Team Ratings

[schumj]

A lot of fixing to do if these posted ratings are the shipped ones. Way to many near 90 teams.

[schumj]

The problem I have is that they base each years ratings on just that year. So the best team in 2011 is around a 99. I think they should take a rating philosophy in regards to history also. Based on the current rating system there is no difference in the 1995 Nebraska Cornhuskers or the 2001 Hurricanes and the 2010 Auburn Tigers or the 1998 Tennessee Vols. The same goes with rating players. So many highs. This year Andrew Luck will be a 99. Maybe deserving maybe not, but he is no different then Peyton Manning? or Vince Young? (Overall)!

[1GATOR FAN]

My god if Texas gets a 94 on offense then I can't wait to see Floridas ratings... Texas couldn't score on a retirement home last year. Didn't even make a bowl game..

I bet you money Florida won't reach any 90's

[FightinSnydersKSU]

Quote: Originally Posted by schumj

The problem I have is that they base each years ratings on just that year. So the best team in 2011 is around a 99. I think they should take a rating philosophy in regards to history also. Based on the current rating system there is no difference in the 1995 Nebraska Cornhuskers or the 2001 Hurricanes and the 2010 Auburn Tigers or the 1998 Tennessee Vols. The same goes with rating players. So many highs. This year Andrew Luck will be a 99. Maybe deserving maybe not, but he is no different then Peyton Manning? or Vince Young? (Overall)!

I like how the college basketball games do their ratings, maybe i'm the only one, but it was like the elite players were in the 80's and then everyone else was below that. NCAA rankings should be different than Madden rankings. I think in madden you should see the guys in the 90's and stuff like they are now, but in NCAA the highest a player should go should be like 88 or something. 88 would be like what a 95-99 player is now on the NCAA games.

[caseym12]

Quote: Originally Posted by FightinSnydersKSU

I like how the college basketball games do their ratings, maybe i'm the only one, but it was like the elite players were in the 80's and then everyone else was below that. NCAA rankings should be different than Madden rankings. I think in madden you should see the guys in the 90's and stuff like they are now, but in NCAA the highest a player should go should be like 88 or something. 88 would be like what a 95-99 player is now on the NCAA games.

I like that idea , only the elite players in the nfl should be in the 95-99 range...I mean an elite college player can't compete with an elite nfl player most of the time. I would say the best in ncaa should be a 88 as a junior or senior then the ratings would just translate straight to madden ....ex. cam newton was an 84 ovr on ncaa last year...using this method that would be about right considering he should be around the same as a rookie in madden.

[schumj]

Quote: Originally Posted by FightinSnydersKSU

I like how the college basketball games do their ratings, maybe i'm the only one, but it was like the elite players were in the 80's and then everyone else was below that. NCAA rankings should be different than Madden rankings. I think in madden you should see the guys in the 90's and stuff like they are now, but in NCAA the highest a player should go should be like 88 or something. 88 would be like what a 95-99 player is now on the NCAA games.

I agree for the most part. I think to be a 90+ you should have to be someone who over a few years has been great and already considered all-time. Heisman Winners like Ingram deserve 90+, Tim Tebow his Jr or Sr year. Leinart (despite pro career) Bush, VY, big SUH, Ray Lewis, W.Sapp these are the 90's I can live with. Not Kellen Moore (great player but will the casual fan remember his college career 10 years from now, heck even know where he plays now). It should be a special player. To me 99 rating is greatest player of all time. I am biased in my thinking Tommie Frazier is one of the greatest of all time(college of course), but I wouldn't give him a 99. IDK just my opinion I guess, but I like the lower rated. But with progression like last year if you started with majority of players in 70-80 we would never have anyone reach 99. Could be good could be bad.

[schumj]

Quote: Originally Posted by caseym12

I like that idea , only the elite players in the nfl should be in the 95-99 range...I mean an elite college player can't compete with an elite nfl player most of the time. I would say the best in ncaa should be a 88 as a junior or senior then the ratings would just translate straight to madden ....ex. cam newton was an 84 ovr on ncaa last year...using this method that would be about right considering he should be around the same as a rookie in madden.

I disagree that they should match madden's. College is a different game. Tommie Frazier, Tim Tebow, Rahsaan Salaam are just a few players who come to mind who were dominant in college football, will be on some all-time teams but not even consistent starters in pro's or in case of like Frazier game didn't relate. I know in some cases you can say injuries is why but it is a different game and a different skill set required.

[caseym12]

Quote: Originally Posted by schumj

I disagree that they should match madden's. College is a different game. Tommie Frazier, Tim Tebow, Rahsaan Salaam are just a few players who come to mind who were dominant in college football, will be on some all-time teams but not even consistent starters in pro's or in case of like Frazier game didn't relate. I know in some cases you can say injuries is why but it is a different game and a different skill set required.

I thought about that, I think they should have a coaching system boost if you get the right players for your system a la tommy fraser as an option qb in an option system...maybe a player like tommy fraser be a 5 star recruit come into the correct system and be a 75 or so freshman. Were if he went to a pro style offense maybe only be a 65 freshman or maybe he would be a 71 rb in that same system.....just a thought