Team Ratings

[ActLikeYouCrow]

why dont they just average the player ratings. it doesnt make any sense to have a team rated 99 unless all their starters are 99's. it would be nice if they talked about how the grades are calculated and why they dont go with a method that makes sense instead. it would make it a lot easier to gauge just how overrated or underrated teams actually are


miami has some good athletes on offense with potential, but it certainly would be a joke if they have a top 10 offense with no returning all conference skill people.

[ACardAttack]

Quote: Originally Posted by DorianDonP

These ratings are way too high. Wish list for 2013: Totally new dynamic commentary Totally new ratings system Then again, if they simply allow editing of ratings I can do a lot of them myself lol.

Thats how I am feeling about the team ratings...as long as there are plenty in each range then it will be fine as a 94 can knock out a 99....I just ratings are all too high in general

[berad88]

Quote: Originally Posted by ActLikeYouCrow

why dont they just average the player ratings. it doesnt make any sense to have a team rated 99 unless all their starters are 99's. it would be nice if they talked about how the grades are calculated and why they dont go with a method that makes sense instead. it would make it a lot easier to gauge just how overrated or underrated teams actually are .

I agree with this completely. Using the average of the player ratings for overall and both sides of the ball would be the best method for rating the team.
Will be interesting to see if ratings across the whole league drop off or continue to grow or stay about the same in future years of dynasty.

[caseym12]

IMO only maybe the top 5 should be above a 90 overall. I mean EA uses basically a 65 through 99 scale why not have teams like Western Kentucky, Army, UAB rated starting in the 40's because thats probably where there average talent lvl would be. Then your MTSU and Troys of the world be low 60s ...and so on ....

[dan_457]

Quote: Originally Posted by berad88

I agree with this completely. Using the average of the player ratings for overall and both sides of the ball would be the best method for rating the team. Will be interesting to see if ratings across the whole league drop off or continue to grow or stay about the same in future years of dynasty.

It looks to me like they plan to keep ratings higher this year, probably to keep them consistent with post patch ratings. Good thing imo, lowering the ratings is only good for cosmetic reasons, as the gameplay turns to mush.

It seems to me like a lot of people are forgetting what happened last year.

[1GATOR FAN]

Quote: Originally Posted by ViLLiO

I wonder if the "rating guy" is a U alum, because Miami is always jacked up way too high. 95 offense? Lol are you serious bro?

Lol you think that's bad look at Tennessee a 89? Are they nuts they were not very good at all last year..

[JalenTigh]

Maryland- 81
Off- 82
Def- 80

WTH? The rating guy must hate the Terps... this is a yearly thing. They were 9-4 last year, and finished one game out of the ACC title game. Im not expecting monster ratings for them, but this is just getting ridiculous. They had better ratings last year when coming off that horrible 2009 season.

BUT

They got NC State at 90ovr? Who lost to Maryland last year and had an identical record. Clemson 92 ovr who was 6-7 last year... GA Tech 84 ovr but 6-7 last year.

If these ratings are real and what ships with the final game, then the roster editors are going to have their work cut out for them... because just that short list on page one there are a heck of alot more over-rated and under-rated teams then ones that look about right.

[teammaxwell]

Quote: Originally Posted by sparkdawg777

Clemson is 91 OVR, 90 OFF, 90 DEF I'm pretty pumped they had an awesome recruiting class this past year and with a new offense they are going to be fun to play with, especially starting a dynasty considering how young they are. We had 4 5* so it will be interesting to see their player ratings.

not understanding why Clemson has a 92 OVR...

lost 4 NFL caliber starters on Defense.

and returning pretty much the same players on offense, with a 1st year starter QB and multiple true freshman at skill positions.

I know the offense is going to be completely different this year (supposedly, looked anemic at the spring game), but still a 91 OVR?

just being realistic.