Do the people at EA even watch college football?

[DonkeyJote]

Quote: Originally Posted by $D-Money$

Oregon being too high is something I agree with. They have 2 unproven QB's now who Oregon fans say are good but I guess only the season will answer. #4 is awfully high though for a team who lost their anchor.

So does #3 Texas, #6 Florida, #9 Nebraska (he's never proven to be good anyway). Last year Alabama had an "unproven" Qb and he was very good. Nate Costa is a much better passer than Masoli, and the offense can easily be adapted to take advantage of that. And Darron Thomas is the most talented QB they had on the roster for the last few years. Masoli was a JC transfer. It's not like he's a huge stud. I don't think this offense needs a great QB to be lethal.

[pirates946]

Quote: Originally Posted by DonkeyJote

So does #3 Texas, #6 Florida, #9 Nebraska (he's never proven to be good anyway). Last year Alabama had an "unproven" Qb and he was very good. Nate Costa is a much better passer than Masoli, and the offense can easily be adapted to take advantage of that. And Darron Thomas is the most talented QB they had on the roster for the last few years. Masoli was a JC transfer. It's not like he's a huge stud. I don't think this offense needs a great QB to be lethal.

Yeah especially with LaMichael James in the backfield for the next few years. When you got a good/very good halfback you dont need a great QB also...unless you dont think LMJ could handle a bigger load, or you want a better QB so you could keep the defense "honest"

[AuburnAlumni]

This is the one area that, by and large, the community will get right.

But, as I stated in my other thread pointing out the All World ratings on Bama, etc. for guys that haven't even played significantly, the EA system is still to jack the top 4-5 teams up to unreal levels.

There are far too many 90+ rated players all over the place. The community edited roster will hopefully bring a greater variety of ratings.

We'll get a good roster set I'm sure. Just will take a few weeks to get the ratings to a more realistic level across the board.

[dreezymac]

Quote: Originally Posted by AuburnAlumni

This is the one area that, by and large, the community will get right. But, as I stated in my other thread pointing out the All World ratings on Bama, etc. for guys that haven't even played significantly, the EA system is still to jack the top 4-5 teams up to unreal levels. There are far too many 90+ rated players all over the place. The community edited roster will hopefully bring a greater variety of ratings. We'll get a good roster set I'm sure. Just will take a few weeks to get the ratings to a more realistic level across the board.

I personally dont care so much about the numbers so long as their not too inflated...it usually balances itself out across the board. The names are what I gotta have. After a few years of dynasty, all the ratings will be ridiculously high. More focus should be placed on the progression logic than anything.

[xgoredhawksx]

Progression logic better be fixed. I haven't done much research this year, but does anyone know if this is the case? Last year half the teams were A+ across the board after 2 seasons which obviously was a major issue.

[xxjgbxx]

Ill be so happy when we can one year use user edited rosters online in ranked games and not stuck with default roster set

[portlandplaya]

With or without Masoli, I think that #4 is right where Oregon should be. Granted, they are my favorite team, so I may be biased. But Nate Costa is a decent QB in his own right, and Darron Thomas is developing into a pretty good spread quarterback. This offense doesn't need a Heisman-caliber quarterback to pile on the points. Case in point: 2005, I believe it was, when we had Kellen Clemens running the offense. He brought us within arms reach of a BCS bowl game. He was by no means a Dennis Dixon. Bottom line, Chip Kelly knows how to run an offense, and our defense is no slouch either, with Kenny Rowe and Brandon Bair on the line, along with Eddie Pleasant taking over for T.J. Ward at Rover. Not to mention having Talmadge Jackson and Cliff Harris locking down WRs all day. Getting back to the offensive side of the ball, our backfield consists of LaMichael James, Kenjon Barner, Remene Alston, and Lache Seastrunk. Eaisly one of the best backfields in the conference, and a top 10 group nationwide. We have Jeffery Maehl at WR, along with D.J. Davis and Lavaiser Tuinei backing him up.

I'd say that we have a good chance at winning the PAC-10 again, and that the #4-#6 range is a fair ranking for this Oregon team.

[Buckeyes_Doc]

Quote: Originally Posted by portlandplaya

With or without Masoli, I think that #4 is right where Oregon should be. Granted, they are my favorite team, so I may be biased. But Nate Costa is a decent QB in his own right, and Darron Thomas is developing into a pretty good spread quarterback. This offense doesn't need a Heisman-caliber quarterback to pile on the points. Case in point: 2005, I believe it was, when we had Kellen Clemens running the offense. He brought us within arms reach of a BCS bowl game. He was by no means a Dennis Dixon. Bottom line, Chip Kelly knows how to run an offense, and our defense is no slouch either, with Kenny Rowe and Brandon Bair on the line, along with Eddie Pleasant taking over for T.J. Ward at Rover. Not to mention having Talmadge Jackson and Cliff Harris locking down WRs all day. Getting back to the offensive side of the ball, our backfield consists of LaMichael James, Kenjon Barner, Remene Alston, and Lache Seastrunk. Eaisly one of the best backfields in the conference, and a top 10 group nationwide. We have Jeffery Maehl at WR, along with D.J. Davis and Lavaiser Tuinei backing him up. I'd say that we have a good chance as winning the PAC-10 again, and that the #4-#6 range is a fair ranking for this Oregon team.

Yea, I'd say your biased.