NCAA Football 09 Team Ratings (These are NOT Final)

[therizing02]

Re: NCAA Football 09 Team Ratings (These are NOT Final)

The ratings argument could go on forever. I will give EA credit for FINALLY not overrating Notre Dame.

[davin]

Re: NCAA Football 09 Team Ratings (These are NOT Final)

The ratings argument could go on forever. I will give EA credit for FINALLY not overrating Notre Dame.

Interestingly enough in my game last year, the first couple years Notre Dame went off the map (before I did roster edits). I started to wonder why ND completely fell out of power (this was before the season).

[Preo32]

Re: NCAA Football 09 Team Ratings (These are NOT Final)

I went on a college visit to Mizzou, and thats where i want to go. I plan on makin a dynasty wit them. Before i thought about what colleges i wanted to go to, my 3 favorite teams were Georgia, Oregon and South Florida. I lived in GA so i still like em a lot, and Oregon and USF i started likin about 5 years ago. Those 4 teams are the ones id play wit online, but Mizzou in my dynasty for sure.

[Preo32]

Re: NCAA Football 09 Team Ratings (These are NOT Final)

Also. its funny u used the Rice Owls stadium as an example. on 08 i had a dynasty wit them where u make the guy (idk y but i cant remember what the mode is called) He was amazing. 83 over freshman year and won Heisman. I also beat Georgia in the Chick-Fil-A Bowl and went undefeted and ended up 14th in the polls

[AuburnAlumni]

Re: NCAA Football 09 Team Ratings (These are NOT Final)

The ratings argument could go on forever. I will give EA credit for FINALLY not overrating Notre Dame.

Here is my issue with EA's ratings system..and the reason it IS an issue is because it's been constant over the last 10 years.

There are certain "sacred teams" in NCAA that EA continuously gives the benefit of the doubt.

By that I mean....not only are the "name" players on the team rated extremely high, but unknown players stepping in as starters get rated extremely high.

Other teams have their "name" players rated high but get shafted overall because the other guys get rated pretty damn low.

Using Auburn as an example...and Auburn is definitely NOT the only team to get the shaft by EA....Ronnie Brown was rated high, Carnell, etc. But many of our starters on that team were rated in the low to mid 70s. Meanwhile, guys on LSU and UGA who weren't every experienced, etc. were rated at least an 80.

I'm sure the ratings will change some, but it's pretty damn annoying when Auburn returns 7 starters off of the #1 total defense in the SEC and I see an effing 79 rating for them on defense....while Florida...who couldn't stop a cold last year on Defense....has a 90 rating on D. Hell...going by that list..Florida, Tennessee, Georgia, LSU, and South Carolina all have much higher rated Ds on 09 than Auburn.

Obviously I'm harping on Auburn because I'm an Auburn fan and use Auburn, but you could substitute a bunch of other teams for AU and it's the same deal.

End of rant.

[peteykirch]

Re: NCAA Football 09 Team Ratings (These are NOT Final)

Here is my issue with EA's ratings system..and the reason it IS an issue is because it's been constant over the last 10 years.

There are certain "sacred teams" in NCAA that EA continuously gives the benefit of the doubt.

By that I mean....not only are the "name" players on the team rated extremely high, but unknown players stepping in as starters get rated extremely high.

Other teams have their "name" players rated high but get shafted overall because the other guys get rated pretty damn low.

Using Auburn as an example...and Auburn is definitely NOT the only team to get the shaft by EA....Ronnie Brown was rated high, Carnell, etc. But many of our starters on that team were rated in the low to mid 70s. Meanwhile, guys on LSU and UGA who weren't every experienced, etc. were rated at least an 80.

I'm sure the ratings will change some, but it's pretty damn annoying when Auburn returns 7 starters off of the #1 total defense in the SEC and I see an effing 79 rating for them on defense....while Florida...who couldn't stop a cold last year on Defense....has a 90 rating on D. Hell...going by that list..Florida, Tennessee, Georgia, LSU, and South Carolina all have much higher rated Ds on 09 than Auburn.

Obviously I'm harping on Auburn because I'm an Auburn fan and use Auburn, but you could substitute a bunch of other teams for AU and it's the same deal.

End of rant.

Hell what pissed me off was how poorly they rated the starting offensive lineman for Rutgers. You had a team that gave up what? 6 or 7 sacks in a whole season, and the highest player was 85 overall.

[countryboy]

Re: NCAA Football 09 Team Ratings (These are NOT Final)

Here is my issue with EA's ratings system..and the reason it IS an issue is because it's been constant over the last 10 years.

There are certain "sacred teams" in NCAA that EA continuously gives the benefit of the doubt.

By that I mean....not only are the "name" players on the team rated extremely high, but unknown players stepping in as starters get rated extremely high.

Other teams have their "name" players rated high but get shafted overall because the other guys get rated pretty damn low.

