EA's Ratings vs Actual 2007 Total Offense and Defense rankings

[AuburnAlumni]

Quote: Originally Posted by bad_philanthropy

Since you follow the SEC, is there good reason for Ole Miss having an 86 offense and 87 defense? Technically they're a better team than Auburn in the game which doesn't seem like it would be the case during a coaching change year.

Apparently Houston Nutt is Knute Rockne. That's my only guess.

EA's ratings are an enigma wrapped in a mystery.

I'll be doing some HEAVY ratings adjustments midway through the season I'm sure. I'll leave them alone until then.

But good lord EA...hire a third party who actually knows what they are talking about scouting wise.

[twisted88]

I've never understood why EA can't break down the ratings into rushing/passing offensive and defensive ratings, instead of just overall ratings. If a top 20 defense loses 2 secondary starters, but their front 7 remains intact, then their passing defense should take a hit. This would obviously have some impact on their overall rating, but their rush defense should still be rated as high as last year, if not higher. So basically their overall defensive rating should still be pretty high.

I also have never thought any team or player should have a 99 rating no matter how good they are. To me a 99 means they are invulnerable, which no matter how strong an offense/defense is they all still have some cracks. The best teams should be rated 94-96 imo, and move down from there.

[AuburnAlumni]

This isn't a "fanboy" response...

But EA could learn a lot from 2k's rating system.

College Hoops has an EXCELLENT ratings setup. Much less "99" type ratings and more realistic IMO.

[Scott]

Quote: Originally Posted by AuburnAlumni

This isn't a "fanboy" response... But EA could learn a lot from 2k's rating system. College Hoops has an EXCELLENT ratings setup. Much less "99" type ratings and more realistic IMO.

Exactly, I would love for QBs to have a Rating such as Tendency to Throw Deep or something like that...

[babyfat9]

Doesn't really matter how EA ranks them cuz I usually go and reedit ever team and player anyways...True EA ranks some players to high and others too low but I rather have a good game with good gameplay then worry bout ratings !!!

[AuburnAlumni]

Quote: Originally Posted by babyfat9

Doesn't really matter how EA ranks them cuz I usually go and reedit ever team and player anyways...True EA ranks some players to high and others too low but I rather have a good game with good gameplay then worry bout ratings !!!

Most of us are like that...but it would be nice to get a more balanced ratings set to start with.

And for all of those folks who play in leagues and or play online..they are stuck with the ratings as they are.

[twisted88]

I'd be interested to see how many starters these teams lost this offseason. Especially the ones rated in the mid 70's or lower.

Hawaii lost a ton of fire power this year, so I can understand that drop. But if someone like Houston, who had the 4th ranked offense, lost an OL and a WR who only caught 20 passes last year, they shouldn't have dropped that much.
...btw, I'm just using that Houston scenario for an example, I really don't know anything about their team.

[AuburnAlumni]

Quote: Originally Posted by twisted88

I'd be interested to see how many starters these teams lost this offseason. Especially the ones rated in the mid 70's or lower. Hawaii lost a ton of fire power this year, so I can understand that drop. But if someone like Houston, who had the 4th ranked offense, lost an OL and a WR who only caught 20 passes last year, they shouldn't have dropped that much. ...btw, I'm just using that Houston scenario for an example, I really don't know anything about their team.

Well apparently Oklahoma, after losing their best WR and their starting RB, became perfect and went to a 99.

Go figure.