Anyone Think EA Went Overboard With Ratings?

[GruffyMcGuiness]

Now you obviously can't get perfect ratings, but this seems to be the worst its been in a while rating wise.

Auburn 88, Arkansas 88, Baylor 90, Iowa 88, Miami 90, Missouri 88, UNC 91 Ole Miss 90(!!!) Texas 93, USC 91, Virginia Tech 93.

Those are just the ones that jumped out at me. It's really not a big deal to me since I don't play online H2H games, but it's just strange to me. Seems that almost every team is in the 80's and and of the couple in the 90's, a lot of them don't deserve it.

TLDR; Were high team ratings given out too generously in 14?

[HammerOfGod]

Re: Anyone Think EA Went Overboard With Ratings?

Now you obviously can't get perfect ratings, but this seems to be the worst its been in a while rating wise.

Auburn 88, Arkansas 88, Baylor 90, Iowa 88, Miami 90, Missouri 88, UNC 91 Ole Miss 90(!!!) Texas 93, USC 91, Virginia Tech 93.

Those are just the ones that jumped out at me. It's really not a big deal to me since I don't play online H2H games, but it's just strange to me. Seems that almost every team is in the 80's and and of the couple in the 90's, a lot of them don't deserve it.

TLDR; Are high ratings given out too generously in 14?

The teams you posted, aside from FSU, which will be a top 10 team again this year, are absurdly overrated. VT's, Iowa's, Arkansas', UA's, Mizzou's, and Ole Miss' rating makes me sick. USC should actually be rated higher IMO based on talent alone.

I actually thought EA did a better job of not assigning so many 90+ ratings to individual players this year though.

[davo1021]

Re: Anyone Think EA Went Overboard With Ratings?

I actually thought EA did a better job of not assigning so many 90+ ratings to individual players this year though.

There are 17 QB's with over a 90 rating. I don't know how many there usually are but it seems like a ton.

[Gotmadskillzson]

Re: Anyone Think EA Went Overboard With Ratings?

Name a year a sports game don't go over board with team ratings and player ratings. Sad fact of life is high rated teams and high rated players appeases the masses of casual fans.

[alexgators1]

Re: Anyone Think EA Went Overboard With Ratings?

USF went 3-9 last year and is an 88

[GruffyMcGuiness]

Re: Anyone Think EA Went Overboard With Ratings?

The teams you posted, aside from FSU, which will be a top 10 team again this year, are absurdly overrated. VT's, Iowa's, Arkansas', UA's, Mizzou's, and Ole Miss' rating makes me sick. USC should actually be rated higher IMO based on talent alone.

I actually thought EA did a better job of not assigning so many 90+ ratings to individual players this year though.

I actually left out FSU, haha Jameis Winston is the real deal. USC definitely has talent, but they wont play like a 91 overall team with their clown coach. Almost all of the overrated teams have tons of talent but don't play like it. I'd rather have underrated ratings than overrated.

[tarheel_12]

Re: Anyone Think EA Went Overboard With Ratings?

I'm sort of hoping EA has just kind of half done ratings on purpose with the legal issues going on. Hopefully, when those get resolved we will get a more dedicated effort towards creating accurate rosters and ratings. I think ratings are too high across the board and there should be more separation between teams and players, but I understand they do that to sell.

[GruffyMcGuiness]

Re: Anyone Think EA Went Overboard With Ratings?

USF went 3-9 last year and is an 88

Nice catch, didn't even notice. Ridiculous.

[HammerOfGod]

Re: Anyone Think EA Went Overboard With Ratings?

I'm sort of hoping EA has just kind of half done ratings on purpose with the legal issues going on. Hopefully, when those get resolved we will get a more dedicated effort towards creating accurate rosters and ratings. I think ratings are too high across the board and there should be more separation between teams and players, but I understand they do that to sell.

After the lawsuit gets settled, the reverse is going to happen. EA won't be able to use anything resembling real players after that.

[khaliib]

Re: Anyone Think EA Went Overboard With Ratings?

Thank God for Editing!!!

[Timeetyo]

Re: Anyone Think EA Went Overboard With Ratings?

Honestly I think this is due to online play. The more teams are rated in the 80s to low 90s then the more teams will be used online which is good for that game mode.

On the flip side - for those who play dynasty this is only an issue for the first few years until the current players are gone and it all works out once the recruits take over. So for me - its no issue. I play with a 1* to start and by the time I've built it up to where I care these guys are gone anyways.

[TarHeelPhenom]

Re: Anyone Think EA Went Overboard With Ratings?

Yep...they've always been heavy handed with ratings...especially speed ratings for players and team ratings. That's why we have an editor and I'm thankful.

[boxboy99]

Re: Anyone Think EA Went Overboard With Ratings?

Yeah, they always inflate the ratings. It is too bad, I would really like to see the ratings stretched out more.

[OmahaKnights]

Re: Anyone Think EA Went Overboard With Ratings?

Honestly I think this is due to online play. The more teams are rated in the 80s to low 90s then the more teams will be used online which is good for that game mode.

That doesn't make a damn bit of difference when they rate Alabama's roster like they're the '85 Bears. I literally see no reason to play as anyone else online this year.

[Captain Fear]

Re: Anyone Think EA Went Overboard With Ratings?

USF went 3-9 last year and is an 88

Actually only an 84.