Post from EA's forum on progression

[bigjake62505]

• A players Potential – Some guys are just going to get good as they get older; sure playing time and coaches might help… but the kid is going to have All American talent

Change the ratings scale. First, they’re inflated. Second, they don’t represent reality at all.

College guys usually don't regress (some do) but many stall. The stall because of injuries, limited potential, poor work ethic, low football IQ, inability to deal with the structure and discipline needed to juggle football and college. And when they come in at 78 or 82, that's just far too high a rating. When teams recruit they look at how good someone is right now and how much potential they have. Some recruits are polished and are further along than most HS players - but have a low ceiling, and therefore aren't D1 recruits.

EA's rating scale is just not realistic. Too many 80s and 90s. We need to see 5-star recruits who are busts and 3 and 2 star recruits who become studs. Look at Notre Dame's offensive line. All 4 stars, all having had multiple years of starting, all mediocre. Yet EA has ranked them all in the high 70s or low 80s - yet, frankly speaking, as of right now, none deserve rankings higher than the low 80s.

The progression of most recruits is so predictable – all the 5-stars become 92+, and every 4-star becomes 88+, etc. There needs to be more variation.

Potential. I'd recommend a hidden potential rating. Perhaps you can access it on the player’s page. When you evaluate a player during recruiting - maybe you could see it then. Otherwise, it should be hidden to you. All current players should have theirs hidden. Why? Well, I'd be ticked to turn on the game, find that the highly-touted freshman on my favorite team, the guy who is guying to the NFL for sure, has a potential rating that sucks. And of course, you couldn’t change it.

Some players have an inordinate impact on the game due to their talent/ability – like Percy Harvin did for Florida. And Dexter McLuster does now. Let’s make high-ranking players more special.

90s are first round draft picks, max # of 30.
80's = drafted players.
70s = all-conference.
60s = solid starter.
50s = weak starter.
40s = backup, or 2-deep.

Yes this idea comes from "The College Years". But you cannot deny the logic within it. Some recruits are much more polished out of high school but lack the ability to grow much more (55/65) – the second number represents a hidden potential rating. Or they might be like Alex Smith out of San Diego who wasn't terribly polished, had a good arm, and became special in college (30/95) and the #1 pick in the draft (let's leave out NFL results).

Recruits should rarely be above 60. Most are highly-touted or given 5-stars based on size, speed, long arms, hard work ethic, perceived growth – in sum, potential. Few HS WRs run good routes or have good technique.

Most 5-stars are 5-star potential not 5-star reality. Some are ready to contribute early like Harvin or Dion Lewis at Pittsburgh, most cannot. A player like Harvin would have been 75/98. Tebow would have been 68/98. Lewis could be 70/82. You get the point.

Typical range. 5-stars would be 55-75 (3 or 4 in 70s). 4-stars would be 50-60. 3-stars would be 45-55. 2-stars would be 40-50. 1 stars would be < 40. There would be aberrations however. Understand that the typical range above would not mean that stars = ratings. You would still have problems with 5-stars who don’t qualify, never progress, have discipline problems. Likewise with 3 and 4-stars. Further, a certain percentage of each group (5-star, 4-star) would be below their rating. For example, 10% would fall below the normal 5-star range of rating of 55-75. Potential could also be a variant. 20% of the 5-stars would only have 80 as their potential max.

Position changes. Huge drops occur here unnecessarily. With the multitude of ratings, most players (not QBs or K/P) should be treated as athletes and given decent ratings on offense and defense. Look at Anthony Barr out of southern Cal - some schools want him as a RB, others as a LB, others as a DE. Maybe you have types - OG/OC/OT/DT, TE/OT, TE/DE/LB, WR/DB, RB/DB, scrambling QB/DB/WR.

Position changes occur all the time in college football with recruits, with freshman, and with sophomores. TCU DE Hughes was a HS RB. Former Miami DB Sean Taylor was a HS RB. Eric Winston from Miami got moved from TE to OT. All-conference DE, Martail Burnett from Utah, arrived as a WR/S at 6-4, 210. He became a 6-4, 255 DE that got moved by the NFL to OLB. James Bryant was a 4-star LB who signed with Miami, got moved to FB, then never progressed. TEs get moved to OT. LBs get moved to FB. Safeties to OLB or even DE. WRs to CB. QBs to Safety.

Progression should also be influenced by coaching. Coaches should have attributes - recruiting, coaching, development. The recruiting attribute affects the quality of the class, coaching attribute affects the quality of the coaching during the game (W/L), and development attribute affects how the players develop.

I like it, what do you guys think?

[J.R. Locke]

Define the scale. Each year you cannot have an increasing scale.

Players get slower, get worse. Especially during a year. Players regress game to game because of fatigue and lingering injuries, bad coaching, bad matchups.

This idea that players attributes should always get better is not how football works. And to me is not how ratings should work. Players need a rating called consistency. That is what seperates players. Consistent fundementals and techniques. These should regress and increase depending on coaching, morale and previous results. Along with matchups.

Sorry dude your idea of progression doesn't really change from EA's much at all. Just spreads out numbers?

[dickey1331]

I dont like some of your ideas. I dont get how you say freshmen should not get high ratings. At SMU this year a freshmen beat out the Jr QB halfway through the season and is going to be the starter from now on. This is the same Jr who played all of last year. He did not advanced and obviously the freshmen should be rated OVR better.

[bigjake62505]

Its not my idea, I found this on the EA forums just posted it here to hear some ideas from OS.

[skeezapleez]

I'm not sure I agree with this. I agree with the progression idea and having busts and all, but I've definitely had some 3 star guys come in with better ratings than the 4 star guys I recruited(and end up better in the long run too).

[Macc24JR]

Having recruits overall rating wouldn't bother me but keep in mind some use different/harder slider settings than others. In my OD, we use Heisman sliders (I forget whose but we've made SOME changes) and honestly, even my senior receivers with golden hands will drop easy passes. I can only imagine recruiting the **** out of a 5* WR hoping he can come into my system and contribute but because he's a 60-70 rating... obviously with a low catch rating argueably the most important reflection of a receiver, right? He wouldn't catch a ball if he was 50 yards open with nothing but the road to pater infront of him.

This would work if they properly implemented what good receivers are good at. For instance, a B+ to A rating in route running should mean that your receiver will give you a nice window to throw to consistently, regardless of whose covering. Okay maybe not every time, or REGARDLESS whose covering because obviously some corners should be able to lock ANY receiver down. But I don't know, it just seems like unless a guy has 80 or over catching ability, I struggle to find them a spot on the field or throw their way. Just MO.

[bigjake62505]

I like the idea of some things in the post but one big thing is missing in the game itself, coaches. With out coaches and their strengths and weaknesses this would never work. That along with some type of training system (summer drills from last gen). You would need a head coach and at least OC and DC along with a training system to have your players progress properly.

[Sack Attack]

Quote: Originally Posted by Macc24JR

He wouldn't catch a ball if he was 50 yards open with nothing but the road to pater infront of him.

You know it's paydirt right?