Using Auburn as an example...and Auburn is definitely NOT the only team to get the shaft by EA....Ronnie Brown was rated high, Carnell, etc. But many of our starters on that team were rated in the low to mid 70s. Meanwhile, guys on LSU and UGA who weren't every experienced, etc. were rated at least an 80.

I'm sure the ratings will change some, but it's pretty damn annoying when Auburn returns 7 starters off of the #1 total defense in the SEC and I see an effing 79 rating for them on defense....while Florida...who couldn't stop a cold last year on Defense....has a 90 rating on D. Hell...going by that list..Florida, Tennessee, Georgia, LSU, and South Carolina all have much higher rated Ds on 09 than Auburn.

Obviously I'm harping on Auburn because I'm an Auburn fan and use Auburn, but you could substitute a bunch of other teams for AU and it's the same deal.

End of rant.

[baylrballa]

Re: NCAA Football 09 Team Ratings (These are NOT Final)

I couldn't make out Baylor's ratings. They all looked like they were in the 40s to me. =/

looks like 49s across the board

[Hooe]

Re: NCAA Football 09 Team Ratings (These are NOT Final)

UVa got pooed on.

[o 99 PROBL3MS o]

Re: NCAA Football 09 Team Ratings (These are NOT Final)

Yeah I have to agree hear man. Certain teams always get the benefit of the doubt. I'm an Arkansas fan and we've led the SEC in rushing 8 out of the last 10 seasons (save the two years Auburn had Caddy and Ronnie) and our offensive line is always one of the worse on the game. How can a team who leads the nations best conference in rushing virtually every year and also finishes in the two 3 or 4 in sacks allowed have 70OVR's across the board. Casey Dick our QB went from an 85OVR on NCAA 07 all the way down to a 77OVR on NCAA 08. Casey isn't a superstar but is he really the worse starting QB in the NCAA??? Thats what EA thinks apparently although both of Miami's QB's who had worse seasons saw a ratings increase.

[bad_philanthropy]

Re: NCAA Football 09 Team Ratings (These are NOT Final)

Sort of on the topic of ratings, what schools do you think will receive the six star rating in dynasty? And what schools should be six star schools? I mean we've seen the ratings video where Florida State is ridiculously highly rated, but I think in the game they have been a five star school for the past few years.

[AuburnAlumni]

Re: NCAA Football 09 Team Ratings (These are NOT Final)

Sort of on the topic of ratings, what schools do you think will receive the six star rating in dynasty? And what schools should be six star schools? I mean we've seen the ratings video where Florida State is ridiculously highly rated, but I think in the game they have been a five star school for the past few years.

The usual suspects....

LSU, Florida, USC, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Texas, maybe Michigan. That's about it. I'm pretty sure Auburn will be a 5 star, they were last year. Georgia may or may not be a 6 star.

It depends on the continued success of programs with EA. However, I say that and Florida has only had 1 "great" season with 3-4 mediocre ones, etc.

Like the overall ratings, the prestige rankings can be a guessing game when EA is concerned.

[Solidice]

Re: NCAA Football 09 Team Ratings (These are NOT Final)

well near the 10:00 mark of the random gamers part 2 video it showed a few teams in the dynasty team selection.

of course it may not be final though.
Ohio state = 6*
Ohio = 2*
Notre Dame = 6*
Northwestern = 3*
Northern Illinois = 2*
North Texas = 2*
North Carolina = 3*
New Mexico State = 1*
New Mexico = 2*
Nevada = 2*
Nebraska = 5*

[bad_philanthropy]

Re: NCAA Football 09 Team Ratings (These are NOT Final)

well near the 10:00 mark of the random gamers part 2 video it showed a few teams in the dynasty team selection.

of course it may not be final though.
Ohio state = 6*
Ohio = 2*
Notre Dame = 6*
Northwestern = 3*
Northern Illinois = 2*
North Texas = 2*
North Carolina = 3*
New Mexico State = 1*
New Mexico = 2*
Nevada = 2*
Nebraska = 5*

It's funny how some teams the star ratings are related to recent success like how Miami and FSU were six star schools a few years ago, but ND no matter how bad they are will always be six stars.

I can see Florida being six as their profile is so large from the recent NC, Tebow, and just how they market their image in general. I wouldn't be surprised if Tennessee and Georgia were a six in the game as well.

[therizing02]

Re: NCAA Football 09 Team Ratings (These are NOT Final)

It's funny how some teams the star ratings are related to recent success like how Miami and FSU were six star schools a few years ago, but ND no matter how bad they are will always be six stars.

I can see Florida being six as their profile is so large from the recent NC, Tebow, and just how they market their image in general. I wouldn't be surprised if Tennessee and Georgia were a six in the game as well.

I thought the Stars rating was based more on Prestige than the type of year a team had. If that's the case, then ND should be a 6* school. As should many of the other top line programs in the country.