Prime example on the need for editing rosters, not just naming them.

[WWOFTBBNR]

Taking 'Bama ratings advice from a guy with the screen name AuburnAlumni is like asking the KKK to give out the NAACP Person of the Year Award.

[Pogo27]

Quote: Originally Posted by WWOFTBBNR

Taking 'Bama ratings advice from a guy with the screen name AuburnAlumni is like asking the KKK to give out the NAACP Person of the Year Award.

This. Lots of this.

[Pull n Pray]

Quote: Originally Posted by Geauxldenboy

AA, I don't really disagree with your example, but the majority of people seem to want a "names only" roster. I also wonder if re-rating is a longterm solution considering that the newly created recruits will come in highly rated. If the majority of the freshman will actually be created at a number south of 80, then I think re-rates could prove to be valuable.

The incoming recruits in this game are not nearly as good as the starting players. I'm in year 3 of my Kansas Dynasty, and all of my 4 star recruits thus far (about 6 in total) have been rated below 70. I've had 3 star recruits rated in the 50s. I predict that 5 years into a dynasty, there will far fewer teams rated A and A+ as there are to start.

[Pull n Pray]

Quote: Originally Posted by AuburnAlumni

What really needs to happen is that in NCAA 12 EA needs to legitimately put an effort into using the ENTIRE POINT RANGE in their ratings system. As playmaker and others have pointed out, these base ratings are so over the top that everyone ends up being 99s overall by year 2 or 3. EA needs to copy 2k's rating system completely. 2k did a magnificent job in College Hoops of utilizing the ENTIRE range. Even a team like Kansas was just over a 90 overall. Very VERY few teams had a player rated in the 90s. Most players were rated in the 50s-70s. All Conference players were 80+. There is more to a point range than 80-99. EA needs to understand this and actually utilize it. What's wrong with having the majority of players be rated in the 60s and 70s? What's wrong with having only the truly elite players be a 90 or higher? It's something that needs to change in future versions IMO.

I think this is exactly what they have done. You just don't see it with the starting rosters. There's a disconnect at EA because the team responsible for ratings the starting rosters is a different one than the team that does the dynasty generated players. So it seems there is always in imbalance. In NCAA 2010, the overall talent pool greatly increased as you got deeper into your dynasty. With 2011 (and also with 2009), it is just the opposite.

[thebone]

Quote: Originally Posted by AuburnAlumni

Looking at Bama's default set on the NCAA 11 Teambuilder site. *NOTE* This is a defense that is replacing EIGHT starters. LE #96-94 overall LE #92-90 overall (Sophomore) RE #57-95 overall (Marcel Dareus..the only guy so far that actually deserves a 90+ rating) RE #94-88 overall (RS FRESHMAN, never played a down of college ball yet) DT #99-95 overall DT #64-90 overall (Sophomore) LOLB #5-95 overall LOLB #55-88 overall MLB #35-95 overall (Sophomore) MLB #30-92 overall (Dontae Hightower, only second guy who actually deserves a 90+) MLB #2-87 overall (Sophomore) ROLB #41-93 overall ROLB #47-83 overall (True Freshman) CB #21-95 overall (Sophomore, never started a game before) CB #1-91 overall CB #9-86 overall (Sophomore) CB #22-85 overall FS #23-94 overall FS #37-85 overall (Sophomore) SS #4-94 overall SS #18-88 overall (Sophomore) Let me say it again..replacing EIGHT starters on defense. Backups who have never seen real playing time are rated like 3 year all conference performers all over the place. FIVE guys rated a 95 EIGHT guys rated a 94 or higher. I consider a 95 rating as the best of the best. A First or Second team All American. There are others like this, but this one jumps out at me. There is plenty of talent at Bama, but these kind of ratings are so over the top that it clarifies why a solid community roster with good edits across the board will make the NCAA 11 experience that much more enjoyable.

You're just saying that as an Auburn fan.

[thebone]

Quote: Originally Posted by AuburnAlumni

It's very easy to argue that. They lost 8 starters off of that defense. 8 players rated at least a 94 overall is absurd. Many of those guys have not played any real amount of time in anything other than mop up duty. It's not just Bama this year. EA has done this every year with the previous year's MNC team. It's not just Alabama. They are the easiest to point out though with EA literally jacking every player up to All American levels. RS Freshman at 88s overall? First time starters at 95 overall...95? That's first team All American level.

