VT Hokies 2011 Roster as Case Study on How Closely Video Game Players Match Real Ones

[Warren Piecee]

Quote: Originally Posted by TDenverFan

Using the information you have stated, these are my conclusions: What? I'm sorry, but I'm honestly not sure how this is supposed to prove anything. Also, if you noticed, there's a red thread on how the Player's lawsuits against EA were just shut down. However, if for some reason your ratings are perfectly exact to the ones EA made, I'll put my foot in my mouth....

I am not trying to prove anything. I am trying to determine something for the sake of my own curiosity. My thread is not intended to have anything to do with the lawsuit. I do not expect my ratings or my depth chart to be exact. In fact, I think in the end it will be seen that the rosters in the game are much less a reflection of the actual team than most would assume.

[hawkeyebred2332]

Your mistake here is assuming that YOU know what ratings should "reflect the actual team".

I don't doubt that you know quite a bit about VT, but in what world should we take one man's ratings as an accurate representation of the team? Especially when that one man is a fan and therefore has very likely inflated some ratings? Even if you know VT inside and out you still don't know enough about all the other teams to make an accurate ratings system because a lot of it is relative.

All this thread is to me is you trying to show what you think the VT team should be rated and then comparing it to what EA rates them. There's a thread for that.

[Tomahawk]

Quote: Originally Posted by CHooe

Gotcha, thanks. Roberts was the 3rd receiver, no? I'd be inclined to think that the two starters will still be Boykin and Coale, based on seniority if nothing else. I'd still argue that an 88 OVR rating for Davis after only a 200 yard season and a strong spring game is a bit unjustified, but again ratings are subjective.

Tech plays lots of 3 WR sets so I think Davis will get on the field plenty especially if Roberts doesn't make it back to full strength. However, I wouldn't dare guess at his stats with a first year starter at QB or at his potential rating on the game. I do think he has NFL potential especially given his speed and size. WR that are 6'4" and 230 lbs that can run like Davis are not that common.

[Warren Piecee]

Quote: Originally Posted by hawkeyebred2332

Your mistake here is assuming that YOU know what ratings should "reflect the actual team". I don't doubt that you know quite a bit about VT, but in what world should we take one man's ratings as an accurate representation of the team? Especially when that one man is a fan and therefore has very likely inflated some ratings? Even if you know VT inside and out you still don't know enough about all the other teams to make an accurate ratings system because a lot of it is relative. All this thread is to me is you trying to show what you think the VT team should be rated and then comparing it to what EA rates them. There's a thread for that.

I am just giving my opinion. I have not told you or anyone else that you should do anything. If you are not interested in what I have to say you are free to find another person's thread to attack. I used as my baseline the ratings for the team from NCAA 11. If my ratings are inflated it means that the ratings EA Sports gave the team for NCAA 11 game are also inflated. For what it is worth, I also did a comparative study of all players in the NCAA 11 and then researched the VT players using the Web. I lastly relied on what I have learned from following the team closely for a long time. In the thread I asked for others to offer constructive criticism on my ratings. My reasoning was that the more opinions offered the greater the chance that a strong prediction of what they ratings should be can emerge. Some have offered constructive criticism. Others have attached me.
> >
You are forgetting that the depth chart is one half of the equation as far as my efforts to determine who closely the team in the game will match the real team. If you do not understand what I mean I have to assume that you have never tried to affix names to a roster yourself. If you did before you downloaded a roster with names you would see that the extent to which the game roster reflects actual rosters is much less than you think.>>

[vaeath]

For Davis's jumping rating, I would see on the original EA rosters(no name) and see who has a 94-99 jump rating and look up on the internet for their vertical and just compare it to Davis.

I honesty think David Wilson deserves a higher rating btw.

He ran a 4.29 40 yard dash. He broke a squat lifting record held by Darren Evans. 445 Front Squat. His juke and spin moves i dont know where to put him. I heard some people say his vision isn't that great but has been improving, so I say it should be in the 80's.

And your right that Danny Coale does return punts too.

I should of said it differently.

[Warren Piecee]

Quote: Originally Posted by CHooe

I get the impression that you have no idea what you are talking about. I'm not sure where you got these ratings from, but wherever they came from obviously doesn't know that the Hokies' top three receivers are Jarret Boykin, Danny Coale, and Dyrell Roberts. A person who has been following the team for many years should know that. Marcus Davis did play in all fourteen games and he did catch passes for 239 yards last season, but that's hardly enough to warrant an equal rating to and a starting spot over senior Danny Coale, who more than tripled that yardage output in 2010 with 732 yards receiving. Davis wasn't really a hot-shot recruit either, rated as a 3* athlete by Rivals, and he was converted from quarterback to wide receiver shortly after he arrived in Blacksburg. Not sure how you decided that the Hokies' offense and defense will be on par with each other this season given that the Hokies offense has to replace its best three players from last season - QB Tyrod Taylor, RB Ryan Williams, and RB Darren Evans. Junior David Wilson is good, but there's nothing proven behind him. Josh Oglesby will get the first crack at reserve tailback, but he spent all of last season playing fullback. Moving on, a person who has been following the team for many years should also know that Danny Coale is absolutely NOT the punter and isn't even listed amongst any of the Hokies specialists. He's strictly a wide receiver. There is no other player with the last name "Coale" on the Hokies. Further, I have no idea where you got Lorenzo Williams from at SS, he isn't listed on the two-deep in the Hokies' spring media guide and hasn't recorded a single tackle for Tech in his career. The reserve rover should be Wiley Brown, who appeared in eight games last season. I have other issues with the ratings, in particular I want to know how on earth a redshirt sophomore quarterback with all of 106 passing yards to his credit gets an OVR rating of 86 (QB Logan Thomas) and in general the generosity with ratings for other players who lack true gameday experience. Ratings are more subjective admittedly, but I digress. Basically, the cynic in me simply thinks you took the Virginia Tech team in NCAA 11, advanced a season in dynasty, thus removing the seniors and Ryan Williams, and went from there for this "projection". I have no idea what the point of this exercise altogether is. "Post your conclusions"... what are you even looking for? Why is this thing you are doing of any interest to anyone?

