Just some random notes on Nebraska

[PowerofRed25]

Quote: Originally Posted by The Silver Sky

I probably won't start any serious OD's for a while, but I wish EA did a better job with incoming freshman, we have probably one of the best offensive classes, two 4* QB/WRs, a 5* RB and two underrated RBs (Braylon Heard, Ameer Abdullah). T-Magic should be at least 92+ speed, it would bump him pretty good ovr without actually making him an elite QB. Also, while I don't really agree with alot of the ratings for our secondary, holy high hell our CBs will know how to play man coverage, Alfonzo is like a 94 in man coverage, that's lock down level.

Fonzy with 90 play recognition, 96 man, 94 zone, 88 press will basically be shut down. Ciante isn't too bad himself and his 86 tackle rating will be nice in run support.

I agree though, I know it is a crap shoot doing ratings for incoming freshmen but sometimes they completely swing and miss. Luckily there are a few editable players like Green and Tray Robinson who are gone and can be edited to one of the new guys.

[Tengo Juego]

Quote: Originally Posted by PowerofRed25

I mean the color, year, height, weight, playing style, hometown are an exact match for Jamal and he even has receiver ratings are in line with what a freshman WR would be. Why he would be at QB, I do not know.

Maybe it is him. I can't see all his info, I'm on the teambuilder site(don't have the game). Dijon Washington has #10, and you can't have duplicate numbers.

[The Silver Sky]

Quote: Originally Posted by PowerofRed25

Fonzy with 90 play recognition, 96 man, 94 zone, 88 press will basically be shut down. Ciante isn't too bad himself and his 86 tackle rating will be nice in run support. I agree though, I know it is a crap shoot doing ratings for incoming freshmen but sometimes they completely swing and miss. Luckily there are a few editable players like Green and Tray Robinson who are gone and can be edited to one of the new guys.

I just hate going into a dynasty with a bunch of non-contributors on the roster, I'd be okay if it was a 84 man roster, but 70 men with +10 being non-contributing 3rd/4th years is frustrating, just makes for **** recruiting the first two years, where you have to go for a 3 star to fill depth and being forced to pass up a 5/4 star guys cause you don't want walk on as your 3rd string RB or something like that.

[Headtrip325]

Heres a question, I'm just curious because I won't be picking the game up until tomorrow morning but have any of you played against Nebraska at all, I'm just curious because in the game play video that was posted awhile back that had Nebraska vs. Penn State, Nebraska was running that stupid hurry up no huddle crap that every spread team on this game runs. I'm just curious to see if it was fixed because most of the spread teams on 11 that ran no huddle (that would be all of them) never ran no huddle IRL

[The Silver Sky]

I kind of wish EA would use the Scouts Inc ratings (toned down a bit), because the discrepancy between 5* and 2* is only like <15 points, which allows for 2*s to actually become contributors with some lucky progressions, and 5* to languish on the depth chart if they get ****ty progressions.

[PowerofRed25]

Quote: Originally Posted by The Silver Sky

I kind of wish EA would use the Scouts Inc ratings (toned down a bit), because the discrepancy between 5* and 2* is only like <15 points, which allows for 2*s to actually become contributors with some lucky progressions, and 5* to languish on the depth chart if they get ****ty progressions.

Yeah, recruiting can be a little off at times, although with roster editing, you could possibly fix it a little.

[Pogo27]

Quote: Originally Posted by Spooky

*Nebraska's team ratings are way off in my opinion. B+ across the board. I'd say it should be B at best on offense, and A at worst on defense. *Nebraska is ranked 16th with B+ across the board. Penn State is unranked with A- across the board. Hmmm. I know rankings have more indicators than just team ratings, but its a little weird. *On the Nebraska/Penn State subject, we aren't listed as a rivalry game, despite the fact that we are designated yearly cross-division rivals with Penn State. We are listed as rivals with Iowa, Oklahoma and Colorado though. I don't know if we can be rivals with teams we'll never play. *Nebraska/Missouri is still listed as playing for the Nebraska-Missouri Bell (at least in exhibition). We won't be playing them in the forseeable future, I think this can be removed. These aren't huge issues, just a few things I quickly noticed when I first turned on the game. Team ratings are dynamic so its not like that is a huge deal to start off with.

