Who does the ratings for individuals on the game?

[MFootball]

I was just checking out Michigan's rosters from this past season, and I have some major complaints.

Pierre Woods, LB - 65 Overall - Okay, so he was a realitive unknown to the public before the 2003 season, and will be in the 85-90 range this year. But, EVERY Michigan fan around knew he was going to have a breakout season. He should've at least been a 75-80.

Steve Breaston, WR - 68 Overall - Another guy that was unknown to the casual fan before last season. But, again, a guy Michigan fans KNEW was a special player. Should've been in the 75-80 range on hype alone.

There are a few more, but I'd rather not waste my time listing them. The point is this; Who is doing these? Is it some random developer sitting at desk looking at a stack of preview mags and stats? Fans should be the ones doing these, because I'm sure there are countless other guys underrated to an extreme degree (I didn't bother to look). If my player is an 80, and I feel he should've been an 85, I can live with that. But when impact players, guys that everyone had placed the title "future star" on are in the 60's, that's unacceptable.

Before you rant and say that I can change them, I know that already. But it's the online play that hurts the most. I find it a little irritating when I can't get a pass-rush from a linebacker that has a nose for the ball (Pierre Woods) and I can't return a punt with a guy who was one of the most dangerous returners in the nation a season ago (Breaston).

EA's ratings for players are often off, as are their team rankings. Hand over the rankings to people who know what they're talking about, please.

Okay, this rant is over. Now back to the pluses in the game.

[macatak911]

if the fans did the rankings, every team would be A overall......no more explanation needed

[Programmed2Kill]

And besides, it is BEFORE the season. These guys are not hardcore Meeeeeeeeeechigan fans. They rate them how they see them.

You make the adjustments later.

[bdunn13]

Quote:

---

macatak911 said:
if the fans did the rankings, every team would be A overall......no more explanation needed

---

I also believe EA does not do the rankings, they hire a third party to do so.

What would be the point of having every player/team ranked A+?

[MFootball]

The above, hinting at isn't really true. My team wouldn't be much better than the "B" they were in last year's game, possibly a B+, which I feel is fair. You don't have to be hardcore to know about the two guys I mentioned, hell, even average national analysts knew about them. Why didn't EA?

[CrizzleDizzle13]

I understand the point you are trying to make, but they base the rankings off the player's last year stats not what "what his potential for this year is". I mean I'm sure some of the players on Michigan's ratings would have dropped by the end of the year if they didn't produce as well as expected, but no one bitches about that. That's why they give us the opportunity to edit their ratings. If you really believe that some players aren't getting any love then go through and edit them the way you would like.

[Greenevol]

I agree with you, i have a beef with Tennessee Rosters.

CJ Leak, who's taken a total of about 20 snaps, is going to be a god this year. They better rate him 99.

And and, Micheal Munoz, his Dad's Anthony Munoz, who is hte best OL ever, he better be a 99, he was only high 80's last year.

And and and Kevin Simon, who led the team in tackles last year, wasnt nearly rated high enough, he should easily be a 99 too.

And and and and Brent Schaeffer, he's an incoming freshman QB, his coach said he reminds him of Mike Vick, so he should have Mike Vick ratings he should be a 99, but since he's a freshman, he'll be about a 95. I can live with that.

And and and and and Alabama and Georgia players, theyre rated way too high. No way David Pollack and David Greene and Brodie Croyle should be rated above 55.

Its all so obvious.

[macatak911]

Quote:

---

MFootball said:
The above, hinting at isn't really true. My team wouldn't be much better than the "B" they were in last year's game, possibly a B+, which I feel is fair. You don't have to be hardcore to know about the two guys I mentioned, hell, even average national analysts knew about them. Why didn't EA?

---

Just because you think that Michigan should be rated "B"; im sure some others would think that they could be "A" or a "C".....you cant really get fans to agree on ratings....Do you really think Ohio St fans would agree on a WR nobody has ever heard of being ranked in the 80's?