or their program. Through our site we are telling them what we think, often they call for additional information. They seldom tell us what they think. Same goes for professional scouts.
To answer the question about rankings... We rank players based on what we see. We don't even consider whether they have committed to a college. For those that actually see the rankings, surely you have noticed uncommitted players.
So why are so many ranked players listed with a commitment? Shouldn't that be obvious? Often we have a player ranked very high and every college in America knows it. What do you suppose happens to that player. It should be clear that college recruiters pay close attention and trust our judgement. So typically uncommitted playerup that are among the highest ranked players end up being committed. The same thing could be said about the MLB draft every June. Look at past PG HS or draft rankings. Oddly enough someone might assume we only rank those that got drafted. Truth is we ranked them before they got drafted.
So if you see the rankings and see a lot of committed players, what is the surprise. In many cases wouldn't the best prospects become the most sought after recruits? We could care less even if our number one ranked player was committed or uncommitted. Justin Upton was our #1 ranked player in his HS class for over two years. He didn't make a college commitment until well into his senior year. In fact, those that are ranked the highest we don't even consider college because we think they will be first round picks.
I do think that sometimes people are trying to get a clearer picture of how these things work. I understand why it might be confusing to some and have no problem with that. But I assure you, we rank based on what we "see", our opinion only. If we hear about an outstanding prospect from another source, we make sure we get to see him and then we rank him accordingly.
Once again, I know people have lots of questions. I really wish I could answer all of those questions. We do things a certain way for a reason. There is no politics or favoritism involved. Then again I guess one xould say that there is always some politics and favoritism involved in everthing. We do favor the best players I guess. We certainly don't want to harm any young player. I truly wish we could help every player we see realize his dreams. We simply cannot do that.