VT Hokies 2011 Roster as Case Study on How Closely Video Game Players Match Real Ones

[Warren Piecee]

Quote: Originally Posted by BROman

actually he's right on in some areas. davis ended the spring tied @ #1 on the depth chart with coale & coale is the #1 punter at this point- they are obviously waiting for one of the young punters to step up, but if no one does, coale will be punting. and oglesby was the #2 tailback his first two seasons, but was moved to fb/h-back last year to get him on the field more, so it's not like he's never run tailback. to the op- the roster on the game will look nothing like this for two reasons. #1- your apparent fandom has grossly overrated VT (cody journell an 88! really bro?!?) #2- you didn't take in account true freshmen, so at least 10-12 of the players you listed won't be on the game b/c of new recuits like lockhart, marshall, jarrett, and harley et al will be.

I would like to make a few more comments regarding my having given Cody Journell an overall rating of 88. I think you may not be aware that players are rated differently depending upon the poison they play. An 88 would be high for a TE. In fact, in NCAA 11 a TE with an 88 would the 4^th, 5^th or 6^th best TE in the nation. An 88 is not all that high for a kicker at all. In NCAA 11 kickers with an overall rating of 88 were the 20^th to 27^th best kickers in the game. I do not think it is implausible for the kicker for the team ranked in one preseason ranking 18^th in the nation to have an overall rating of 88. I think this is especially true for a kicker who was the first Hokie kicker in many years to receive a scholarship out of high school and according to Scout.com was the No. 7 kicking prospect in the nation out of high school. I mentioned elsewhere that this spring he beat out Justin Myer for the kicking job and Myer was an 84 in NCAA 11. Myer was actually an 86. Journell must deserve a rating higher than an 86. When I revise my work I may lower him to an 87.>>>

[TDenverFan]

Quote: Originally Posted by Warren Piecee

Perhaps I should offer a few examples that will help make clear what I am trying to do. No one has debated my argument that a realistic virtual version of WR Danny Coale should have an overall rating of 89. If when the game is released I discover the player on tech's roster who share's Coale's number has an overall rating of 80 it will be an important piece of evidence. I believe that there is a zero chance of this happening but I do believe that this type of discrepancy will be found with other players on the roster. The depth chart, as it pertains to TEs, has been unchanged for the entire spring. No TEs have been injured and as far as I can recall no strong freshman TEs are expected to report in the fall. If when the game is released I discover the depth chart, as it pertains to TEs, is not just as I have listed it in this thread it will be an important piece of evidence. Furthermore, I am aware of what the conventional wisdom is on how the game handles heights, weights, races and hometowns. I am going to take a close look at these by comparing the real players with the ones that come loaded with the game. Why am I doing these things? The answer is because I am a curious person. Not everyone is. If you are not than I will not condemn you.>>> > > Once the game is released I will also be looking at some individual ratings in addition to the overall ratings. I mentioned elsewhere in this thread Davis' jump rating and the speed of Tweedy. I will be checking these as well as the block shedding rating of Derrick Hopkins, among other ratings.

The reason nobodys doubted you on Coale is nobody has a clue as to accurate ratings... it's all bbut a crapshoot.

[Warren Piecee]

Another issue I look forward to examining is how the game will handle the fact that Danny Coale ended up as both costarter at flanker and the starting punter on the final spring depth chart. Will the game include two virtual versions of him at both positions? Will both versions share the same jersey number? This would be interesting because as the game is now no two players can have the same jersey number. Another issue involves the fact that the game rates players differently depending upon what positions they play. Will the two versions of Coale, assuming they are included in the game, have different ratings since they play different poisons? I predict that the game will either create a fictitious punter or create a punter further down the depth chart and make him the starter. I only expect to see Coale as a flanker.>>>

[Roggie]

Quote: Originally Posted by Warren Piecee

Another issue I look forward to examining is how the game will handle the fact that Danny Coale ended up as both costarter at flanker and the starting punter on the final spring depth chart. Will the game include two virtual versions of him at both positions? Will both versions share the same jersey number? This would be interesting because as the game is now no two players can have the same jersey number. Another issue involves the fact that the game rates players differently depending upon what positions they play. Will the two versions of Coale, assuming they are included in the game, have different ratings since they play different poisons? I predict that the game will either create a fictitious punter or create a punter further down the depth chart and make him the starter. I only expect to see Coale as a flanker.>>

This is the part I'm EXTREMELY curious about. As soon as I heard he was trying to punt, this thought went into my head. I'm hoping he wins the job just to see what happens in the game.

[Warren Piecee]

I just want to clarify a point I made earlier in the thread. Fall college football camp will start the first week in August. However, NCAA 12 will be released July 12. Therefore nothing that happens after players return to school can have any impact on team's rosters.

[Warren Piecee]

I wish to again thank you those of you who have offered me constructive critisim. I have considered your comments, given more thought to my work and now wish to offer my first revisions to the ratings I posted to begin this thread.

QB
#3, Thomas, OVR = 86
#12, Clayton, OVR = 75 (lowered 4 points)
#5, Young, OVR = 72 (raised 7 points) or #6, Leal, OVR = 69 (not previously included in my depth chart)

K
#89, Journell, OVR = 86 (lowered 2 points)

P
#19, Coale, OVR = 80 (lowered 4 points)

After making these changes the team still had a B+ overall, a B+ offense and a B+ defense.

[TMJOHNS18]

Isn't just giving a player an OVR pretty useless? I could say that RB #2 for Florida is Jeff Demps because I think he should have an 85 OVR and RB #2 is 85 OVR in the game. But in the game, RB #2 could be 85 OVR, but he's super slow, all trucking and not elusive, and have the best passing ratings in the game, just that the combination of low running ability plus high awareness lands him at 85 OVR. If that's the case, then RB #2 is not Jeff Demps because Jeff Demps is a track and field running back, not some heavy bruiser with freakish throwing ability.

If you want this to be even remotely viable, you would have to look at players, adjust their measurable so that NCAA ratings relate, and even then it's a crapshoot how EA decides to rate them anyways.

[thequick135]

Quote: Originally Posted by Warren Piecee

I wish to again thank you those of you who have offered me constructive critisim. I have considered your comments, given more thought to my work and now wish to offer my first revisions to the ratings I posted to begin this thread. QB #3, Thomas, OVR = 86 #12, Clayton, OVR = 75 (lowered 4 points) #5, Young, OVR = 72 (raised 7 points) or #6, Leal, OVR = 69 (not previously included in my depth chart) K #89, Journell, OVR = 86 (lowered 2 points) P #19, Coale, OVR = 80 (lowered 4 points) After making these changes the team still had a B+ overall, a B+ offense and a B+ defense.

cardo was hurt for the spring and leal played.. if they base it off of how they looked in the spring it'd go to leal being #3