Ian / Phil Time for mid season ratings change

[JMD]

I still say a major overhaul to the overall team ratings needs to be made. Way to many teams in the 90's that are not playing up to that score. Also some surprise teams that are rated low need a big increase. I don't see why this can't be done with a roster update.

How can the Patriots be a 97 and the Jets only be a 76 when the Jets are leading that division? It's not right.

The Cowboys are in 3rd place in the NFC east and they are still a 96 and the Giants are a 94, the Redskins an 88? Also the 5-5-1 Eagles should not still be a 91.

The Titans at 10-1 are an 89 while the colts at 7-4 are a 95.

The Cardinals and Falcons are getting screwed as well, The Falcons are 7-4 same record as the 95 rated Colts, yet they are an insulting 67? WTF?

You get my point no need to go on, the game needs to be adjusted, as it is it's all out of wack with the NFL.

[Postman17]

Quote: Originally Posted by JMD

I still say a major overhaul to the overall team ratings needs to be made. Way to many teams in the 90's that are not playing up to that score. Also some surprise teams that are rated low need a big increase. I don't see why this can't be done with a roster update. How can the Patriots be a 97 and the Jets only be a 76 when the Jets are leading that division? It's not right. The Cowboys are in 3rd place in the NFC east and they are still a 96 and the Giants are a 94, the Redskins an 88? Also the 5-5-1 Eagles should not still be a 91. The Titans at 10-1 are an 89 while the colts at 7-4 are a 95. The Cardinals and Falcons are getting screwed as well, The Falcons are 7-4 same record as the 95 rated Colts, yet they are an insulting 67? WTF? You get my point no need to go on, the game needs to be adjusted, as it is it's all out of wack with the NFL.

I totally agree with you. This is something I wanted for years. Ratings should of a team should go up and down as the season progress. There are teams rated way to high and are not playing up to what they are rated. This would make for more variety online also. There is know way the Cowboys or Colts should be in the 90s. Who ever said tyeams ratings don't matter are toatlly wrong. i think they play a bigger part then the individual rating of players.

[kehlis]

please explain to me how team rating trumps individual ratings...does having a higher team rating make a qb that is rated an 80 complete more of his passes?

i just dont see your point here. I agree that the Jets should be better than the Patriots right now, but it should be reflective of individual player ratings, not an arbitrary team rating. Ian can't just go in there and change the team rating number if they don't affect any of the individual ratings. I haven't followed the individual roster updates but i am assuming the Jets starters ratings have adjusting accordingly.

Than in itself would raise the teams rating.

[Postman17]

Quote: Originally Posted by kehlis

please explain to me how team rating trumps individual ratings...does having a higher team rating make a qb that is rated an 80 complete more of his passes? i just dont see your point here. I agree that the Jets should be better than the Patriots right now, but it should be reflective of individual player ratings, not an arbitrary team rating. Ian can't just go in there and change the team rating number if they don't affect any of the individual ratings. I haven't followed the individual roster updates but i am assuming the Jets starters ratings have adjusting accordingly. Than in itself would raise the teams rating.

You may be right. I have played with the Giants as longs as I can remember. Now that they are good every one uses them. I believe because they are rated good. I myself never liked ratings for online play. I think every team should be rated equal and the person who calls the best plays should win. You don't have that online. All you see is ppl going after the higher rated teams. I really think something needs to be done about teams not playing to there ratings though whether online or off. Sandiego, for example is playing very bad. However, in Madden online or off line they are a beast. This should not be the case.

[kehlis]

Quote: Originally Posted by Postman17

You may be right. I have played with the Giants as longs as I can remember. Now that they are good every one uses them. I believe because they are rated good. I myself never liked ratings for online play. I think every team should be rated equal and the person who calls the best plays should win. You don't have that online. All you see is ppl going after the higher rated teams. I really think something needs to be done about teams not playing to there ratings though whether online or off. Sandiego, for example is playing very bad. However, in Madden online or off line they are a beast. This should not be the case.

i agree and i think we are trying to get at the same thing...

i just don't think they can adjust the team rating now and have that matter...it should be adjusted with each roster update and should be a reflection of what happened within that roster update...because that hasn't happened it would be irrelevant to do it now.

that said, i don't play online so I can't speak for what happens with what teams are picked...certainly would be annoying though if i was a Giants fan and could never use them because everyone else does.

[FootballDetails]

Quote: Originally Posted by Guillotine 1

Plus, fans wont use their fav teams if they suck...

Not true. I use the Dolphins every year, and they came into this season with a team rating of 67.

A change needs to be made, though.

There needs to be bigger swings in week-to-week player ratings to reflect reality, and team ratings should change as well. The Dolphins have obviously improved, but I still have to look at the 67 rating. There's really no need for that.

The NBA games are making daily adjustments. Madden needs to take the same innovative approach and rethink the way they update ratings. What's wrong with boosting someone by 10 points if they truly deserve it?

I like the weekly roster updates, but the changes aren't significant enough.