[GTripp0012]

Just because a scout is a "bad" scout, doesn't mean he is incapable of supporting a really good prospect or anything. Just that he isn't using good reasoning, so if he lands a good prospect with shoddy reasoning, he's more likely to be convinced that his reasoning was good. If he supports a poor prospect under the same methodology, he's already seen his system "work" so he's unwilling to change his behaviors. It's a psychological bias.

For example, Scout A believes that SEC Quarterbacks are better prepared for the NFL than any other conference. Scout A also believes that the Pac 10 is a horrible QB conference. In 1998, Scout A decided that Manning would be a better QB than Leaf based on his conference perception. Low and behold, Leaf busts, and Manning becomes one of, if not the greatest ever to play. Scout A's perceptions of conference are reinforced. In 2003, Scout A decides that Rex Grossman will certainly be a better prospect than Kyle Boller because of conference exp. While Grossman was a little underwhelming, Bollers complete inepititude convinces Scout A that he is correct beyond a shadow of a doubt with his theory.

So now you have another SEC QB in Russell and Quinn and non conference QB. Scout A already knows who the better prospect is, but now he can convince collegues he is right by reminding them of past history and Russell's big arm.

Hoo, this happens all the time. Scout A is not correct in his conference analysis because Scout A doesn't understand the value of a sample size. But he would argue to the death that he his right. Scout A has "ten years" of experience, but he hasn't been doing his job right, he's just been coincidentally lucky.