NCAA14 Roster Ratings Analysis

[Art01]

I have completed a Roster Ratings Analysis for NCAA14 (360). The attached zip file contains an Excel workbook with the data. This analysis shows the effect of varying player ratings for each position. This analysis was done in the Edit Roster section within the game, using the CK11 Roster as the baseline. Details follow:

1. The highest rated player from All Teams in each position was used.
2. The player's original ratings and Tendency were recorded as a reference.
3. Each rating was varied from 99 to 0 to record the impact on OVR and on Tendency, then the rating was returned to the original value.

There is a wealth of data to be observed within this analysis. The summary worksheet at the beginning of the workbook provides an overview of the relative impacts of varying different ratings for the different positions. The Tendency impacts are noted on each position's individual worksheet.

During the analysis process, I observed interaction between ratings. Therefore, the numbers shown on the worksheets are relative, not absolute. However, the critical ratings for each position are clearly evident.

I believe that understanding these impacts are a very important element when considering roster ratings modifications. The game software uses both the OVR rating and Tendencies to control such things as Depth Chart construction and how players perform during a game.

I will be happy to answer questions about the data or the analysis for purposes of clarity.

[jackswiki]

Quote: Originally Posted by Art01

I have completed a Roster Ratings Analysis for NCAA14 (360). The attached zip file contains an Excel workbook with the data. This analysis shows the effect of varying player ratings for each position. This analysis was done in the Edit Roster section within the game, using the CK11 Roster as the baseline. Details follow: 1. The highest rated player from All Teams in each position was used. 2. The player's original ratings and Tendency were recorded as a reference. 3. Each rating was varied from 99 to 0 to record the impact on OVR and on Tendency, then the rating was returned to the original value. There is a wealth of data to be observed within this analysis. The summary worksheet at the beginning of the workbook provides an overview of the relative impacts of varying different ratings for the different positions. The Tendency impacts are noted on each position's individual worksheet. During the analysis process, I observed interaction between ratings. Therefore, the numbers shown on the worksheets are relative, not absolute. However, the critical ratings for each position are clearly evident. I believe that understanding these impacts are a very important element when considering roster ratings modifications. The game software uses both the OVR rating and Tendencies to control such things as Depth Chart construction and how players perform during a game. I will be happy to answer questions about the data or the analysis for purposes of clarity.

Wow! I was looking at this, and some of these numbers really kinda jump off the page, and they raise some good questions. Example- Why is the LE rating formula so different than the one for the RE? The two OLBs have very similar ratings, so why are the ends different? It's nice to see that speed is most valued at CB, HB, and WR, like it should be. Also, Run Blocking for the FB is wayy more important than I was expecting, although I totally understand the importance of blocking. Great stuff, though! thanks!

[Art01]

The numbers shown in the analysis are relative, not absolute. The data shows clearly which ratings have the most impact on each position - the absolute values are not so important. There is interaction among the ratings for each position.

I am currently embarked upon an analysis of how these ratings affect player performance - particularly when a player is "out of position" in the depth chart. I will release my findings in a future post in this forum.