Top 25 Offenses in EA Sports College Football 25

[Ky3217]

Quote: Originally Posted by Ky3217

Colorado is about to be this game’s version of the Cowboys

Nailed it.

[Pokes404]

Quote: Originally Posted by georgiafan

None of that adds up to Colorado making the jump up from 58th in scoring and 80th in yards to 8th in the country. Yea they added guys in the portal, but I think the lost the most of any team in the country. Historically OL need time to develop and aren't great as true freshman. The run game was almost the worst in the country last year. Maybe it's just the two stars and Horn bumping up the rankings, but clearly they have no business being ranked the 8th best offense in the country. In the end we all knew Colorado would be overrated so its not a shock. As other have said the top spot being only 94 is a win

If they're actually that much better in the trenches this year, then sure, they could become a Top-10 unit. But it seems very presumptive to put them there already. Having good talent in the O-line normally doesn't translate into good O-line play until the group has had a chance to really gel. That usually takes some time.


And don't mean to be a homer, but thought we'd slip in here somewhere (although I'm less surprised by being left off the Top-25 offenses than I was the Top-25 places to play). Have our QB, the Doak Walker Award Winner, most of the receiving core (including getting our best WR back from getting injured in the 2nd game last year), and the entire offensive line back from a unit that was much better in the 2nd half of the season. We have our weaknesses though, so again, I can't really be too upset about it. Especially considering we're probably around Virginia Tech's level, who is rated 24th. So I imagine we're just off the list in the 25-35 range.

[canes21]

I forgot to add that I love how stretched the ratings are and hope it is indicative of what we'll see with individual player ratings. If a top 25 unit is only rated 83 and the best of the best is only a 96, I hope that means that it will be rare to see any individual players in the 90s and even rarer to see any higher than a 95.

My opinion on ratings is I've always wanted the scale to represent and all-time type of scaling to where a 99 is the best ever to do it. I've even wanted it to where seeing any 90+ overall player lets you know they are a truly special generational talent. Stretched to the point where an 84 is an impressive player likely making All-American status.

Stretching the ratings like that really allows the truly special players to feel that way. Unfortunately, EA seems to approach ratings as a reflection of the current year, so a 99 doesn't mean best of all time but just a best of the current crop of players. I get the logic behind it, but it's not how I personally want it done. I simply want a system where a 99 is almost impossible to find. Even a 90 is a marvel and even anyone in the lower 80's is considered high quality.

[GoDucks1224]

Quote: Originally Posted by thescoop

Miami shouldn't be in the top 10. Colorado was all offense but I'd have them just outside. Ole Miss should have a top 10 offense. Outside of that, I don't have as many complaints with this list as the toughest places to play list.

Miami added Cam Ward and Damian Martinez. Already had Restrepo and a top 10 OLine. They’re pretty stacked offensively.

[AUChase]

RE: Colorado

I won't argue with someone about their opinion but I do think people are being disingenuous about their roster situation again. Building an offensive line to Top 10 or Championship caliber in one off-season is a tough task. Depth matters and while a few signings can make a difference it typically takes several years of building that in the HS recruiting and supplementing with transfer portal. They did sign Jordan Seaton and the #9 offensive lineman in the transfer portal. They are making strides there but it's not slanderous to say it's not enough to constitute the ranking.

As an Auburn fan I think I know a good bit about this subject. In Tank Bigsby's last year, he was averaging 0.36 yards per rush before contact. I know bad offensive line play and I've been watching the rebuild of Auburn's OL. It's a slow work in progress. Bryan Harsin signed (3) offensive linemen in 2021 and 2022. In comparison, Hugh Freeze has signed 15 including 5 commits in the 2025 recruiting class.

Anyways..

Colorado ranked 99th in yards per play offensively last year. Even with the additions including Will Sheppard (their only offensive transfer in ranked in the Top 100), it's going to be an uphill battle for them this year.

Also how's the water temp in Boulder? They dismissed Sean Lewis quick who has a really good reputation as a great offensive mind. Hopefully Pat Shurmur gets a longer leash.

This is leaning more football talk than video game but I say all this to say I do think last year matters when the ranking is largely based on perception and last year's stars returning including two outstanding players. We have seen these dudes in action and it's a solid point of reference that shouldn't be dismissed form the conversation.

Colorado will be improved for sure but Top 10 feels like fan service and trying to please a very specific demographic of people that just started watching closely last year because of the spotlight CU received on Fox. There are other programs that returned more depth and had better off-seasons that are not getting the same sort of recognition.

[BallinVol]

Quote: Originally Posted by canes21

I forgot to add that I love how stretched the ratings are and hope it is indicative of what we'll see with individual player ratings. If a top 25 unit is only rated 83 and the best of the best is only a 96, I hope that means that it will be rare to see any individual players in the 90s and even rarer to see any higher than a 95. My opinion on ratings is I've always wanted the scale to represent and all-time type of scaling to where a 99 is the best ever to do it. I've even wanted it to where seeing any 90+ overall player lets you know they are a truly special generational talent. Stretched to the point where an 84 is an impressive player likely making All-American status. Stretching the ratings like that really allows the truly special players to feel that way. Unfortunately, EA seems to approach ratings as a reflection of the current year, so a 99 doesn't mean best of all time but just a best of the current crop of players. I get the logic behind it, but it's not how I personally want it done. I simply want a system where a 99 is almost impossible to find. Even a 90 is a marvel and even anyone in the lower 80's is considered high quality.

110% agree. Generational players should be a rarity. While many of today's players are considered great players, true ELITE players that have freakish athletic ability should be rare. Not only does it give a disparity of overalls and abilities, but it also makes it MUCH more rewarding when landing someone of that caliber.

[radiohead]

Quote: Originally Posted by AUChase

RE: Colorado I won't argue with someone about their opinion but I do think people are being disingenuous about their roster situation again. Building an offensive line to Top 10 or Championship caliber in one off-season is a tough task. Depth matters and while a few signings can make a difference it typically takes several years of building that in the HS recruiting and supplementing with transfer portal. They did sign Jordan Seaton and the #9 offensive lineman in the transfer portal. They are making strides there but it's not slanderous to say it's not enough to constitute the ranking. As an Auburn fan I think I know a good bit about this subject. In Tank Bigsby's last year, he was averaging 0.36 yards per rush before contact. I know bad offensive line play and I've been watching the rebuild of Auburn's OL. It's a slow work in progress. Bryan Harsin signed (3) offensive linemen in 2021 and 2022. In comparison, Hugh Freeze has signed 15 including 5 commits in the 2025 recruiting class. Anyways.. Colorado ranked 99th in yards per play offensively last year. Even with the additions including Will Sheppard (their only offensive transfer in ranked in the Top 100), it's going to be an uphill battle for them this year. Also how's the water temp in Boulder? They dismissed Sean Lewis quick who has a really good reputation as a great offensive mind. Hopefully Pat Shurmur gets a longer leash. This is leaning more football talk than video game but I say all this to say I do think last year matters when the ranking is largely based on perception and last year's stars returning including two outstanding players. We have seen these dudes in action and it's a solid point of reference that shouldn't be dismissed form the conversation. Colorado will be improved for sure but Top 10 feels like fan service and trying to please a very specific demographic of people that just started watching closely last year because of the spotlight CU received on Fox. There are other programs that returned more depth and had better off-seasons that are not getting the same sort of recognition.

Which specific demographic might that be?

[AUChase]

Quote: Originally Posted by radiohead

Which specific demographic might that be?

The same newer/c asual audience these TV networks are chasing with this expanded playoff.

Edit: I did not know c asual was a muted word.