NCAA 14 Freshmen Rating Scale

[jwjones]

Good Morning all! This is my first thread, even though I have read and admired many of you guys work for years from sliders to rosters I have had only one problem. Freshmen ratings. A lot seem underrated and with all of the editing prior to the 2013 college season I felt maybe I need to place my 2 cents. None of this work is original but I have copied and pasted and made "minor" changes based off of others hard work. I can't remember where I found it but this may help with rosters. Without further delay:

Here is the freshmen chart I used.

5 Stars (#1) - 84
5 Stars (#2-#16) - 83
5 Stars (#17-#34) - 82
4 Stars (6.0)(Higher end 98/97)(#35-#51) - 81
4 Stars (6.0)(Lower End 97) (#52-#66) - 80
4 Stars (5.9)(96) (#67-#82) - 79
4 Stars (5.9)(95) (#83-#102) - 78
4 Stars (5.8)(94/93) (#103-#155) - 77
4 Stars (5.8)(92/91) (#156-#226) - 76
4 Stars (5.8)(90) (#227-#277) - 75
4 Stars (5.8)(89) (#278-#330) - 74
3 Stars (5.7)(88) (#331-#374) - 73 (Top 25 @ position)
3 Stars (5.7)(87) (#375-#479) - 72 (Top 50 @ position)
3 Stars (5.7)(86) (#480-#627) - 71 (Below 50 @ position)
3 Stars (5.6)(85) (#628-#797) - 70
3 Stars (5.6)(84) (#798-#962) - 69
3 Stars (5.5)(83) (#963-#1141) - 68
3 Stars (5.5)(82) (#1142-#1368) - 67
3 Stars (5.4)(81) (#1369-#1573) - 66
2 Stars (5.3) - 64

What about JUCOs?

#1: 82
#2: 81
#3-#5: 80
#6-#10: 79
#11-#14: 78
#15-#18: 77
#19-#27: 76
#28-#36: 75
#37-#46: 74
#47-#59: 73
#60-#72: 72
#73-#86: 71
#87-#100: 70

AWARENESS


FRESHMEN
1st String 68-74
2nd string 61-67
3rd string+ 55-60

Sophomores
1st String 72-78
2nd String 66-72
3rd Sting+ 60-65

Juniors
1st String 76-82
2nd String 69-75
3rd String+ 62-68

Seniors
1st String 80-86
2nd String 73-79
3rd String+ 66-72

Bonuses
(OPTIONAL)
+3 1 year Returning Starter
+5 2 year Returning Starter
+7 3 year Returning Starter
+3 Team Captain
+3 All-American

4.26 and below = 99
4.27 - 4.28 = 98
4.29 - 4.31 = 97
4.32 - 4.33 = 96
4.34 - 4.36 = 95
4.37 - 4.38 = 94
4.39 - 4.41 = 93
4.42 - 4.43 = 92
4.44 - 4.46 = 91
4.47 - 4.48 = 90
4.49 - 4.51 = 89
4.52 - 4.53 = 88
4.54 - 4.56 = 87
4.57 - 4.58 = 86
4.59 - 4.61 = 85
4.62 - 4.63 = 84
4.64 - 4.66 = 83
4.67 - 4.68 = 82
4.69 - 4.71 = 81
4.72 - 4.73 = 80
4.74 - 4.76 = 79
4.77 - 4.78 = 78
4.79 - 4.81 = 77
4.82 - 4.83 = 76
4.84 - 4.86 = 75
4.87 - 4.89 = 74
4.90 - 4.91 = 73
4.92 - 4.94 = 72
4.95 - 4.96 = 71
4.97 - 4.99 = 70
5.00 - 5.01 = 69
5.02 - 5.04 = 68
5.05 - 5.06 = 67
5.07 - 5.09 = 66
5.10 - 5.11 = 65
5.12 - 5.14 = 64
5.15 - 5.16 = 63
5.17 - 5.19 = 62
5.20 - 5.21 = 61
5.22 - 5.24 = 60
5.25 - 5.26 = 59
5.27 - 5.29 = 58
5.30 - 5.31 = 57
5.32 - 5.34 = 56
5.35 - 5.36 = 55
5.37 - 5.39 = 54
5.40 and below = 53

How did you come up with that Top 25?

Using ESPN's early top 25 predictions, which can be found here

May I ask two questions about the chart? Are the rankings you
use by position or are you using a national ranking that includes
all players at all positions? Did you come up with the OVR ranges
in the chart by studying the recruits generated in dynasty mode?

Its mostly just national ranking, but on some positions (QB) for
example I will grade a little differently sometime. The OVR will
comes close with the generated recruits on dynasty, only difference
with mine is you wont see many diamonds in the rough. I'll post a pic
of a dynasty I uploaded in the editor where it shows the overalls of
the recruits...The highest recruits are 85/84 and most the time those
guys are kickers and punters. Doing these the last couple of years I
have looked backed at previous yrs game to see where certain guys have
came in at.

