Fans playing next generation NCAA Football for the first time have no doubt noticed all of the additional ratings that exist in the 360 and PS3 versions that aren't in the PS2 and Xbox versions. While the new ratings have certainly added depth to the game, they've also added confusion -- at least they sure have for me. So the question is how do you make sense out of all the new information you have about your players? And on top of that, what ratings do you put more stock into when some of them seem to overlap? I'm not sure I have all the answers but I've finally had some time to sit down and pick apart the new ratings; so let's see if I can figure out the new ratings.

The following analysis is based primarily on my experiences with the game as well as first-hand experiments conducted while writing this article. I wanted some input from EA on the ratings, but as usual when this issue comes up, they were somewhat mum. In other words, my request for an interview on this topic was unsuccessful.

So the result, of course, is conjecture. But hopefully it's good, quality, reasoned conjecture.

If you're into your team or your dynasty you no doubt want to be able to quantify the talent on hand as best as possible via the roster screen. Performance on the field is also a great indicator, but a lot of times when you're making a decision on who to play, you first look at the roster screen. However, the addition of all these new ratings leaves things a little screwy. For example, check out this virtual athlete.

I have a freshman left tackle named Jason Montgomery. He's not that good, but he has some talent and I hope that one day he's a contributor. With that in mind take a look at his ratings:

67 OVR
56 SPD
84 STR
49 AGI
62 ACC
52 AWR
83 PBK (Pass Block)
80 RBK (Run Block)
84 IBL (Impact Block)
79 RBS (Run Block Strength)
78 RBF (Run Block Footwork)
91 PBS (Pass Block Strength)
80 PBF (Pass Block Footwork)
73 STA
82 INJ

Now let's make our first extraordinary assumption. If you click on the right stick (aka, the "more info" button) the ratings listed below are the ratings that are displayed. They're different for every position, so hopefully they are the ratings that are most important and are used to create the OVR rating:

OVR/IBL/RBS/RBF/PBS/PBF/SPD/STR/AWR/AGI/ACC/STA/INJ/JMP

Not sure why the JMP rating would be included there, but notice that there are two ratings missing among those ones that you might think would be mighty important for an offensive lineman: the pass block (PBK) and run block (RBK) ratings. If these ratings aren't listed as among the most important ratings for a lineman, then the only conclusion I can draw is that they have been superseded by the newer ratings. Which means RBK and PBK are either completely useless and indicate nothing, or that they are simply a tabulation of some of the other ratings.

Using the players on my dynasty team I came up with three "expected" ratings -- sort of like an "expected batting average" calculated by Roto Geek Ron Shandler. I calculated the expected run block rating, which was an average of Run Block strength and footwork; an expected pass block rating, which was likewise an average of the Pass block strength and footwork; and an expected strength rating, which was a combination of run block strength and pass block strength. Comparing these expected figures to the real ones (expected strength to their actual strength, etc.) I came up with nothing solid. The only obvious fact was that my older players came much closer in terms of the expected and actual ratings than the younger ones did.

Could this mean that the strength, run block, and pass block ratings should be viewed almost as potential ratings? For instance, if a player has a strength rating of 85 but his "expected" strength rating is only 75 because his run block strength and pass block strength are so much lower, does that mean he might still fill out toward the upper figure by the end of his career? That's one way to look at it I suppose, but I certainly can't recommend that assumption at this time.

I certainly have no concrete, factual evidence to hand you right now, but I have a feeling that the skill ratings -- i.e., the new ratings -- give you a better idea of how your player will perform on the field right now, than the older, more general ratings. Over the coming weeks I will examine the ratings for different positions and include some practice time as well as game observations to figure out what ratings seem to be the most reliable and indicative of on-the-field performance.

In the end, I feel like this article is somewhat like those UFO television shows. They show a bunch of contradictory, indigestible bits of crap and then come to some conclusion like, "well are there UFO's?  Maybe we'll never know!"

Maybe we'll never know about the ratings either, but I plan to give it a whirl.