What's the difference between EA's player ratings and your own player ratings?

[Playmakers]

Quote: Originally Posted by AuburnAlumni

I'm not seeing the rash of 90s like you are. EA's base set is ridiculous. They take a team like Alabama, who, granted, is a very talented squad and make them the second coming of the New England Patriots. Bama lost 8 starters off of their Defense this past season and EA rated an unreal number of brand new starters 90+. A prime example is DB Dre Kirkpatrick, who, only a sophomore and backup until this year is a 95 in this year's game. That is absolutely absurd. Julio Jones is a 97 overall. That's insane. The guy is very talented, but his actual production on the field is nowhere in the stratosphere of a 97. Just look at Bama's roster. The inflated ratings of every player is a trend going back to the first NCAA regarding previous year's MNC team. You say that there are too many 90+ rated guys being suggested by community members, but EA has just as many that are nowhere near that good rated a 90 or higher on the default roster. Personally, I'm rerating Auburn and have yet to rate a single player in the 90s that I personally edited. I have had to change a TON of individual attributes that were so out of whack it's not even funny. Onterrio McCalebb's 83 speed rating, which is a joke. Freshman Jeremy Richardson's (who didn't qualify) waaaaaaay too high 95 speed rating, freshman Antonio Goodwin's waaaaay too low 81 speed rating, etc. People who know their teams are going to give a better roster 99.9% of the time than EA will. And the fear of overinflated ratings by "homers" is vastly overrated IMO. There are plenty of level headed guys out there who can do great jobs editing rosters.

I think you misunderstood my post and what we have been debating in this thread.....

I'm not favoring EA's rosters or the rosters that i see being suggested with many players over 90 overall.....

In fact the guys in this thread will tell you I'm more in favor of using the lowering end of the ratings scale so that the number of 90 overall players reduce significantly.

So i'm not saying EA's rosters are better than anyone else....I'm just suggesting EA and some of the roster guys both drop the overall's down a bit.

When i see one guy create an All-Conference team and UNC has 9 guys on defense alone rated 87 or higher that just makes me scratch my head... Because I just can't see a any college team in the game today having 9 defenders at 87+ overall.

That would make their defense into the Classic Pittsburgh Steel Curtain defense of the 70's

However if you kinda surf through this thread you'll see a few guys post some roster/ratings formula's that do a great job of reducing the overall's down while maintaining realism within the game.

[whitner20]

to be fair, UNC's defense is stacked, they have what like 6 legitimate NFL prospects on it, maybe more

[Palo20]

Quote: Originally Posted by whitner20

to be fair, UNC's defense is stacked, they have what like 6 legitimate NFL prospects on it, maybe more

At least five potential 1st rounders, yes.

[AuburnAlumni]

Quote: Originally Posted by Playmakers

So i'm not saying EA's rosters are better than anyone else....I'm just suggesting EA and some of the roster guys both drop the overall's down a bit. When i see one guy create an All-Conference team and UNC has 9 guys on defense alone rated 87 or higher that just makes me scratch my head... Because I just can't see a any college team in the game today having 9 defenders at 87+ overall. That would make their defense into the Classic Pittsburgh Steel Curtain defense of the 70's However if you kinda surf through this thread you'll see a few guys post some roster/ratings formula's that do a great job of reducing the overall's down while maintaining realism within the game.

Looking at Bama's default set on the NCAA 11 Teambuilder site.

*NOTE* This is a defense that is replacing EIGHT starters.


LE #96-94 overall
LE #92-90 overall (Sophomore)
RE #57-95 overall (Marcel Dareus..the only guy so far that actually deserves a 90+ rating)
RE #94-88 overall (RS FRESHMAN, has not played a single down of college ball yet)
DT #99-95 overall
DT #64-90 overall (Sophomore)
LOLB #5-95 overall
LOLB #55-88 overall
MLB #35-95 overall (Sophomore)
MLB #30-92 overall (Dontae Hightower, only second guy who actually deserves a 90+)
MLB #2-87 overall (Sophomore)
ROLB #41-93 overall
ROLB #47-83 overall (True Freshman)
CB #21-95 overall (Sophomore, never started a game before)
CB #1-91 overall
CB #9-86 overall (Sophomore)
CB #22-85 overall
FS #23-94 overall
FS #37-85 overall (Sophomore)
SS #4-94 overall
SS #18-88 overall (Sophomore)

Let me say it again..replacing EIGHT starters on defense. Backups who have never seen real playing time are rated like 3 year all conference performers all over the place.

FIVE guys rated a 95
EIGHT guys rated a 94 or higher.

I consider a 95 rating as the best of the best. A First or Second team All American.

Give. Me. A. Freaking. Break.

Anyone who thinks the EA default rosters are accurate, fair, etc. is smoking crack.

[peteykirch]

Not that it makes things better but RE94 is a RS FR if you match him to his counterpart.

[Playmakers]

Quote: Originally Posted by whitner20

to be fair, UNC's defense is stacked, they have what like 6 legitimate NFL prospects on it, maybe more

Yeah but 9 guys over 87........

You don't really have to be a 87 overall in NCAA football to be a very good player or starter.

That is my point......the overall's are inflated accross the boards so instead of people reducing down the top players by 2-4 points overall they take their rosters and try to match up with the overall's that are released by EA.

In return you get a game that is so inflated with high ratings you can no longer tell who's a All-American and who's a avg starter.

IMO you could adjust the ratings to a more reasonable manner instead of 9 guys being 87 overall what's wrong them being edited to between 82-90?

That is what i call reasonable and realistic but hey i understand most people are going to want their school to stand out and if they see EA jacking up the ratings they are going to try and make sure their team is on a equal playing field based on the default ratings.

[Palo20]

Players have to be rated high for draft classes too. So for the people looking to import to Madden, the best players have to be 90+.

[peteykirch]

Quote: Originally Posted by Palo20

Players have to be rated high for draft classes too. So for the people looking to import to Madden, the best players have to be 90+.

See I don't believe that.

Why couldn't a 80 in NCAA be high enough?

If you lower the overalls across the board it doesn't matter.

Why is that the college basketball games can spread the ratings out, and you can greatly tell the different between an All American PG, and some 3rd string walk on PG, but in NCAA Football the ratings really don't matter much.