NCAA Football '13-Team Ratings

[1GATOR FAN]

Im not defending Auburn or Oregon because Auburn has only been good here and there, and Oregon just the past 3-4 years.

But in game it only effects little things really so I guess it alright for in game if they had a 6* should be 5* IMO

In real life though if there was a ranking no way would I think they should be that high.

[AuburnAlumni]

Im not defending Auburn or Oregon because Auburn has only been good here and there, and Oregon just the past 3-4 years.

But in game it only effects little things really so I guess it alright for in game if they had a 6* should be 5* IMO

In real life though if there was a ranking no way would I think they should be that high.

And yet Florida has pretty much stunk for the last 3 years but folks automatically think they are at a 6 star status.

It's all perception and opinion.

[blkrptnt819]

And yet Florida has pretty much stunk for the last 3 years but folks automatically think they are at a 6 star status.

It's all perception and opinion.

I don't. I think they stay there because they have 2 NCs so recently. But if they keep having years like the last 2 I could see them falling back to a 5.

[1GATOR FAN]

And yet Florida has pretty much stunk for the last 3 years but folks automatically think they are at a 6 star status.

It's all perception and opinion.

Probably because they done more than just win in the last 3-5 years alone. And its only been 2 years Florida was 13-1 three years ago

Oregon and Auburn have done little outside of even this decade. But your right it's just each persons opinion but most would have those to at a 5* I bet

[1GATOR FAN]

I don't. I think they stay there because they have 2 NCs so recently. But if they keep having years like the last 2 I could see them falling back to a 5.

Of course the same same thing could be said for anybody though.

Edit: I just read your post again and I found it kinda funny because its like you were saying "What? 2 National titles in the last 5 year and another BCS bowl win on top of that? Shoot no big deal"

That's just how I kinda took it the second time lol.

[Floridastatefan02]

Re: NCAA Football '13-Team Ratings

They over-rate all the "better" teams and under-rate all the "poor" teams, Looks like a definite middle will be hard to find.

[AuburnAlumni]

Probably because they done more than just win in the last 3-5 years alone. And its only been 2 years Florida was 13-1 three years ago

Oregon and Auburn have done little outside of even this decade. But your right it's just each persons opinion but most would have those to at a 5* I bet

Auburn was undefeated in 2004. Auburn is a top 15 program all time in wins.

To state that AU hasnt done anything outside the last few years is wildly inaccurate.

Your own school had almost zero history of winning before Spurrier arrived.

It's pointless to argue over this. It's done. Not a big deal.

[1GATOR FAN]

IMO

Florida 6*
Auburn 5*

I'm done

[blkrptnt819]

Auburn was undefeated in 2004. Auburn is a top 15 program all time in wins.

To state that AU hasnt done anything outside the last few years is wildly inaccurate.

Your own school had almost zero history of winning before Spurrier arrived.

It's pointless to argue over this. It's done. Not a big deal.

This kinda makes my point. Top 15 doesn't make you a 6* IMO. But it only matters what EA says so...

[1GATOR FAN]

This kinda makes my point. Top 15 doesn't make you a 6* IMO. But it only matters what EA says so...

If it was just based off that the likes of Syracuse, Miami (Ohio) and many others would be 6* programs lol

[Gap Integrity]

Re: NCAA Football '13-Team Ratings

Don't forget Army and Navy. lol

[chi_hawks]

Re: NCAA Football '13-Team Ratings

They have got the prestige ratings way out of whack. My $.02

To me, a 6* program is one that has decades upon decades of success. Its the type of team that can tank for five years but still pull in stud recruiting classes and generate lots of football revenue. Ohio State, Michigan, LSU, Florida, USC to name a few. These are the powerhouses, regardless of last few years results. At least one NC required.

5*'s are basically the best of the best, but lack the decades of perrenial football success. Oregon and Auburn seem to fit in here. Basically, a team thats been to a NC game or two, but never won. Also must be pulling in solid recruiting classes. All things being equal, a recruit will view a 5* as "less powerfull" than a 6*.

4*'s are generally in the top half of their respective conference, go to bowl games 90+% of the time, and in general, have an expectation to finish in or around the top 25 most years. Mich State, Iowa, South Carolina, Pitt, West Virigina would be a few that come to mind.

3*'s are programs that are limited in their future potential barring some major changes. They have off and on 6-6 or worse seasons, but, can rise up and get to 8 or 9 wins sometimes. Northwestern, Miss state come to mind.

2*'s are small programs with limited recruiting and future potential. They have won the conference one or fewer times and have never really been in the national picture. Indiana, Iowa State, Kansas come to mind.

1*s are fairly new schools or schools that are just awfull at football. Shouldn't be too many of these.

There are some schools that are kinda tweeners though. Wisky is like a 4.5. One could argue Florida is a 5.5 or 5.75. Nebraska would be a 4.5

[vaeath]

Re: NCAA Football '13-Team Ratings

Could someone tell me the ratings and prestige of the hokies? I cant see it on my mobile phone

[cparrish]

Re: NCAA Football '13-Team Ratings

Yeah, I am still baffled at CU being a 2* prestige again. To me, they are a 3* program.

[LucasWVU]

Re: NCAA Football '13-Team Ratings

Could someone tell me the ratings and prestige of the hokies? I cant see it on my mobile phone

Virginia Tech
Prestige: 5 Stars
Overall: 95
Offense: 88
Defense: 99
Rank: 15