Progression Explanation?

[Purplepower]

Quote: Originally Posted by ucas005

I think this would be a great start to giving more life to dynasty mode. A mode which is slowly losing some of its luster. Imagine how much more depth would be added to dynasty with both a risk/reward discipline system and 5*/4* busts. Say you take a chance on the super talented, blue chip linebacker with known off the field issues. Two years into his career of trying to groom him into a starter his ratings stall out and he's missing games. All of sudden you find yourself with a guy who will never be the 95 starter you imagined and is instead a 81 5* recruit after two seasons who is missing 5 games a season. Now you have a position that you once thought was deep in need of some serious recruiting the next year.

100% agree. In EA's Head Coach this happens. The draft is so what makes the game. You never know how your #1,2 draft picks are going to work out. Last year my #2 draft pick a WR failed a drug test...gone, suspended, and me thinking this kid is gonna be a problem.. Now I have no depth at the WR position, because I thought I was set.

In NCAA, with every player rated 90's, it doesn't matter if you have an injury....just plug in another body who is has just as good as rating.

[fistofrage]

Quote: Originally Posted by Purplepower

100% agree. In EA's Head Coach this happens. The draft is so what makes the game. You never know how your #1,2 draft picks are going to work out. Last year my #2 draft pick a WR failed a drug test...gone, suspended, and me thinking this kid is gonna be a problem.. Now I have no depth at the WR position, because I thought I was set. In NCAA, with every player rated 90's, it doesn't matter if you have an injury....just plug in another body who is has just as good as rating.

Yep, does it really even pay to recruit. Pretty much all 3 & 4*'s are created equal and all will be in the mid 90's by their Senior season. Fo Sho.

[CueDub]

I'm glad to see that some of you agree with me. Here's a link to the rivals 100 from 2006... http://rivals100.rivals.com/viewrank.asp

You can go through different years but I wanted to post this to give an example of how many players don't live up to the hype. A few didn't qualify for school. A few transferred. Some haven't developed into studs, and some lived up to the hype and are playing on Sundays. I'm not gonna take the time to post all the busts.

This is just the top 100. Think about the many more busts as you get into 3 star rated players. Look at your favorite team's previous classes and you'll see some players that never qualified, underachieved, and overachieved relative to their star rating.

Recruiting is HUGE part of college football. I believe that this needs to be looked at for NCAA 11. Not based on a potential rating because college coaches can't really predict which kids won't develop. The only reason that I ever see a school stay away from a recruit is because of poor grades. Other than that, the user should have no idea of whether or not the recruit that they are recruiting the next Matthew Stafford or the next Mitch Mustain.

[thenextqb19]

Quote: Originally Posted by jhawkmike

There are 8400 players in the game. If 25 of them are rated 99, then that means that less than one third of 1% are off the scales. This is irrelevant. With the deault rosters, there are 11 different caliber of teams (A+ to D). Years into your dynasty, this will shrink to 9 (A+ to C). Big deal. 1st, no one has a choice but to download the patch if they want to play on Xbox Live. 2nd, I would have no problem with a patch that fixed this cosmetic flaw in the game and made ratings more intuitive. 3rd, there isn't going to be another patch, and so this is moot. I have not seen one shred of statistical evidence supporting the notion that there is more parity among team ratings in NCAA 10 than there was in NCAA 09. Last year, the bell curve of talent distribution among teams shrunk, moved to the left, and lost it's proper shape (the curve became skewed). This year, it shrinks, moves to the right, and retains its proper shape. So things are actually better this year in this regard. This is especially true when you consider that the user controlled team in NCAA 2009 could easily be an A+ while almost all the other teams ranged from B+ to D. I've also seen no evidence that there is too much parity among teams in NCAA 2010 when on the field results are used to measure the level of parity. I haven't yet done a thorough multi-season analysis, but in my current dynasty (year 2019), the records and standings in the Big 12 conference look right on the mark. When I experimented yesterday and simmed to the end of the regular season, this is how it looked. I control Kansas, and so that's why they are dominant. Kansas 11-1 (8-0) Nebraska 10-2 (6-2) Mizzouri 6-6 (4-4) K-State 7-5 (4-4) Colorado 4-8 (6-2) Iowa ST 2-10 (0-8) South Oklahoma 12-0 (8-0) Texas 8-4 (5-3) Tex A&M 8-4 (4-4) Ok ST 6-6 (3-5) Tech 5-7 (2-6) Baylor 3-9 (2-6) In real life, there are currently 4 non-BCS schools ranked in the preseason top 25 polls. In my dynasty, there are only 3. Here they are and their ratings: Boise ST: B+ Marshall: B- Troy: B- Boise ST is the only one of these teams that played a BCS school in their pre-conference schedule, and they lost this game. So there are fewer top 25 non-BCS teams in my dynasty than there are in the real NCAA. And the ones that did crack the top 25 aren't even that great. They played easy schedules and are overrated. It has nothing to do with the "progression bug". But hey, this is just a small sample. So I encourage everyone to report the following: 1)Year of your current Dynasty (and should be at least 2014) 2)Number of non-BCS teams in top 25 3)Letter grades of each of these teams 4)The record of each of these teams againt BCS conference opponents To find the letter grade for a team when you are in the middle of a season, you have to preview one of their upcoming games. So goto the NCAA schedule menu and find the team. It's easy if you know what conference they are in.