1. I'll chalk this up to homerism. Most everyone who bought the game thinks EA underrated at least some aspect of their favorite team.

2. Rankings and ratings are totally unrelated. Eight of the twelve SEC teams are a 90 overall or better, but they're not all in the top 25.

3. Rivalries require history. Nebraska-Penn State has no history that I'm aware of. Neb-Col and Neb-OU have a ton of history. I'm not overwhelmingly familiar with any of these 3 teams, but I do know that if Nebraska had OU or Colorado as a non-conference game, that game would be more important than any of their 8 conference games.

More on this point... the former version of the Big 12 worked differently than the two other 12-team BCS conferences. In the Big 12, you had no opponent from the other division you played every season. In the SEC, however, you do. And it's been this way since Arkansas and South Carolina joined to make the conference 12 teams.

The cross-division every-season games are:
Alabama-Tennessee = rivalry
Arkansas-South Carolina = not a rivalry
Auburn-Georgia = rivalry
LSU-Florida = rivalry
Mississippi State-Vanderbilt = not a rivalry
Ole Miss-Kentucky = not a rivalry

Now, for those 3 games that aren't rivalry games, that's not to say they're not important. But Arkansas plays South Carolina every season just like they play the 5 other teams in the Western Division every season. If South Carolina is to be considered a rivalry game for Arkansas just because they play every season, then you have to also consider Arkansas to be rivals with every team in the Western Division.

And by this logic... teams in conferences like the Big 12, Big East, etc., where everyone plays everyone every year, they're rivals with their entire conference? Now you're watering down rivalries and in the game, the REAL rivalries lose their meaning because you're listing so many teams as rivalries.

Arkansas plays South Carolina every season, but the game is rarely going to be one of the top 5 most important games of Arkansas' season (and essentially never one of the top 3).

The same should be said about Nebraska. The only thing that makes Penn State a significant game is that it's a conference game (and not in your division, and division record is important for tie-breakers). The only thing that makes it more important and moves its important higher than the 5 opponents within your division are year in which Penn State is good and defeating them will mean a lot for your own Top 25 rankings.

The fact that Nebraska and Penn State are guaranteed to play every season could help build this game into a rivalry. The fact that in any given season they could easily play each other twice (any year they both win their division, they'll meet in conference championship game). The potential for rivalry is there... but after nearly 2 decades of playing South Carolina every year and no feeling of rivalry between them and Arkansas, I think it's pretty good evidence that playing someone every season doesn't necessarily set up a rivalry game.


4. As long as the trophy exists and is played for occasionally, the game will pretty much be kept as a rivalry game by EA.



Here's the thing, Nebraska fan who is complaining about who is and isn't their rivals in the game... you've been playing in the Big 12 for quite some time now. All your rivals from the Big 12. Leaving your conference doesn't make those rivalries disappear and new ones suddenly, magically appear.

Arkansas played in the Southwest Conference all the way up until 1993. Arkansas-LSU wasn't a rivalry game before then. They rarely played. But the Golden Boot trophy was created as a way to force the rivalry to help assimilate Arkansas into the SEC.

A lot of Arkansas fans still consider Texas and our other former SWC opponents our biggest rivals. That feeling is slowly starting to fade as the generations move on and more and more generations grow up that don't remember the SWC days.

We've been in the SEC for nearly 20 years and some of these games are just now starting to get to the point of feeling like legitimate rivalry games (because now we've got a nearly 20 year history of play against these teams).

Nebraska's main rivals are going to be its former Big 12 opponents for a while. Hopefully, Nebraska will schedule some of these guys as non-conference opponents on a regular basis, as Arkansas tries doing with its former SWC opponents (a friend and Nebraska fan told me Neb has plans of keeping a series with Colorado going). And in time, you'll start to develop some rivalries with some Big Ten teams.

But of the opponents in the opposite division, I have a feeling Wisconsin is the most likely to become a legitimate rival for Nebraska, despite the fact they won't be playing every season (much like the fact that a lot of Arkansas fans consider Tennessee a bit of a rivalry game despite not playing them every season).

[bpd115]

I played the game realistically, Nebraska just couldn't move the ball on me at all. Perhaps it's time to move up to Heisman. I've always played at AA due to the cheese on the Heisman level.

And to answer another question, yes they ran that stupid hurry up offense.