List of NCAA 10 Team Ratings

[superjames1992]

Quote: Originally Posted by corsairs

ok everyone is bitching about their own teams roster being messed up but do you want to see the most jacked up roster in the game? well even if you don't here you go Michigan state predicted by every expert in the preseason polls to be a borderline top 25 team they are returning arguably the best linebacker in the big ten (Greg Jones) and he is only a 78 overall while most big ten teams have better backup MLB's then him in the game and in Ncaa 10 michigan state is the worst in all 3 overall team categorys (offense,defense and overall) in the big ten worse then indiana purdue all of them

WVU has probably the best linebacker in the Big East in Reed Williams (2008 Fiesta Bowl Defensive MVP) and he only got a rating in the 70s, I believe.

EDIT: Nevermind, Williams is an 85. Nonetheless, he's still probably a bit underrated.

[mkam89]

Quote: Originally Posted by mhossa

Ya MSU got jipped too....they won't be too good thou they'll be on a rebuilding year... their not gonna tie for 2nd...OSU, PSU, and Iowa will be a head above every1 and Illinois has a chance to tie for 2nd considering their schedule is a joke... Still should be a B- overall maybe even a B. They have a chance to get 7 or 8 wins..... The fact that Indiana is better than MSU and Iowa is a disgrace....

This isn't a rebuilding year for MSU. They should win 9 or 10 games (they don't play OSU this year). They lost their QB and RB but have two very capable young QBs who have been in the system and they bring in two 4* RBs. The defense obviously wasn't touched from before last year. Arguably the best LB in the big ten, Greg Jones, is a 78 in TB. He was an 82 in 09. I think that they are more of a B+ team. So finishing tied for second is practicle. Plus I'm not sold on Iowa, they were the hot team near the end of the year but their offense definitely hold them back.
Illinois schedule is no more of a joke than any other BCS school.

[jeeve]

Quote: Originally Posted by IRISHFBFAN1

Yea, the IRISH offense should put up huge numbers, probably one of the best receiving corps in the country, offensive line all coming back, TE who is listed in the country's top 10. And Jimmy C who threw for over 3,000 yards and 25 TD'S. a trio of talented rb's, but I think Armondo Allen will have a breakout year. Defensively, again everyone back with the strength being the secondary. This unit is also ranked in the top 10. Should be a great year for the IRISH. Cant wait to see GOLDEN TATE AND MICHAEL FLOYD on this game, pretty damn sweet! good luck to all of your favorite teams, except USC lol! go irish

I can see why people are annoyed with ND's ratings, but they do have pretty much everyone coming back on an offense loaded with talent. Not nearly as bad as the underratedness of the Utahs and BSUs, or the overratedness of some others.

[hoodlum10]

Mizzou a C+? gimme a break. and yet the other team i plan on using for dynasty, Tenneessee, is a B+? I know Mizzou lost a lot of playmakers from last year, but i thought i would have to be rebuilding up the 5-7 squad from the sec, not the team that has won 10+ games each of the last 2 seasons.

[o 99 PROBL3MS o]

There are certain programs who just happen to get the benefit of the doubt regardless of what happens in real life. I have come to accept it. FSU could go 0-12 this season and would still be a A- team in NCAA 11. I'm not trying to rag on FSU but I honestly believe that. My team doesn't get that benefit of the doubt just like the Iowa, Boise St., type teams.

Even in 2008 when we were ranked #10 (in NCAA 08) we were only an 85OVR. There were 37 teams rated better in the game. In NCAA 09 we were due for a rebuilding year and were rated as such (79OVR=C+). We are supposed to be better this year and have an even worse team in NCAA 10. Same can be said for a team like Iowa who returns 8 (you could even argue 9) starters from one of the nations top defenses.

Michigan St. just as bad as Washington? I don't see how they come up with these team ratings but before they can get the team ratings right, they must get the player ratings right. As long as certain teams players are overrated, their team ratings will be as well. Tennessee at B+ is flat out amazing!

