I currently have a situation in which a recruit's coach said he is "below average" in their team defensive set, but in all the scouting trips by my assistant coach he is listed as having a "great understanding" of the exact same defense.

Does anybody know which assessment is the correct one?  Thanks.

Yikes I've never seen that conflict. Has anyone else?

Are you sure its the same player or is it possible you clicked on the wrong email or player int the comparison? Double check that first.

If it is a real conflict, I should *think* the scouting trip would be correct because I believe one of the CS reps said before scouting trips as they currently exist never provide incorrect information, just limited information. I know I've never seen scouting trips be wrong before.

coach calls are never wrong, either. its just a different standard. is this player a freshman or juco? if hes a juco my guess is that is taken into account on one and not the other.

if you are talking about chuck knaus, hes probably about a C+ or maybe as high as B- in whatever defense that is. coach calls accurately take into account the juco status - a C+ is great for a freshman but ****** for a juco 2, they would tell you hes great if he had roughly what he would have if you had him since a freshman (a B+). 

Yeah, I double checked about 15 times to make sure the different messages were referring to the same player, wanted to be sure that I wasn't taking crazy pills.

And yes, the player in question is a juco. What's the point of having a relative standard for coach calls and a linear standard for scouting trips, especially if it's not made obvious when the information is presented? Even if coach calls are never wrong, it's counterproductive...and I would say flawed...to say something is below average despite the fact that when viewed in context it is average (C+) or above average (B-). In my humble opinion.

well, c+ is above average for a freshman, and below average for a juco 2. significantly so, in both cases. its just a flaw in the system, i agree, its stupid evals don't work like coach calls. im actually now thinking this has come up before... 

i actually am wondering, for some reason im thinking coach calls pre-date SVs. but when i think about it, SVs have always been here - but with less information. did SVs have offense/defense info before FSS? im thinking no, but not sure. 

its kind of interesting, you newer guys are both saying you would expect to defer to the SV, where as me, an older guy, would automatically say the coach call is the better source of information. coach calls have been invaluable sources of information for ages, until fairly recently, when they have less - but still some - value. you used to be able to get info on when guys would go pro from coach calls, and they are SO CHEAP. svs, to me, are just for potential. i still automatically send coach calls to find IQ even if i sent evals already, which i guess i dont need to do - although it probably would have screwed me over if i didnt, i would have read the SV instead of the coach call and just moved on.

im actually thinking SVs almost definitely didn't used to have IQ - because the meaning of them was determined to be 100% useless, crap left over from the dilemma days. so to me its definitely the SVs that are flawed - not the coach calls - because the relative context is what we had back in the day. it makes a hell of a lot more sense, if you think about it - by the eval standard, *all* juco 2s are very good at IQ. so that doesn't tell you **** (except which offense or defense). but a coach call, now that really hits the mark.

I'm not really a newer guy (I've been playing HD off and on since it began), but I did say I thought the scouting trip was accurate. My reasoning is only that CS had mentioned in the past that scouting trips never provide inaccurate info. Really they should both be accurate because most of us hate the random aspects of the game, but it is what it is.

well, technically, CS is right. both are accurate - its just about perspective. to me, the SV answer is **** because it came second and is inconsistent. but technically, its accurate. and i would think CS was just talking about the potential there, there is a whole bunch of random crap in SVs that is meaningless, and can very easily be interpreted to mean something (newer coaches often think that) - where any interpretation is inaccurate. i feel like this is a typical CS answer, im pretty sure i remember when they said that - it may technically be correct in a certain context, but care should be taken to apply it in any other context or to draw any deeper meaning. i think this question has also been raised with players where the player potential email (does that still exist?) conflicts with SVs, and CS has always maintained both are correct and accurate... despite them being in conflict. so i wouldnt read too much into it, i woudnt take it to mean SVs are the be-all and end-all, or anything like that. they also said there are 9 categories of potential with 3 sub categories for each, without rescinding those comments for years. have they even rescinded them yet? seble confirmed the 2/1/2 system to me like 5 months after potential came out, at which point i posted about it with all the high/high low/high messages, and most people switched over to that way of thinking - the forum readers, that is. i feel bad for the poor coaches who dont read the forums, who just rely on the extremely low quality of information in the HD knowledge base articles and FAQs and hoops 101s and such.