Has Nick Saban not turned such players into such high level performers overnight ?

I'm not even an Alabama fan, but I am a believer in the saying "until proven otherwise, give the benefit of the doubt to the top dog".

[helix139]

Quote: Originally Posted by bigbisont

Couple points -Here here! Cant stress the above enough - ITS A GUESSING GAME! im sure they try to be educated guesses, You cant get all 8000+ players right. Some guys are hyped, some get hosed. You wanna change your ratings, on your game GOOD. Do it. I wont download a roster with edited skills though. Who is to say your pyschic powers are better than EAs? Dont kid yourself, lets just see how the season progresses and update as things ACTUALLY HAPPEN, not freak over preseason bitching.

I don't think anyone expects the rosters to be perfect, but some teams certainly get more of the benefit of the doubt than others. For years FSU was one of those teams. Now, not to lump Bama in with those FSU teams, because they certainly aren't, but can you name the last time an SEC team replaced that many players on defense and finished ranked first in the major defensive categories in the conference, let alone the country? The odds are just not in Bama's favor. If you'd like to take recruiting into account, Florida and Bama have recruited relatively similar talent quality since Nick Saban arrived. Florida is returning more quality experience on the defensive side of the ball than Alabama, yet on the whole Alabama's players are rated significantly higher than Florida's, even at the positions where Florida has proven quality talent returning. Logically, it doesn't follow that the gap should be what it is.

Quote:

All indications are these 'new' bama defenders are Physically bigger, faster, and stronger than the All americans they are replacing. Its true they are not proven YET. EA clearly gambled that the mental aspects will click.

I heard the same thing out of USC fans prior to last season about how the guys they were reloading with were better than the guys before them. It didn't work out for them and it doesn't generally work out in big time college football. Heck, Florida thought the same thing in 2007 and it didn't work for them either. Experience counts.

Quote:

- Most of all, what gets my goat in this thread is the idea that a "first year starter cant be rated highly". Its moronic. Oh im sorry, Kirkpatrick cant be rated highly because he sat last year (behind a FIRST TEAM ALL AMERICAN?!). BJ Scott cant be rated highly because he sat BEHIND THE 20TH OVERALL PICK IN THE NFL DRAFT?). oOOOOH So josh Chapman cant be rated high (despite benching 500lbs and being quicker than the ALL AMERICAN he is replacing?) Lots of reasons guys dont "start", but it doesnt mean they arent elite themselves.

Well if that is the case, then John Brantley should certainly be rated higher than he is after sitting behind one of the most decorated players in CFB history. He obviously has better physical tools than McElroy (rated a 92. High, IMO), has performed well when he has played, has the pedigree, and has thus far done absolutely nothing to dispel the notion that he will be an outstanding quarterback. Not trying to bag on McElroy, as he's done well with what he's been asked to do, but your argument just doesn't hold water. There's also Bama's starting corners being rated more highly than Janoris Jenkins, a proven performer and all-SEC candidate this year, and all of Bama's starting LBs being rated higher than any of UF's. The gap in talent between the two teams is just not there at nearly every position across the board like the game points to. I also think that the talent across the board in the SEC is much closer than the default rosters point to. You'd be hard pressed to find a second team in the SEC that could be another team's first team, outside of perhaps Bama, UF, UGA, or LSU playing against Vandy. It just doesn't work that way in real football.

It's not the mistakes, but the general inconsistency and slant toward certain teams when history and facts tell us that is not be the case. For the record, I'm not just trying to be a Florida homer either. I think we have a few players that are overrated (and a few underrated) and would like to see the rosters corrected myself.

[msajeff]

Just my two cents but the main community rosters should be strictly naming only. If anything needs to be changed besides the name, just leave the player completely alone. Once you start screwing with ratings the roster loses a ton of value since it can't be used online. If you want rerated rosters, fine....either do them yourself or wait until a specialized rosters is released.

BTW, always warms the heart to see Auburn fans whining and Alabama fans puffing their chests out.