Prime example on the need for editing rosters, not just naming them.

[AuburnAlumni]

Looking at Bama's default set on the NCAA 11 Teambuilder site.

*NOTE* This is a defense that is replacing EIGHT starters.


LE #96-94 overall
LE #92-90 overall (Sophomore)
RE #57-95 overall (Marcel Dareus..the only guy so far that actually deserves a 90+ rating)
RE #94-88 overall (RS FRESHMAN, never played a down of college ball yet)
DT #99-95 overall
DT #64-90 overall (Sophomore)
LOLB #5-95 overall
LOLB #55-88 overall
MLB #35-95 overall (Sophomore)
MLB #30-92 overall (Dontae Hightower, only second guy who actually deserves a 90+)
MLB #2-87 overall (Sophomore)
ROLB #41-93 overall
ROLB #47-83 overall (True Freshman)
CB #21-95 overall (Sophomore, never started a game before)
CB #1-91 overall
CB #9-86 overall (Sophomore)
CB #22-85 overall
FS #23-94 overall
FS #37-85 overall (Sophomore)
SS #4-94 overall
SS #18-88 overall (Sophomore)

Let me say it again..replacing EIGHT starters on defense. Backups who have never seen real playing time are rated like 3 year all conference performers all over the place.

FIVE guys rated a 95
EIGHT guys rated a 94 or higher.

I consider a 95 rating as the best of the best. A First or Second team All American.


There are others like this, but this one jumps out at me. There is plenty of talent at Bama, but these kind of ratings are so over the top that it clarifies why a solid community roster with good edits across the board will make the NCAA 11 experience that much more enjoyable.

[MarylandScout2]

Re: Prime example on the need for editing rosters, not just naming them.

I already have a re-rating excel sheet in the making that will drop once rosters are finished with names. You can see in the My Rates vs EA rates thread what I did to Alabama Defense

[AuburnAlumni]

Re: Prime example on the need for editing rosters, not just naming them.

I already have a re-rating excel sheet in the making that will drop once rosters are finished with names. You can see in the My Rates vs EA rates thread what I did to Alabama Defense

Sounds interesting. Will have to check that out.

[buckeye02]

Re: Prime example on the need for editing rosters, not just naming them.

You can always edit them yourself. Keep in mind that everyones opinion is different. Do i think this team is rated to high? Maybe....but Alabama did have an undefeated national championship season. Hard to argue that.

[AuburnAlumni]

Re: Prime example on the need for editing rosters, not just naming them.

You can always edit them yourself. Keep in mind that everyone opinion is different. Do i think this team is rated to high? Maybe....but Alabama did have an undefeated national championship season. Hard to argue that.

It's very easy to argue that. They lost 8 starters off of that defense.

8 players rated at least a 94 overall is absurd. Many of those guys have not played any real amount of time in anything other than mop up duty.

It's not just Bama this year. EA has done this every year with the previous year's MNC team.

It's not just Alabama. They are the easiest to point out though with EA literally jacking every player up to All American levels.

RS Freshman at 88s overall? First time starters at 95 overall...95? That's first team All American level.

[Playmakers]

Re: Prime example on the need for editing rosters, not just naming them.

Looking at Bama's default set on the NCAA 11 Teambuilder site.

*NOTE* This is a defense that is replacing EIGHT starters.


LE #96-94 overall
LE #92-90 overall (Sophomore)
RE #57-95 overall (Marcel Dareus..the only guy so far that actually deserves a 90+ rating)
RE #94-88 overall (RS FRESHMAN, never played a down of college ball yet)
DT #99-95 overall
DT #64-90 overall (Sophomore)
LOLB #5-95 overall
LOLB #55-88 overall
MLB #35-95 overall (Sophomore)
MLB #30-92 overall (Dontae Hightower, only second guy who actually deserves a 90+)
MLB #2-87 overall (Sophomore)
ROLB #41-93 overall
ROLB #47-83 overall (True Freshman)
CB #21-95 overall (Sophomore, never started a game before)
CB #1-91 overall
CB #9-86 overall (Sophomore)
CB #22-85 overall
FS #23-94 overall
FS #37-85 overall (Sophomore)
SS #4-94 overall
SS #18-88 overall (Sophomore)

Let me say it again..replacing EIGHT starters on defense. Backups who have never seen real playing time are rated like 3 year all conference performers all over the place.