For the incoming freshman on this roster, I do not agree with using a
table matching ranking to OVR. Each player should be rated individually
rather than on a scale. An overall is nothing but a badly done average of
individual ratings. If you want any help rating some of these incoming freshman,
I'd be happy to help. This is a great project and I look forward to playing
with this roster.

I agree that the table will have its flaws, but at the same time numbers that
have been posted of 40 times and other stats are just as flawed. I've
tried this before somewhat and believe me it just creates fights over this
guy is better then him and so on...Remember this is basically trying to predict
the future with guys who have not played a down yet, there will be some boom and
bust no doubt but I cant predict that.

The recruits are too low/too high...

Simming couple seasons using the method I've done this yr and past yrs is kind of
a happy medium, if you rank them too high - then come their SR season you will be seeing
ALOT of high 90s, do them too low and you are gonna see alot of players cut when the next
set of recruits come in.

Do you improve the others players during the offseason?

Yep, about all the players have 2 pt upgrade to their overall but there are some cases where
we might say well this guy was too high to begin with. Also will give additional pts for guys on
All American list (I use Phil Steele's) as well as checking stats on cfbstats.com

Guys are too slow...

Still tinkering around things with speed, I do think the game plays better at a
slower speed but, I also did it for dynasty purposes as progression from yr to yr they
will gain more speed. Still if you feel a guy is too low, just post it and we will check it out...

--------------------------------------

Again, none of this work is mine, I have just collected it over the years and used it for myself. I felt the need to share to the OS community again.

[Warren Piecee]

In previous years the team I play with, Virginia Tech, always had recruits with OVRs in the 60s and one with a 62. In this year's game the lowest player on the team has a 70 OVR. I think freshman on the default roster are rated higher than ever before. Unfortunately, recruits in dynasty do not seem to be rated any differently than before. This sadly furthers the lack of balance between default roster players and dynasty recruits that has long been a part of the game.

[jwjones]

Quote: Originally Posted by Warren Piecee

In previous years the team I play with, Virginia Tech, always had recruits with OVRs in the 60s and one with a 62. In this year's game the lowest player on the team has a 70 OVR. I think freshman on the default roster are rated higher than ever before. Unfortunately, recruits in dynasty do not seem to be rated any differently than before. This furthers the lack of balance between default roster players and dynasty recruits that has long been a part of the game.

What years were playing? And stars were you pulling in? The last few top recruits were in the low 80's.

[Warren Piecee]

Quote: Originally Posted by jwjones

What years were playing? And stars were you pulling in? The last few top recruits were in the low 80's.

I have purchased every year but one since NCAA 2006. Vriginia Tech's recruting class was not that much better this year than it has been in years past. It was better but not enough to justify the big ratings difference in freshman.

[Warren Piecee]

Just in case you are curious, I have made quite a few posts over the years regarding thoughts on how to rate freshman and other players. If you do a search on this message board using my name they will come up. I did want to repost one of them here since I think it might draw others in to the thread.

"I have spent countless hours studying information available on the free web-based recruiting services that relates to 2012 recruits, have compared this information to the OVRs of freshman in NCAA 13 and have tried to come up with a system that allows me to approximate the manner in which the game designers determine OVRs for freshman. Despite all of my hard work, I have to say that the manner in which the game designers determine OVRs for freshman is still largely a mystery to me. Maybe the extent to which the templates used for players in the game resemble the skills of real-life players is much lower than many of us have always thought. Maybe we believed that the players in the game were much more of a close match to real players because believing this caused us to enjoy the game that much more.

I just want to close with two things that first caused me to begin doubting the conventional wisdom regarding that which I discuss above. The player who is ranked as the number one CB recruit according to the 247sports.com composite ranking does not appear to be found on Miami’s roster. I have to check the date he committed but I doubt it was too late to make it on the roster. Similarly, the freshman kicker with the OVR of 85 on the Virginia Tech roster makes no sense to me. The rating just does fit the player with the jersey number, state, etc. Go figure."

[jwjones]

I completely agree with you.I am not quite sure what or who EA recruiting service they use as a basis to rate players. You would think ESPN but that is not entirely true either. What would be considered a 4 star in rivals may be a 3 star in ESPN. I would love to know what the developers use. To be a UMD fan and have three 4 star players they rated 73, 72, 69. The 5 star juco fits the scale but year factor should come into play. A projected 1 round WR from a juco school should not be a 82. I will look your past work. I'm curious. Thank you.

[jwjones]

Warren Piece I just read your ideas on creating freshmen. Why use 247 composite?

[Warren Piecee]

Quote: Originally Posted by jwjones

Warren Piece I just read your ideas on creating freshmen. Why use 247 composite?

What I like about the 247 composite is that it averages the rankings given to recruits by all the other major recruiting services. Any one recruiting service can make a mistake about a recruit. However, I think if you use the average ranking you get the best chance of an accurate appraisal of the recruit.