What's the difference between EA's player ratings and your own player ratings?

[Playmakers]

The reason i ask is because.....I think it's scary seeing so many players at 90 overall.

I mean your talking about a top 5 draft choice in the NFL at every position with that high of ratings.

Now I know this is college ball but man i'm baffled by the amount of 90 overall ratings just being gift wrapped in every ratings thread i see.

It's kinda crazy to because everyone complained about EA's ratings in NCAA 09 being too high and yet when you observe all of the ratings threads you see tons of players in the 90's after people decide to post their opinions of the ratings.

One thing that bothers me is just because a player is fast doesn't mean he needs to be a 90 overall in the game.....

The rating scale ranges from 0-99 yet everyone is hell bent on using the higher end of the ratings instead of spread ratings. I mean guys are making Punters 90+ overall and some QB's who have done absolutely nothing a 90+ overall.

What if I told you a player in NCAA with the correct ratings that fit his actual skill or tendency could still be productive on the field even he's rated in the 70's....would you believe it or just assume because he's a 70 rated he's a scrub on the field?

My point being is not everyone needs to be 90+ to be considered a good player in NCAA Football. In fact there should be more players spread out in the 70's and 80's IMO

It's like everyone is trying to out do everyone else and yet when EA rates the players in the 90's it's a crime or outrage.....We hear people say all the their ratings sucks but what makes their ratings less accurate than yours?

[SeaOfRed75]

Thier ratings suck because I actually know my team. Players arent at the right positions(a ton in the defensive backfield), and while inconsistent and/or unproven QB's get rated fairly high across the board, others like Niles Paul are screwed. Also unless dynamic in season progression can be high or off season progression can as well the couple Jucos Nebraska got are completely underrated.

There are more problems and I could look up the teambuilder roster and point out every problem/mistake if needed.

[peteykirch]

I look at my team, and I see a vast majority of players that just seem to get a 5 point boost just because a year passes by, then there are unheralded players who have breakout years, and EA ignores them.

Case and point for my team, Rutgers. MLB Steve Beauharnais came onto the scene, and put up some pretty solid numbers, nearly equal to that of the Irish Phenom Mormon LB Te'o.

Te'o is a 89, and Stevie B is pushing I believe a 62.

[osubeavs721]

their rating scale is like 40-99 not 0-99. if it was 0-99 we wouldnt have some many 90's players

[Playmakers]

Quote: Originally Posted by SeaOfRed75

Thier ratings suck because I actually know my team. Players arent at the right positions(a ton in the defensive backfield), and while inconsistent and/or unproven QB's get rated fairly high across the board, others like Niles Paul are screwed. Also unless dynamic in season progression can be high or off season progression can as well the couple Jucos Nebraska got are completely underrated. There are more problems and I could look up the teambuilder roster and point out every problem/mistake if needed.

So you think EA ratings suck....I don't disagree with that statement.

But what about the ratings you see being gifted around the forums by others not EA?

I see threads with feedback giving out tons of ratings to 90 overall players. I guess my point it is if EA overates the players what is it exactly that we do differently?

Seems like the ratings are always scrutinized and never in agreement.....I wonder if they should just start releasing a college game with just roster slots and no ratings......then install a system like CH 2K8 where you generate your player ratings.

I mean serioulsy we see complaints every year about high ratings but is there anyone out there really using the lower end of the ratings scale 1st and working upwards or is everyone starting at 90 and working downwards....

That is the way I think EA does it and it's no different by us when i read the different ratings thread.....everyone is in a rush to give out 90 overalls

[FedExPope]

With all this crap about the ratings, how they're not actually stretched like EA said they were, how it doesn't matter in 4 years in dynasty when the computer generated players start playing, how online dynasty will force you to use the default rosters....I'm just going to edit a few players that I think may be over/underrated, name em (the ones I know, will get a roster name file from EA Locker for the rest) and play.

[Playmakers]

Quote: Originally Posted by osubeavs721

their rating scale is like 40-99 not 0-99. if it was 0-99 we wouldnt have some many 90's players

Ratings can actually be assigned 0-99.....

They have them at 40 but certain ratings are as low as 15 in different categories.

There is no rule that says you can't give a player a 0 rating in Kicking or passing

[peteykirch]

Quote: Originally Posted by FedExPope

With all this crap about the ratings, how they're not actually stretched like EA said they were, how it doesn't matter in 4 years in dynasty when the computer generated players start playing, how online dynasty will force you to use the default rosters....I'm just going to edit a few players that I think may be over/underrated, name em (the ones I know, will get a roster name file from EA Locker for the rest) and play.

They are stretched for the lesser teams, but the great teams, your USC/UF/FSU/BAMA will never have stretched ratings. Apparently, Bama is so good all 22 starters could be drafted in the first round.