FIVE guys rated a 95
EIGHT guys rated a 94 or higher.

I consider a 95 rating as the best of the best. A First or Second team All American.


There are others like this, but this one jumps out at me. There is plenty of talent at Bama, but these kind of ratings are so over the top that it clarifies why a solid community roster with good edits across the board will make the NCAA 11 experience that much more enjoyable.

LOL

That's a damn Pro Bowl defense.......Looks like EA has Alabama going back in time with Biscuit, DT, Lowe, LeRoy, Hand, Lyons, E.J., Teague, Langham, and McNeal all on the field together

Come to think of it that 88 rated Soph SS blows away my 85 rated Tommy Wilcox who is a Sr every year after i finish his ratings.

I think Roman Harper in Madden 10 was around a 73 and Rashad Johnson was around a 67

They definetly need to start spending more time on reducing this types of ratings down next year.

[trobinson97]

Re: Prime example on the need for editing rosters, not just naming them.

Wow, de ja vu. AA going off about how overrated Bama is. I guess EA is giving them the benefit of the doubt for the all the top recruiting classes and championships.

I will say I agree that the ratings for some players are too high, but everyone on this forum knows that the rosters are edited by the community every year, so it's really not a big deal.

Oh yeah, you don't think Barron should be 90+?

[AuburnAlumni]

Re: Prime example on the need for editing rosters, not just naming them.

Wow, de ja vu. AA going off about how overrated Bama is.

Naw man. They are right on point....with the 85 Chicago Bears.

Not the only team, but definitely an easy one to point out.

[trobinson97]

Re: Prime example on the need for editing rosters, not just naming them.

Naw man. They are right on point....with the 85 Chicago Bears.

Not the only team, but definitely an easy one to point out.

Thing is, they aren't rated as compared to the 85 Bears, they're rated as compared to the rest of the college football world.

[AuburnAlumni]

Re: Prime example on the need for editing rosters, not just naming them.

Thing is, they aren't rated as compared to the 85 Bears, they're rated as compared to the rest of the college football world.

I gotcha.

So Bama's second and third team is better than about 118 other schools.


Yup..that sounds right.

Heck...I think they should just rate the entire first string 98s and the entire second string 96s. Why stop at 8 guys over a 94...just make the entire first string 94 or better.

[Geauxldenboy]

Re: Prime example on the need for editing rosters, not just naming them.

AA,

I don't really disagree with your example, but the majority of people seem to want a "names only" roster. I also wonder if re-rating is a longterm solution considering that the newly created recruits will come in highly rated. If the majority of the freshman will actually be created at a number south of 80, then I think re-rates could prove to be valuable.

[trobinson97]

Re: Prime example on the need for editing rosters, not just naming them.

I gotcha.

So Bama's second and third team is better than about 118 other schools.


Yup..that sounds right.

Seeing as how they've been recruiting better than the majority of schools, I'd say it's fairly close. I am not sure if you're saying Bama's second and third teams are better than 118 other schools' second or third teams or that they're better than 118 other schools' first teams. I'd agree with the former, and lower the number to about 75 IRT the latter.

Heck...I think they should just rate the entire first string 98s and the entire second string 96s. Why stop at 8 guys over a 94...just make the entire first string 94 or better.

But that goes against your stance they are already overrated. You want to lower them, not raise them.

Like I said, I agree that some players are rated too highly, I just find it funny that you keep harping on it, as if it's not going to be fixed by the community. We all know every year the ratings questionable at best, and every year the good people edit the rosters (and not just the names).

