Anyone Think EA Went Overboard With Ratings?

[stratospaly]

I have long believed that EA inflates teams ratings, and even more specifically the ratings of skill position players, in markets where the game does not sell as well as others.

Should Arkansas be 88.... no. I am a local and a fan and can say this year and next will be huge rebuilding years for the team with a new coach. That being said we still have a monster O line (good for our stable of good running backs), and a decent defense. WR's has also not been a problem for us in the past as we get 2-3* WRs and end up with them in the top 10 of the SEC in rec yards and TDs. Last years team was such a failure due to the lack of coaching, the players were there for 10 wins.

[VUFTBL1]

Look at Vandy. They ranked Vandy in the Top 25 (#25) which is right about where most preseason magazines have them. Yet EA decided to give them an 83 OVR rating, which is the lowest of any SEC team. Vandy went 9-4 last year (5-3 SEC) and has 15 returning starters. That's just plain crazy! They gave Tennessee, who gave up like 50 points per game last year, a higher defensive rating than Vandy, who finished in the top 20 in the country in defense last year and will have 7 senior starters on defense. Outrageous!!

[thelasthurtknee]

guys its just a overall rating. it factors in depth also. all of those sec teams have great depth and why they are rated so high. it progression you need to worry about. team overalls just like player overalls mean nothing. its skill sets that make the difference. i always have guys with lower overalls starting over higher. i dont even look at overalls. thats just for the cpu to get a depth order. i wouldnt worry about anything till we see progression.

also about vandy, they are coached well but not talent deep. think navy. very good but talent is weak. look at there recruiting classes for that.

so if you have a wr who is a 88 because he is high in the skill sets that give the wr his overall he will raise the team overall. but that 88 wr might be 5 foot 5 and and cant catch in traffic. he inflates the the team overall even though he is a 1st or second slot guy.

what im saying is forget the numbers. they have never meant anything on this game. the only issue with overalls is if progression messes them up because its all relevant to each other. we just dont wanna see tons of 99 overall guys three years in. then we have a prob. but if we start with 100 guys over 90 and 10 years in dyansty we have 100 guys over 90 then its pretty perfect.

[bnb]

i think EA should use the 100-point scale to it's fullest on player ratings and team ratings. make a couple teams in the 30's, some in the 50's, etc. give the teams a unique feel. one of the reasons i get bored with ncaa every year is every team starts to feel like the same team in a new uniform.

[ncaa13]

They do this every year, we know their bias to SEC and there Alma matter schools With the examples given in this thread you can see the inconsistencies.
Just some random ridiculousness:
-Bama 99's when they lost about 7 defensive starters and 3 o-lineman. 95 96 92
-Stanford 91 offense lost Rb, lineman, newish qb. 91 88 93
-Oregon scores alot of points doesn't mean perfect, if there D was 92 they would have won BCS trophy by now 95 97 89
-LSU talent aside 92 defense losing all those juniors -___- 91 93 89
-Oklahoma I'm a fan but 97 offensive impossible lost LT, Qb, 2 Wr. 90 91 88
-OK State just rated too high for not being a contender 88 90 87
Talent doesn't mean production on the field for everyone, we shall see.

[OSUBucks011]

Yeah I agree, EA always overdoes the ratings...I'm a huge buckeye fan but a 96 for Braxton Miller entering his Jr. year?? Maybe if he goes off and wins a Heisman would that be deserving, but not quite yet. Same with AJ McCarron, a 97?! All the dude does is manage the game while Bama's O-Line plows everyone over. Not to mention Bama has like 5 WR's over 85 OVR.

In my opinion a 99 overall team rating should go to a team that is unstoppable, a team that should never lose..Like all-time great teams. I like how they do it in Madden much better, the best teams are low to mid 90's with the worst teams being low 70's. Madden is also much stricter on the individual player ratings which I like better as well. There seems to be a huge log jam around the 90 overall team rating (unrealistic because obviously some of these teams are overrated) which really reduces the separation of the "Above-Average" and "Good" teams

That being said I understand where EA is coming from for the NCAA football series, trying to appeal to the more casual fan. Thankful for roster editing too. Still can't wait to starting playing online dynasties!

[ACardAttack]

Quote: Originally Posted by khaliib

Thank God for Editing!!!

But then progression and new recruits will undo the editing a couple seasons down the road

[franch1se]

Quote: Originally Posted by davo1021

There are 17 QB's with over a 90 rating. I don't know how many there usually are but it seems like a ton.

Considering there are over 120 teams...17 doesn't sound that bad. The question is, how will those translate to Madden ratings.