rivals and scout might be corrupt?? no!

First of all - a HT to The Wiz for finding an interesting tidbit on the fallibility of recruiting "insider" websites...

First, the LINK from the Daily Herald in "Suburban Chicago"

Then the cut and paste job:

College coaches aren't allowed to meet or talk with potential recruits during this time, but it's a rule that has been fudged and/or flaunted in certain pockets across the country.

That's why head coaches have been banned from the road -- to prevent the rule from being fudged. Zook has at least two problems with this new plan.

"The reason that I was told is because they say when head coaches go out, they talk to the players," Zook said. "And I said, 'That ain't right.' But I will tell you this: If a high school coach is bringing a player in to talk to a head coach, he's bringing in a player to talk to an assistant coach, too.

"So it don't matter. They're talking to the coaches, right, wrong or indifferent."

The other issue grows bigger every day and needs to be addressed soon.

Because operator/writers for Internet sites, such as Rivals.com and Scout.com, are the only ones who have unregulated access to recruits when coaches can't talk to them, it's an area that's ripe for corruption.

Some programs have secretly allied themselves with the Web sites that report on their school as another way to communicate with recruits.

In return, the Web sites get better information, more traffic and make more money.

"We're turning the recruiting over to the so-called recruiting gurus," Zook said. "Now, all of a sudden, just like you've got basketball coaches complaining that it's turning over to the AAU coaches, now we're turning it over to these guys that can call them.

"Well, you know what a lot of them are saying. They're selling their school to these kids, and we're not able to talk to them. To me, we're losing this thing, in my opinion."

and now the insightful commentary:

Wow, it was only two days ago that the ranking of prospects on Rivals was a big topic of conversation on the Rivals boards...they just released their initial "stars" rankings and the inevitable onslaught of complaining began from know it all amateur talent scouts across the nation...

"Our guy should be ranked above your guy" - and Tech's favorite - the "Tech effect." That is, when a four-star athlete commits to Tech - despite offers from OU or LSU and the like - he automatically becomes a three-star athlete.

The author of the story, Lindsey Willhite (which is a guy, btw), makes a pretty stunning accusation - that there are Universities that have "secretly" aligned themselves with a particular recruiting company. Interesting - this isn't Watergate or anything - but I wonder what editor would allow that kind of allegation to be published without and supporting evidence.

Because Ron Zook says so?

Ron Zook is on record as saying "It don't matter" so I hope they aren't counting on Ronnie's towering intellect.

The next step would be to investigate the books of Rivals and Scout - their automatic answer would most certainly be a denial - and there would be scarcely any way to prove the allegation to be true.

We know that Rivals and Scout are certainly profit-focused - we enjoy the fruits of their labor every day - it's fun to be in "the know" about your football program - the access they are able to provide is impressive.

Despite the fact the allegation shouldn't have been published...I have no doubt that it's true. So DT! readers, do we care if Tech is paying money for more and better access?