Bama is not the only overrated team like you say, but it's the only team you choose to pick out. Well, except for Auburn. Let me guess, Onterrio McCalebb and Darvin Adams are underrated right?

[AuburnAlumni]

Re: Prime example on the need for editing rosters, not just naming them.

AA,

I don't really disagree with your example, but the majority of people seem to want a "names only" roster. I also wonder if re-rating is a longterm solution considering that the newly created recruits will come in highly rated. If the majority of the freshman will actually be created at a number south of 80, then I think re-rates could prove to be valuable.

What really needs to happen is that in NCAA 12 EA needs to legitimately put an effort into using the ENTIRE POINT RANGE in their ratings system.

As playmaker and others have pointed out, these base ratings are so over the top that everyone ends up being 99s overall by year 2 or 3.

EA needs to copy 2k's rating system completely.

2k did a magnificent job in College Hoops of utilizing the ENTIRE range.

Even a team like Kansas was just over a 90 overall. Very VERY few teams had a player rated in the 90s.

Most players were rated in the 50s-70s. All Conference players were 80+.

There is more to a point range than 80-99. EA needs to understand this and actually utilize it.

What's wrong with having the majority of players be rated in the 60s and 70s?

What's wrong with having only the truly elite players be a 90 or higher?

It's something that needs to change in future versions IMO.

[Sausage]

Re: Prime example on the need for editing rosters, not just naming them.

I agree with many of you who say that ratings should be way more stretched out. Madden did this and if I am correct there was a bit of backlash from players and gamers; so all the ratings were over-inflated as usual. Only if I had the knowledge and patience to do the stretching myself. Hopefully in the future there can be a global editor to -+ all positions.

[AuburnAlumni]

Re: Prime example on the need for editing rosters, not just naming them.

Seeing as how they've been recruiting better than the majority of schools, I'd say it's fairly close. I am not sure if you're saying Bama's second and third teams are better than 118 other schools' second or third teams or that they're better than 118 other schools' first teams. I'd agree with the former, and lower the number to about 75 IRT the latter.

A top rated CPU generated recruit in NCAA football is somewhere between 78-84 or so. Yet, on the first year default rosters, EA has way too many Frosh, RS Frosh, Sophomores at 85-95.

Anyone other than a die hard Bama homer would agree that giving a 3rd string RS Freshman Defensive End an 88 overall or Dre Kirkpatrick a 95 overall rating.which equates to being the best or one of the top 3-5 corners in the country, without ever starting a football game a bit over the top.

Does Bama have a lot of talent? Yup. Do they deserve to have the entire first and second team defense this year (8 of whom are new starters) ratings of 89 or higher? Nope. And Auburn fans aren't the only ones who would say that. Pretty much anyone who doesn't wear Crimson would.

But that goes against your stance they are already overrated. You want to lower them, not raise them.

If you couldn't tell..I was being sarcastic.

Like I said, I agree that some players are rated too highly, I just find it funny that you keep harping on it, as if it's not going to be fixed by the community. We all know every year the ratings questionable at best, and every year the good people edit the rosters (and not just the names).

You contradict yourself in this statement. You say it won't be fixed by the community, then follow that with saying that good people will edit the rosters.

I harp on it, just like folks harped on improving team entrances, getting team specific plays and playbooks, more effective sliders, etc.

Why? Because EA reads these boards and addressed many of these issues that folks brought up.

Bama is not the only overrated team like you say, but it's the only team you choose to pick out.

You just said I mention that Bama isn't the only overrated team. Why do I pick them out? Because they lost 8 guys off their defense and have 8 more listed at a 94 or better. Not an 88 or better. Not a 90 or better. 94. That's extremely high.

They are the easiest team to point out due to that fact. I'm sorry I graduated from Auburn but a San Diego State grad, an Arizona fan, or a North Carolina fan would and do see the same things.

As for Auburn, naw man....EA got them perfectly right. Spot on. In fact...Auburn is the only team that they got every single rating absolutely perfect. What are the odds huh?