In-Season Progression of Player Ratings

[nxt]

This is a good little nugget of info from OS interview w/ EA Producers that I haven't heard about yet.

Quote:

We have modified the in-season progression of player ratings so that they can be updated after each week instead of at set points during the season. Now you will see players that are progressing well during the season go on hot streaks as their ratings improve.

On a separate, but related topic... one thing that I always wanted was to know/see, is there a difference in player progression (ratings) if a player is red-shirted or not. Is there a difference when making that decision? or is the only benefit gaining a year of eligibility and the progression will be the same either way?

I'd also like to know/see if I have a back-up QB, for example, and I put him in during blowouts to get playing time and gain experience, etc. Will this affect his player progression (ratings). There should be risk and rewards for putting in bench players (ex. risk of injury, awareness boost, etc.)

[Deegeezy]

Only gripe I have with in-season progression is that there is not enough (or any at all) in-season DIGRESSION. Not every player gets better as the season goes on, some...really many, get worse. Especially young players.

[countryboy]

I like the idea.... just curious as to how well it works. I just hope its not overdone.

[phillyred05]

Im fine with degression as long as it is realistic. Freshmen may lose strength/weight as the toll of moving up to the next level wears on them over the course of the season. Guys who sit on the bench may lose confidence and awareness. However, speaking as someone who has spent time on a bench, it doesn't mean you lose your other physical skills like catching or running. The majority of your time playing football is spent practicing, so I think any major digression that will occur would be along the mental side of things or those attributes that pertain specifically to gametime experience.

[Deegeezy]

Quote: Originally Posted by phillyred05

Im fine with degression as long as it is realistic. Freshmen may lose strength/weight as the toll of moving up to the next level wears on them over the course of the season. Guys who sit on the bench may lose confidence and awareness. However, speaking as someone who has spent time on a bench, it doesn't mean you lose your other physical skills like catching or running. The majority of your time playing football is spent practicing, so I think any major digression that will occur would be along the mental side of things or those attributes that pertain specifically to gametime experience.

You may be on to something there. Freshman and reserve players losing awareness and maybe stamina would be very realistic. It would make getting your back-ups in during blowouts for reps more important.

[Village Idiot]

Quote: Originally Posted by phillyred05

Im fine with degression as long as it is realistic. Freshmen may lose strength/weight as the toll of moving up to the next level wears on them over the course of the season. Guys who sit on the bench may lose confidence and awareness. However, speaking as someone who has spent time on a bench, it doesn't mean you lose your other physical skills like catching or running. The majority of your time playing football is spent practicing, so I think any major digression that will occur would be along the mental side of things or those attributes that pertain specifically to gametime experience.

Perfectly stated.

However, the main point is that EA has NEVER given us digression, in any form. Gabe Watson, for example, got benched a couple games into his senior year, and never really made an impact again; yet all the while I'm playing NCAA, dude's a 98 or something.

As with any feature like this, the biggest fear is that it would be overdone. I certainly wouldn't want, say, Mike Hart, to be a 74 by mid-season this year. But it does happen quite often where guys are budding superstars their freshman and sophomore years, and yet wind up as backups or even off the team.

Say you recruit a #1 guy (usually an 80-84). You're guaranteed that guy is going to be an 85+ for the rest of his career. Yet you've got other kids who are progressing nicely from 72, to 75, to 77, and yet are never really worth starting. There's something off about that.

Instead - particularly with the 'fake' incoming players - I'd love to see HUGE shifts in ratings, literally where a kid is a 68 as a freshman, a 91 as a sophomore, and then settles into a nice 85 as a junior and senior. The #1 recruit types, same thing: maybe they come in as an 83, but maybe they're a 72 their sophomore year and eventually fall off the map. Maybe they're a 72 their sophomore year, but regain composure and end up the starter again junior year.

I think the word I'm looking for is consistency: there should be way more players who are downright inconsistent over their careers.

[Deegeezy]

Quote: Originally Posted by Undefeated

Perfectly stated. However, the main point is that EA has NEVER given us digression, in any form. Gabe Watson, for example, got benched a couple games into his senior year, and never really made an impact again; yet all the while I'm playing NCAA, dude's a 98 or something. As with any feature like this, the biggest fear is that it would be overdone. I certainly wouldn't want, say, Mike Hart, to be a 74 by mid-season this year. But it does happen quite often where guys are budding superstars their freshman and sophomore years, and yet wind up as backups or even off the team. Say you recruit a #1 guy (usually an 80-84). You're guaranteed that guy is going to be an 85+ for the rest of his career. Yet you've got other kids who are progressing nicely from 72, to 75, to 77, and yet are never really worth starting. There's something off about that. Instead - particularly with the 'fake' incoming players - I'd love to see HUGE shifts in ratings, literally where a kid is a 68 as a freshman, a 91 as a sophomore, and then settles into a nice 85 as a junior and senior. The #1 recruit types, same thing: maybe they come in as an 83, but maybe they're a 72 their sophomore year and eventually fall off the map. Maybe they're a 72 their sophomore year, but regain composure and end up the starter again junior year. I think the word I'm looking for is consistency: there should be way more players who are downright inconsistent over their careers.

Well put...To add to that I would also not mind seeing the occassional BUST. An amazing majority of high school recruits in real life end up busts yet in NCAA, what you see is what you get.

[Village Idiot]

Quote: Originally Posted by Deegeezy

Well put...To add to that I would also not mind seeing the occassional BUST. An amazing majority of high school recruits in real life end up busts yet in NCAA, what you see is what you get.

Yeah, I can't believe I forgot to mention that. Of course, that too!