Ok Its year 2014
1 non bcs team and that is boise state at B+ ovr, b off, a-def, and c spt. They play no bcs school. They ended up being 9-3.

Ohio ended up being in the top 25 at the end of the regular season at 18 and 12-1 and beat #24 UNC earlier in the year. They are rated C+ovr, C off, C- def.

[jhawkmike]

Quote: Originally Posted by StormJH1

I understand what you're saying, and it may very well be that the OVR ratings (or overall team ratings) aren't an accurate reflection of how guys play on the field. But aren't you missing the point, which is that a proper rating system, in and of itself, had value to people who enjoy Dynasty mode? I don't know about you guys, but over the past 7 years of playing this game, I probably spent as much (or more) time in the menus recruiting, editing rosters, and building my team than I did PLAYING the actual game. I doubt that I'm alone in that. And the entire empirical basis for the "game within the game" WAS the ratings system. So if the ratings system is broken by a progression model that doesn't accurately reflect how good my players are (or make having a guy on your team with a 90+ OVR seem like a "big deal"), then how does that not take away from the fun of building a team?

But the rating system isn't broken. In my dynasty, there are 8 A+ teams. Let's say that 2 of these teams are actually a knotch above the other 6. The rating system would imperfectly communicate the greatness of these 2 teams, but you can hardly call it "broken" when we are only talking about 2 out of 120 teams. This is even more true when talking about player ratings, where only about 25 out of 8,400 players will be rated 99.

Your 90+ rated players are a slightly less big deal this year than they have been in the past, but they are still a big deal. If there are 550 90+ players in your dynasty, then that means a 90 rated player is considered better than 93.5% of all the other players. A 99 rated player would be better than 99.7% of all the other players. These figures assume that each of the 120 teams uses all 70 of their rosters slots; which would mean that there are 8400 total players in the game. If that isn't the case, then my numbers would be a little off, but not by too much.

[xcef2005]

So it seems EA planned for this progression problem to happen which I dont get at all. But lets say it makes sense for this game. What i'm worried about is say there are 10 players rated 99 and another 50 rated 90+

How is that gonna affect the Madden draft. Thats my biggest concern out of all of this. Does this mean that in the first round all players are gonna be 84-86. Will progression kill the draft or not? I can live with progression I suppose, all this it makes Dynasty terrible. But if I can atleast be assured that progression through year 2 and beyond come out good on Madden I'm O.K.

Anyone has any statistics of how NCAA years 2+ come out on Madden? It would be greatly appreciated.

[Purplepower]

Season 3....Central Mich lost to Ohio State in the NC.

[thenextqb19]

Quote: Originally Posted by xcef2005

So it seems EA planned for this progression problem to happen which I dont get at all. But lets say it makes sense for this game. What i'm worried about is say there are 10 players rated 99 and another 50 rated 90+ How is that gonna affect the Madden draft. Thats my biggest concern out of all of this. Does this mean that in the first round all players are gonna be 84-86. Will progression kill the draft or not? I can live with progression I suppose, all this it makes Dynasty terrible. But if I can atleast be assured that progression through year 2 and beyond come out good on Madden I'm O.K. Anyone has any statistics of how NCAA years 2+ come out on Madden? It would be greatly appreciated.

From my experience it doesnt matter.... The ratings get scrambled up to some degree from NCAA to Madden so all of the 99s and 90+ some come into the game as 7th round picks 50 something overall. Case in point T. Pryor and Tyrod Taylor both were 95+ coming out of NCAA both ended up being rated undrafted for me in my Madden franchise. Once again they do get randomized because in another draft Taylor came in around 78 in the 3rd round.

Actually the biggest gripe I have are the FB come in as rated top 10 top 5 talent but really dont get picked up until the 3rd or 4th round. So they come in around 85 overall. Also some of them you can switch to HB and get a nice valued 3rd or 4th round back to be a franchise back and not pay him top 5 money(which in madden they made it harder to sign draft picks. They end up asking for more money) Drafted Joe Haden 3rd overall and ended up giving him a 112million dollar contract, 20 million more than what was started at the begining.