Operation Sports Forums - View Single Post

Bama83 · 03-17-2011, 04:53 PM

I love these.

My issue with attribute ratings in football games, is that there are so many well-known measurables, why do they insist on using archaic attributes that don't correlate very well to real life?

For instance, wouldn't it be easier (AND more realistic) to recruit a 4.62 LB than a LB with 88 speed?

Wouldn't it make sense to look at the 10-yard split numbers to determine acceleration?

Wouldn't it make more sense to have squat/bench maxes and reps for indicators of strength?

Not only are they realistic, they give a real world baseline to grow from.

From there, you get into "non-quantifiable" attributes such that I'd label primary (or position) skills. From that, you could have modifiers for these skills that impact the player and help create uniqueness among each player. Give me an actual reason to use positional subs rather than simple OVR.

03-17-2011, 04:53 PM	#120
Bama83 Banned OVR: 8 Join Date: Dec 2008	Re: The "Commandments" of NCAA Football 12 I love these. My issue with attribute ratings in football games, is that there are so many well-known measurables, why do they insist on using archaic attributes that don't correlate very well to real life? For instance, wouldn't it be easier (AND more realistic) to recruit a 4.62 LB than a LB with 88 speed? Wouldn't it make sense to look at the 10-yard split numbers to determine acceleration? Wouldn't it make more sense to have squat/bench maxes and reps for indicators of strength? Not only are they realistic, they give a real world baseline to grow from. From there, you get into "non-quantifiable" attributes such that I'd label primary (or position) skills. From that, you could have modifiers for these skills that impact the player and help create uniqueness among each player. Give me an actual reason to use positional subs rather than simple OVR.