You wrote: "I get the impression that you have no idea what you are talking about" >>>
> >
I am CERTAIN that you have no idea what you are talking about. If you had consulted a 2011 roster and depth chart rather than a 2010 roster and depth chart and knew any details of what transpired during Virginia Tech spring ball you would not have made a post that is 100% inaccurate.>>
> >
If you knew anything at all about Virginia Tech spring ball you would know that the final spring depth chart listed Davis as the co-starter with Coale. In NCAA 11 Coale had an overall rating of 88. Based upon his play last year I raised him to an 89. Since the two are co-starters I made both an 89.>>

You wrote: "Not sure how you decided that the Hokies' offense and defense will be on par with each other this season given that the Hokies offense has to replace its best three players from last season - QB Tyrod Taylor, RB Ryan Williams, and RB Darren Evans. Junior David Wilson is good, but there's nothing proven behind him. Josh Oglesby will get the first crack at reserve tailback, but he spent all of last season playing fullback.*> >
You likewise obviously do not know that anything about how Virginia Tech was rated in NCAA 11. That team had an A- offense, a B+ defense and was a B+ overall. The version of the team that will be featured in NCAA 12 will have lost several key players on offense. The offense then slips to a B+. If you followed Virginia Tech spring ball you would know that the current defense is expected to be better than last year's defense. When I inputted the ratings the defense remained at a B+ and the other letter grades were as described.

You wrote: "Moving on, a person who has been following the team for many years should also know that Danny Coale is absolutely NOT the punter and isn't even listed amongst any of the Hokies specialists. He's strictly a wide receiver. There is no other player with the last name "Coale" on the Hokies.">>
> >
If you had followed Virginia Tech spring ball you would know that Danny Coale is not just a received but also the leading candidate to be the team's punter.

You wrote: "Further, I have no idea where you got Lorenzo Williams from at SS, he isn't listed on the two-deep in the Hokies' spring media guide and hasn't recorded a single tackle for Tech in his career. The reserve rover should be Wiley Brown, who appeared in eight games last season.">>
> >
I you had an idea you would know that Williams moved from LB to SS after the end of last season. The key word in the "Hokies' spring media guide" is SPRING. I clearly stated in this thread that the depth chart I created is as it should be if all the players who missed spring ball due to injury return and take their rightful places on the depth chart. Williams was injured all spring and so was not reflected in the depth chart found in the media guide. If you are going to attack my thread you could at least read what I have posted before make a post yourself>>


You noted: "I have other issues with the ratings, in particular I want to know how on earth a redshirt sophomore quarterback with all of 106 passing yards to his credit gets an OVR rating of 86 (QB Logan Thomas) and in general the generosity with ratings for other players who lack true gameday experience. Ratings are more subjective admittedly, but I digress."> >
You do not seem to be aware that Thomas appeared in last year's game as a TE with an overall rating of 80 even though he had never played a single down. I changed his position, tweaked his ratings to account for the position change and his increased experience and an 86 is the number that I was left with in the end.

You also wrote: "Basically, the cynic in me simply thinks you took the Virginia Tech team in NCAA 11, advanced a season in dynasty, thus removing the seniors and Ryan Williams, and went from there for this "projection". >>
> >
Tell me how I could use dynasty mode to create the MANY players on this year's team that were not included in the roster found on NCAA 11. Furthermore, if you knew anything at all about dynasty mode you would be aware that the consensus opinion is that it is flawed and does not produce results that are at all realistic.

You commented: "I have no idea what the point of this exercise altogether is. "Post your conclusions"... what are you even looking for? Why is this thing you are doing of any interest to anyone?"


Obviously it is of interest to you since you read a good part of the thread, took the time to do some flawed research and added a post to it. As I type this 834 others have also shown enough interest to visit the thread. I explained everything in the thread. Take a break from attacking me and read what I have written. If you read it and still don't understand then I can't help you.>>

[alphaguy5]

Quote: Originally Posted by Warren Piecee

*Long response to other people's posts*

Relax.

As an earlier post said, I believe that David Wilson should be a couple of points better, but other than that, I beleive that this is fairly accurate of Tech's current roster. Or at least as accurate as a fictional video game representation allows it to be.

There are a few positions where I would suggest some rating changes, but with regards to Logan Thomas, I do beleive that you have a close rating to the one that he has in the game, maybe a point or two too high. Although he is unproven, NCAA seems to give unproven players from nationally ranked teams the benefit of the doubt and have them at least a bit above average. So for that, I would say that you are pretty close with his ranking.

[Warren Piecee]

Quote: Originally Posted by alphaguy5

Relax. As an earlier post said, I believe that David Wilson should be a couple of points better, but other than that, I beleive that this is fairly accurate of Tech's current roster. Or at least as accurate as a fictional video game representation allows it to be. There are a few positions where I would suggest some rating changes, but with regards to Logan Thomas, I do beleive that you have a close rating to the one that he has in the game, maybe a point or two too high. Although he is unproven, NCAA seems to give unproven players from nationally ranked teams the benefit of the doubt and have them at least a bit above average. So for that, I would say that you are pretty close with his ranking.

Someone apparently made a fake post under my name. I never posted any response to your post. Yours was a good post and I thank you for it. I will post a response tomorrow night.