The EA guys seem to be "dodging" ratings questions.

[Nutzzz414]

I actually think they do a great job, considering the fact that they have 70 players & 100+ teams. It's not like the pro sports, some people seem to forget that. They are probably riding the line of legal issues by giving us what they give us already. We get Florida Gators QB#15 that's a 99. Now Stevie Wonder can see this is Tebow. I for one am grateful for the "template" that they give us for the rosters.

As far as the 99 teams. I believe that they do the players first, and whatever the overall ratings come out to be is just some kind of average.

[KG]

If you were an EA rep why would you come on here and defend or explain ratings. It would just open up a can of worms. I'm not an EA apologist but as soon as ratings come out on here people start complaining left and right about their favorite teams/players being rated too low.

[MattCoz]

I understand most people are biased and think their team should be higher, but these are some of the worst rosters I've ever seen from them. The simple answer is that they really don't care, they take the easy way out when doing the ratings. Now that they have online roster sharing, I'm sure they figure that we'll do all the work for them. It's not just the ratings though, it's getting the players wrong and putting them in the wrong positions too. If they weren't the only NCAA game in town, I'd take my money elsewhere.

[Sven Draconian]

The ratings are always "awful" because every die-hard fan thinks his team is on the verge. Every player has "potential". Everybody thinks everybody is better then they are.

If FSU wasn't rated so high, you would have 500 seminoles fans in here telling us player x is going to be a first rounder, y was a top 20 recruit, z is ready for a breakout season.

Lets just look at a few posts I've seen on this board...

"Percy Harvin deserves 99 speed"
"Beanie Wells better have a 99 stiff arm"

Or some more generic versions...

"If x is a 95, y better be a 95 too"

If you visit any of the rivals boards, or other college message board, every fan thinks every team is going to win the conference. When that team does finally pull the surprise and win (Ala Kansas) you have everyone going "HA, told you so!" but when go in the tank (Michigan) nobody says a word.

[smithc6]

Quote: Originally Posted by stewaat

They had him as the starting QB, that is the laziness issue. Just like the Oregon QB situation this year IIRC from reading the forums. Fraser had NO CHANCE of starting. How difficult would it be to update rosters after the spring games? Give people two conferences to do.

EA probably has the rosters completed a few months before the game is even completed. SO considering the game is completed a month before the release date, that doesnt leave room for EA to go back in and try and fix every possible transfer that happens in college football. Both QBs transfered in the window of which there was no way EA would have known for one that they were going to transfer, but also enough time to have fixed it. Its not a perfect system and they acknowledge this. That is why they give us the ability to change the rosters.

[MacPlex]

Quote: Originally Posted by Sven Draconian

The ratings are always "awful" because every die-hard fan thinks his team is on the verge. Every player has "potential". Everybody thinks everybody is better then they are. If FSU wasn't rated so high, you would have 500 seminoles fans in here telling us player x is going to be a first rounder, y was a top 20 recruit, z is ready for a breakout season. Lets just look at a few posts I've seen on this board... "Percy Harvin deserves 99 speed" "Beanie Wells better have a 99 stiff arm" Or some more generic versions... "If x is a 95, y better be a 95 too" If you visit any of the rivals boards, or other college message board, every fan thinks every team is going to win the conference. When that team does finally pull the surprise and win (Ala Kansas) you have everyone going "HA, told you so!" but when go in the tank (Michigan) nobody says a word.

Nole fan here. lol we here in nole land know fsu is under achieving right now. My roommate/cousin plays DE for fsu he even laughed when i told them they were rated so high. And the only player I think should be high is everett brown.

Like many have said. If you guys look at the rosters and then go back and look at the Off, DEF and OVR ratings they dont represent the avgs of the teams. Stop complaining they're just place holders or numbers if you will.All 99's just means you come half-stepin when you play us you're going to get blown out.

[zeroway21]

Quote: Originally Posted by J-Unit40

Thank you. BC's run defense wouldn't be as solid in the SEC. They may not deserve the 79 rating (that is a little low), but they are not an LSU, Auburn, UF, UGA....

I never said they were.

[rudyjuly2]

I'm not on your side on this one AA. If EA released a ratings package that was perfect in your opinion, there would be tons of other people out there that would complain about it. They can never make this perfect.

Have they rated some players too high or too low? Have their depth charts had mistakes? Sure. But the game has 120 teams X 70 players. That's 8400 players if every roster is maxed out. That's a lot of work. Sure EA could allocate a ton of guys to perfect rosters but most people that buy the game are oblivious to mistakes anyways. They only complain about "their" team if that. As people get into dynasty mode, current roster sets quickly become meaningless as well. You are one of very few hardcore fans that has the knowledge and desire to pick apart every major roster in the game. Since you can edit the rosters yourself, its not that big a deal. It would be awfully nice if they could release a PC editor to make it easier but I think this issue is being blown out of proportion.

Lastly, who cares if OSU or Georgia are rated 99? That's only two teams given the highest overall score. Only a few other teams are even rated 99 in any one category. Its a relative score that DOES NOT mean they are perfect. One just has to look at the ratings of their individual players which indicates strengths and weaknesses. Even the greatest offenses and defenses of all time had weaker areas than others. Should the ceiling on team grades be a 90 or 95? What difference would that even make since its all relative anyways? The EA guys DID say that the overall score is weighted and certain positions (like QB on offense) affect the score more than others making some team's ratings seem overrated. They also said they are looking into how they do rosters and how they might improve them. They might even use OS to help in this area. Who knows? But I don't think they have really dodged the questions that much because there is no right answer or perfect solution.