M & B's Ratings Edited Rosters!

[snyder5man]

Quote: Originally Posted by ajwhawkeye12

In order to take my own subjectivity out of it, I based it off of 2013 coach ratings put out by publications. Athlon and The Sporting News both ranked all coaches 1-126, and Sports Illustrated put out a top 25 with honorable mentions as well. I've taken a composite of those three to get a rank order of all coaches. I then apply that rank order to the following tiers of coach levels. Level 46-55 (top 6 coaches) Level 41-45 (next 15 coaches) Level 36-40 (next 15 coaches) Level 31-35 (next 15 coaches) Level 26-30 (next 15 coaches) Level 21-25 (next 15 coaches) Level 16-20 (next 15 coaches) Level 10-15 (next 15 coaches) Level 6-10 (next 15 coaches) I will also adjust coordinator levels, with the majority being level 0-10, but with coordinators from more major teams being more in the 10-20 area, and elite coordinators (think Kirby Smart, Chad Morris, etc) being even higher.

This looks cool Hawkeye! I looked for Coach Monken, USM(you know the team y'all sued because of logo. haha). He is ranked 94. That would put him in the 16-20 range in your scale. I'm just wondering what number you gave him and the coordinators? Thanks for putting a look into this stuff. Thanks man

[Joey Sauce]

Under what gamertag can these rosters be downloaded?

[snyder5man]

Quote: Originally Posted by joeyi05

Under what gamertag can these rosters be downloaded?

DOSMedia or, mreazo
Joey, I would hold off, until tonight. They only have the MAC left. They said tonight everything would be edited.

[Joey Sauce]

Are you fine gentlemen changing ratings for all players? Or just when you feel it is needed and what are you basing these individual changes on? Like what prompts you to make these changes?

[BentleyA]

Quote: Originally Posted by supaswagga22

Been playing a lot of games with these roster and I love em can't wait til them to be finished. Could really skip the sunbelt conference those teams are rated bad enough as is. Almost can't afford to be scaled down. If someone could take the coaching edits done by "coachmeta" (that's the name of the roster on share) and incorporate them on these rosters we'd be in dynasty heaven. The whole both coordinator being rated half the head coach rating is terrible. And with the rosters being scaled to separate the great from the mediocre the coaches should get the same treatment. Again thanks for all the work you guys out in.

The Sun Belt did need a little bit of tweaking but not much like you said. I believe Troy was rated like a 79, which is just way to high in my opinion. Also Texas State was rated 75 or 76 overall, which is WAY too high. The only FBS teams they beat last year were Houston, New Mexico State, and Idaho. They were somewhat competitive in their WAC games, but they are not worthy of a 75 and 76. The other big changes I made were to Georgia State. You might be wondering why since they were already 60 overall, but that is because the 60s are for bad FBS teams. Georgia State is not a BAD FBS team, they are a HORRIBLE FCS team. They have never beaten an FBS school (South Alabama was FCS when they beat them) and half of their 10 wins in program history were against NAIA or Division II schools. Last year they played 11 games and only 2 were against FBS Schools (Tennessee and UTSA). Of those 11 games they won 1 game! That one win was against an 0-11 Rode Island (FCS).
Besides that, the only other change I really made was I flipped the ratings of Terrance Broadway (ULL QB) and Kolton Browning (ULM QB) since Broadway is about 10 spots higher on our QB draft board then Browning.

Let me take a look at those coach ratings changes. We are going to be completed just slightly ahead of schedule so this afternoon I will be able to get into editing the coaches and then we will be completed!

[BentleyA]

Quote: Originally Posted by joeyi05

Are you fine gentlemen changing ratings for all players? Or just when you feel it is needed and what are you basing these individual changes on? Like what prompts you to make these changes?

You probably do not want to skim through ten pages of this thread (I dont blame you, because I would not either), so I do not mind repeating myself a little bit here.

