Players Degression

[da ThRONe]

Quote: Originally Posted by Hellisan

I believe there is a hidden potential rating. Even though there's a certain amount of random order to the progression I do believe that some players will produce to be better than other players MOST times if you do it, and I think that can only be attributable to a hidden rating that governs their progression. I also have occasionally had players that played well above/below their ratings, leaving me to believe that not all of the ratings are 100% accurate, but that I'm less positive about.

Ok Im not a fan of hidden ratings like composure and stuff. I question alot of there ratings so like me change everything about the player. And how do you ever know if a rating is working if you dont know if its there?

[mmorg]

Quote: Originally Posted by da ThRONe

Ok Im not a fan of hidden ratings like composure and stuff. I question alot of there ratings so like me change everything about the player. And how do you ever know if a rating is working if you dont know if its there?

What I would like to see implemented would be three ratings for Progression and Regression. A Potential rating, an Intelligence rating, and a Work Ethic rating.

These ratings should be hidden but there should be clues about each rating when recruiting players. Maybe SAT/ACT scores and GPAs to determine Intelligence and Work Ethic. How dedicated the recruit is to working out would reflect Work Ethic. So when you are scouting you can get a quote from your scout about him saying, "this guy has never missed a summer workout in all four years of high school." Or the reverse, "this guy would skip practice and isn't as physically developed as he should be." Then the Potential rating would obviously determine a players ceiling.

Being able to do something like this for recruiting would be awesome because you would be able to differentiate players even more, to go along with the stretching of player ratings being implemented this year.

[da ThRONe]

Quote: Originally Posted by mmorg

What I would like to see implemented would be three ratings for Progression and Regression. A Potential rating, an Intelligence rating, and a Work Ethic rating. These ratings should be hidden but there should be clues about each rating when recruiting players. Maybe SAT/ACT scores and GPAs to determine Intelligence and Work Ethic. How dedicated the recruit is to working out would reflect Work Ethic. So when you are scouting you can get a quote from your scout about him saying, "this guy has never missed a summer workout in all four years of high school." Or the reverse, "this guy would skip practice and isn't as physically developed as he should be." Then the Potential rating would obviously determine a players ceiling. Being able to do something like this for recruiting would be awesome because you would be able to differentiate players even more, to go along with the stretching of player ratings being implemented this year.

I love ratings so im all for something like that.

The problem with it being hidden is how do we change the player thats in the game already. I already have a serious problem with how the rate player. You talk about not trusting NCAA team to not get this ratings right!

[mmorg]

Quote: Originally Posted by da ThRONe

I love ratings so im all for something like that. The problem with it being hidden is how do we change the player thats in the game already. I already have a serious problem with how the rate player. You talk about not trusting NCAA team to not get this ratings right!

There could always be an option to hide or show stuff like that, like in the baseball simulation game OOTP.

[Hellisan]

Love that idea mmorg. I really want the process of scouting players to come back.

[shaunlmason]

Quote: Originally Posted by kcooper47

It's called regression. "Degression" is not a word.

Actually it is a word. They have similar meanings.

FYI, I hate grammar police.=)

[radoslaw77]

Rather than degression or regression, how about just lowering the ratings. The ratings system is inflated and inaccurate.

College guys usually don't degress (some do) but many stall. Because of injuries, limited potential, poor work ethic. And when they come in at 78 or 82, that's just far too high a rating. When teams recruit they look at how good someone is right now and how much potential they have. EA's rating scale is just not realistic. Too many 80s and 90s. We need to see 5-star recruits who are busts and 3 and 2 star recruits who become studs. The progression of most recruits is so predictable – all the 5-stars become 92+, and every 4-star becomes 88+, etc. There needs to be more variation.

What about a Potential rating that is hidden or revealed - I'm not sure which would be better. Let’s make high-ranking players more special.

90s are first round draft picks, max # of 30.
80's = drafted players.
70s = all-conference.
60s = solid starter.
50s = weak starter.
40s = backup, or 2-deep.

[tyler289]

I think this is a pretty good idea. Players don't always improve from season-to-season. I'd like to see a 5-star recruit end up a bench player because an injury set him a year back or he sucked one year, or something. That'd be pretty interesting.

With that I'd like to see 2 or 3 star recruits become studs, like the previous poster said. Coaches at non-BCS schools recruit guys who are average but coach them and give them playing time and they become great players.