[tyler741]

Quote: Originally Posted by RICK JAMES 1914

There are certain programs who just happen to get the benefit of the doubt regardless of what happens in real life. I have come to accept it. FSU could go 0-12 this season and would still be a A- team in NCAA 11. I'm not trying to rag on FSU but I honestly believe that. My team doesn't get that benefit of the doubt just like the Iowa, Boise St., type teams. Even in 2008 when we were ranked #10 (in NCAA 08) we were only an 85OVR. There were 37 teams rated better in the game. In NCAA 09 we were due for a rebuilding year and were rated as such (79OVR=C+). We are supposed to be better this year and have an even worse team in NCAA 10. Same can be said for a team like Iowa who returns 8 (you could even argue 9) starters from one of the nations top defenses. Michigan St. just as bad as Washington? I don't see how they come up with these team ratings but before they can get the team ratings right, they must get the player ratings right. As long as certain teams players are overrated, their team ratings will be as well. Tennessee at B+ is flat out amazing!

[Ziza9Noles94]

Quote: Originally Posted by boisejames

I'm just a little annoyed that it doesn't seem to matter what kind of year some teams are going to have. EA will always give some teams the same rating whether it's supposed to be a rebuilding year or a top 25 year. Boise State has been a B or B- every year for 5 years now, Fresno St. is always C or C+, etc. I don't really care all that much that my team isn't that good for the reason you say but I just think it should be accurate

A lot like most magazine predictions, I think these ratings are based mostly on perception. My school and others like them get a lot of speed guys, a lot of HTs (highly touted), and a bunch of rivals rated 4 and 5 star athletes. So they get rated on potential talent, not on the previous years record. Like "with that talent level, the Noles should be top 15." "USC recruits are beasts, doesn't matter who they lost, top 3 at least." The EA ratings don't take into account coaching, the lack thereof, or unrealized potential. It's based on perceived skill and a star system that we all know doesn't really mean squat on paper. It's all perception. If Boise State and Fresno, or even Utah moved into an expanded Pac 10 in real life you'd likely see the team ratings jump up into the A range more in these games.The thinking being they would have more perceived talent. A friend of mine always likes to take TCU and make them a force. The inital ratings never seem to stop him from doing that within a year or two. So I don't really see them as a hindrance. Then again he recruits in the state of Texas so... Now, do I get upset that my school gets a pass because of the past years of greatness and dominance. No because I bleed garnet and gold. But I do understand anyone else who thinks it's not so cool. I just don't see it being that big a deal as every game will eventually come down to the individual users skill. Sorry, babble over.

[mjussawalla]

Quote: Originally Posted by Ziza9Noles94

A lot like most magazine predictions, I think these ratings are based mostly on perception. My school and others like them get a lot of speed guys, a lot of HTs (highly touted), and a bunch of rivals rated 4 and 5 star athletes. So they get rated on potential talent, not on the previous years record. Like "with that talent level, the Noles should be top 15." "USC recruits are beasts, doesn't matter who they lost, top 3 at least." The EA ratings don't take into account coaching, the lack thereof, or unrealized potential. It's based on perceived skill and a star system that we all know doesn't really mean squat on paper. It's all perception. If Boise State and Fresno, or even Utah moved into an expanded Pac 10 in real life you'd likely see the team ratings jump up into the A range more in these games.The thinking being they would have more perceived talent. A friend of mine always likes to take TCU and make them a force. The inital ratings never seem to stop him from doing that within a year or two. So I don't really see them as a hindrance. Then again he recruits in the state of Texas so... Now, do I get upset that my school gets a pass because of the past years of greatness and dominance. No because I bleed garnet and gold. But I do understand anyone else who thinks it's not so cool. I just don't see it being that big a deal as every game will eventually come down to the individual users skill. Sorry, babble over.

More than ever, I think we need a team unity metric which will gauge how much of the team's talent is translated into wins. Here is a simple formula.

Unity = f(# years current coach has been in, # of players transferring, # promises kept, academic issues etc... )

That way teams like, FSU, though good on paper, will not see as many wins due to unity issues.