The ratings changes are based off of the talent of the players. The overall talent of the players on the team make up the rating of the team (duhh). The way we change the players that are redshirt sophomores or older is based on their past accomplishments (stats, POYs, AA/AC teams) and on where they list as top draft prospects for their positions. For most positions if they are rated in the top 10 at their position they are going to be rated in the 90s. The high 90s are saved for special players (Only 1 player is rated 99 and that is Clowney, and only 1 is rated 98, which is Marqise Lee). For the most part, guys that are boarder line draft guys (later rounds or possibly not drafted), they are going to be rated in the mid to low 80s. Guys rated 75-78ish are guys that are just your average college football player. These are NOT bad ratings and we noticed that the game actually rates the average player around these ratings for the average teams (Good teams are inflated a little bit here, so thats where we came in).
As for the sophomores, true frosh, and redshirt frosh, we based their ratings off of recruiting. A 5* is going to rate somewhere from 76-81, a 4* somewhere in the low to mid 70s (yes there is some over lap) and a 3 star in the mid 60s to low 70s, and so on... We found again that the game developers actually used pretty much this scale on the teams that were not insanely over rated in the game. Also, for redshirt frosh, we would pull their recruiting ranking and then add a couple of points to it (like they progressed). This is where we saw the most messed up ratings going on. We found out that the bigger schools had guys rated in the 80s that were redshirt freshmen and just 3*s coming out of high school. That made no sense to me, so we toned those guys down slightly. For the true sophomores, we did a similar thing, but if they produced big (such as Duke Johnson at Miami) then we gave them more than just an average progression ratings bump from what they would have been a year ago.

I hope that makes sense and answers your question for you.

[BentleyA]

Quote: Originally Posted by LopaKa

that's awesome! I'm hoping so too, I like Chow so far. Plus they can't do much worse than last season haha. My grandma is a season ticket holder, so I got to watch every home game since the Dan Robinson days. They were awesome seats too, 45 yard line, 14th row. That undefeated season was amazing to watch, just wish they had put up a little fight against Georgia. I don't know much about UNLV, but I will definitely be following them much closer now that I live here. Alright i'm done hijacking your thread, once again thank you guys for all your hard work with these, can't wait to check them out

Ahh yes the undefeated season. I was cheering them on for all but one game, which happened to be the game I was at. It was the friday night game against Nevada. I remember Hawaii hit a long field goal to win (53 or so yards) on a pretty chilly night in Reno. I remember Ault trying to burn some clock instead of taking advantage of an opportunity to score some more points and that is what did Nevada in.
Such a good game though!

[BentleyA]

Quote: Originally Posted by snyder5man

Bentley, it seems you do your research! A few problems lead to last years 0-12 record. The main reason was: the players never bought in to Ellis Johnson's plan. He liked to throw players under the bus. I agree about getting back to a bowl. They will probably win 6 or 7. The reason we have @Neb, @Ark, @Boise was Ellis Johnson/ former AD Richard Giannini (who suggested signing Johnson). Giannini left athletics in the red over 2 mil. To fire Johnson, we sold the Nebraska HOME game back to Nebraska. That paid Johnson off. The way I see cUSA ending up: Marshall winning conference. Tulsa winning west. Also, you mention returning starters. Returning starters on off is a bit wonky. Ex: Most only count 1 for TBs, but 5/6 guys from last years backfield. WRs: 6/8 guys return. The QB expected to be our main guy, Lloyd (when healthy) played last year (until hurt) OL: this is where we are NEW...1.5/5 guys return (.5 is V. Brown; he had a few starts and some spot PT) On Def: they lose Jamie Collins.....and now J. Cotton to grades. They lost some rotation guys, making DL thin. If we stay health: we can win as many as 8 games...We own the worse fall in history (12-2;0-12). I wish we could get the best turnaround, but we would have to be the Upset Kings.

Yessir! I love researching college football. Matt, his brother, and I are actually doing a college football podcast show this season, so I had to get lots of good research completed for that. Ahh, that makes sense why the schedule is that way then. If he just scheduled one of those games per year then they would stay out of the red! I see what you are saying about returning starters. I actually use a chart that is based off of returning production. It uses returning offensive yards, defensive tackles, and starts on the offensive line, so its more accurate then saying, oh they return 8 on offense, while leaving out the fact that, that particular team could have lost their starting QB, RB, and WR as the 3 losses. It is a bummer Cotton is not going to qualify. Hopefully they get a guy in there that can produce. I would like to see them win 6-7 games this season. The reason I said 5-6 was just because of that schedule. I agree with Marshall winning and Tulsa winning the West.