Ratings that matter

This is a discussion on Ratings that matter within the NCAA Football forums.

Go Back   Operation Sports Forums > Football > NCAA Football
FIFA 21 Review
Tennis World Tour 2 Review
Doug Flutie's Maximum Football 2020 Review
Poll: Which next-gen console are you going to purchase? (Click to vote)
Thread Tools
Old 12-04-2008, 12:36 AM   #1
OVR: 28
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Spring Lake, NC
Lightbulb Ratings that matter

Wanted to start this thread up mainly for everyone to take a look at, but also for the lead designers to maybe think about having a different approach to how they rate players in NCAA 2010. In this every year since NCAA football has been produced I havent quite understood how EA's rating guy went through and evaluated players and rated them. I understand smaller schools and what not but here are some ratings that really need to be re evaluated to make this game more authentic and realistic.

Speed/ACC- Really weird how this rating can differ so much as it does in NCAA. I think 40 times are a way more accurate raitng than the ol top speed rating. No matter what school you come from, speed is speed and how can you rate some one who runs a 4.5 at say SMU and give him an 88 top speed and then the same guy from UF and his speed in a 91. I think you can have a good blend of the speed and Accleration rating by having just one 40 time and it would make it more authentic and across the board for everyone. I usually use scout.com or rivals as a good base.

Strength- I understand that WR's and DB's cant rep 225 lbs 20+ as a general rule...but I think the strength attribute still needs to be revamped just becasue theres no way as the above scenario goes that 50 is the average strength for a skill position player. I play college ball, I am a QB, and I rep 225 at a level not normal for qb's. I think this should maybe be focused to where you have a style of play strength or maybe have just a bench max that actuall means what it is. When I recruit in dynasty thats what I look at is Size/Speed/bench/squat. The rest are intangibles that will get better as he goes along in his career. Hope this makes sense.

Ball skills (vison, stiff arm, jukes, spins, Elusive, and truck) - For postition players this also needs to be redone as to whomever does the ratings seems to have it in mind that WR's, QB's, and TE's dont have after the catch or scramble skills. Look at jermaine gresham and chase coffin. Or michael crabtree, and dez byrant. AMAZING after the catch. If these sliders remain then have it to where these positions are effective ball carriers after the catch. Not slow dummies waiting to be caught. What I did in my rosters is look at how they preform and base them off of a RB who does things similar. Obviuosly no a whole lot of trucking but vision, release (escaping the press), jukes, spins, agility, and elusivness all had to get looked at. Once I made this adjustment, it was like a whole new game opened up. Donet believe me..Dl my roster and see for yourself.

LB/DB coverage skills (press, zone/man coverage, jump) Seems like these ratings across the board got left out. Almost like, if yall didnt know the player, then he got the average. Most DB's and LB's are pretty good at zone coverage. The man ratings are what can be kind of worked a little. What I did if I didnt know the player or couldnt see a video. I would look at his agility, then his strength and speed. Based on that I would assess the man coverage. Press man/zone coverage has also changed the game for me. I get really good matchups in all of my games that force me to move my impact player around and vice versa try to nuetralize the impact player for the other team with my strongest CB becasue of these ratings. For instance, the matchup that I loved VERY much is when macho harris went up against the man crabtree. Gets the players to think appropriatley while actuall in the game.

QB's- They can scramble really well is real life and not so well in the game. McCoy is a real good ball carrier. What I did was edit him as a RB and a QB. Again the speed rating pays an issue as to its wierd that say tyrod taylor runs the same 40 as some of the top WR's in UF and he had I think an 87-88 top speed and no ball skills. Just something to look at.

Here are the ratings that can be different from confence to confrence and school year to school year:

AWR- FR all the way to senior.
Strength- based on the chools athletic staff can be progressed, but something that has been lacking for awhile is a growth progress system. In NCAA 2009, in dynasty..if I sign an LB who is 6'2 210 lbs coming out of high school (which is normal, ala ray lewis) He shouldnt be the same weight as a senior. Please OMT dont overdue and have them get fat or what not...All players should look like athletes.
Pursit- can be good or bad based on the school and the coaching staff.
THP/THA- I think the power should be the same w/the potential to get better. But the accuracy needs to be looked at. Never needs to be real low but have it to where AWR plays a bigger role in accuracy when facing bigger name D's or ranked teams that get pressure. this isnt a wishlist...its a things that I do when I rate players.

So on and so forth...I really hope all this helps and at leat gets looked at my someone. If any of yall are in agreement or have any other opions, post em here!

Last edited by wookie48; 12-04-2008 at 12:42 AM.
wookie48 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Advertisements - Register to remove
Old 12-04-2008, 10:20 AM   #2
OVR: 28
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Spring Lake, NC
Re: Ratings that matter

Also...the BCS really needs to get looked at in next years game LOL
wookie48 is offline  
Reply With Quote

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

« Operation Sports Forums > Football > NCAA Football »

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:26 AM.

Top -