Show summary Hide summary
Rivals, the long-standing college recruiting website, has rolled out a paid exposure program aimed at giving overlooked high-school players more visibility. The move has sharpened a debate over whether selling evaluations and profile upgrades changes the value of recruiting ratings and who benefits from them.
What the new service offers
Branded with the tagline “Get on the Radar. Be recruited,” the paid feature — marketed as Rivals Recruits or part of the company’s “On the Radar” effort — lets athletes claim and build profiles for a low entry fee, then pay for a deeper evaluation. Families can verify and claim a profile for an introductory fee of $29.99 the first year, with a higher renewal fee after that, while a full scout evaluation is offered at $399.
Rivals says the comprehensive evaluation is performed by scouts rather than automated systems. The package can include verified measurements, film breakdowns and interviews with a player’s high-school coach. Evaluations remain private unless the family opts to publish them on the profile.
NCAA files suit contesting Ohio governor’s order on fifth-year eligibility
Wisconsin’s homecoming matchup with Michigan State: three predictions
In addition to traditional star ratings, the site will assign a numerical grade on a 0–100 scale to indicate projected collegiate level. Rivals describes ranges such as 70–74 for FCS prospects and 75–84 for Group of 6–level players. The company also continues to publish its longstanding star-ranked prospects.
Immediate reaction and criticism
The announcement, first publicized on Sept. 24, prompted swift pushback on social platforms. Former NFL defensive end Chris Long called the program “Feels predatory,” while Heisman winner Robert Griffin III condemned it as “a MASSIVE MONEY GRAB taking advantage of parents and kids.”
Some critics pointed to messages sent to recruits who already have numerous offers, arguing the product is being marketed to players who do not need paid exposure. There were also allegations — reported on social media — that employees could receive bonuses for driving paid evaluations through referral links.
Rivals founder Shannon Terry rejected claims the program is exploitative, telling Front Office Sports: “No one’s forced to do anything, and our pricing is fully up front.” He framed the service as optional and said most of the evaluation fee goes to paying scouts for their time. Terry also confirmed that employees are compensated in ways “directly and indirectly tied to reach and awareness,” while denying the company has built a sales operation to solicit evaluations.
How college coaches view paid profiles
Reactions among coaches are mixed and often split by level. Some Power 4 staffers maintain that in-house scouting, camps and direct tape review are the primary sources for recruiting decisions. Georgia State quarterbacks coach Ryan Williams posted on X that the program is a “Waste of money,” adding he does not recruit based on Rivals rankings alone.
Others see a role for the expanded platform at smaller programs. One Power 4 position coach compared the model to NCSA and suggested a centralized profile system can help discovery for Division II, NAIA and similar levels where resources are limited.
Several coaches noted that while they won’t make offers solely from a database entry, services like Rivals, Hudl and MaxPreps remain useful for initial identification. Rivals disputes public claims that its work is ignored, saying coaches regularly contact its scouts for additional information.
Questions about value and precedent
Industry observers are asking whether opening paid evaluations to more families will dilute the scarcity that gave star ratings their cachet. Rivals reports it rated roughly 6,600 athletes last year — a small slice of the national pool — and says about 300 profiles are currently public under the new platform.
Terry said the company has eight active scouts today and plans to add staff if demand grows. He framed the product as a tool for players who “aren’t getting noticed” and need guidance to decide between walking on at a Power 5 program or securing a scholarship at a lower level.
Some high-school coaches pointed out the new service simply formalizes practices that have existed informally for years, where parents or coaches lobby for scout attention. One Atlanta-area coach described the change bluntly: the industry is bringing a previously private set of practices into the open and putting a price tag on them.
