NHL 14 Revamped NCAA

[Mac910]

Beta completed with Frozen Four Teams.

Beta link: http://www.mediafire.com/download/4e...CAA+Roster.zip


Here is the ratings scale:
60+ Very best players in NCAA. Typically only reserved for people dominating the competition or have an ELITE skill set. Guys who could make the jump and be an NHL player right away. High draft pick exceeding 1.2 points per game. Examples: Johnny Gaudreau, Jake McCabe, Devin Shore, Rocco Grimaldi - because he has such a strong skill set, it is almost impossible to make him lower without deminishing his skills

55-59 Very good players. Usually players who are doing very well but may not have skill set to translate to the pros. Also, players who are emerging as a talent and/or are well developed. Guys who may take a couple years to reach the NHL or are destined for a 3rd/4th line role. Players who have consistently broke a point per game or are high draft picks doing so. Examples: Josh Archibald, Nic Dowd, Mark Zengerle, Nic Kerdiles

50-54 Good college players. Developing players or blossoming stars who have potential. Also, players who play to a unique skill set that may not translate to points or stats - typically seniors who were a late round draft pick and are seasoned. A couple years from the NHL for high ceiling guys, older guys that will likely play in the AHL or Europe. Between .85-1.0 PPG Examples: Sam Warning, Matt Peca, Jordan Samuels-Thomas, J.T. Compher

45-50 Good college players, not producing. These players are usually the players who have not lived up to their potential (being drafted), or are a top six type forward without much future beyond college. Also, young prospects who are taking a good step to their next level of potential. Examples: Max Gardiner, Max Everson, Connor Leen

40-44 Above-average college players. These aren't bad players, but are guys that would take a miracle to make it to the NHL. Skill sets are average, may produce some points, but haven't excelled or flourished in NCAA.

36-40 Undrafted players that get ice time. Typically 2nd and 3rd line players who aren't producing more than 0.7 points per game.

HARD 36 These are guys that are typically 3rd and 4th line guys. They may be a mainstay in the lineup, but do not have a good skill set or have any potential beyond college. If a guy is in and out of the lineup frequently, he belongs here (36 is as low as the game will go, the calculation will go lower).
I hope that it's implied the PPG estimates do not apply to defensemen. It is much more situational for defense.

[mngophers21]

First thing I think we should do is figure out exactly which teams to start with so I can start assembling a spreadsheet of each team with players who are already in the game. That way we can judge where to base our created players rankings off

[mngophers21]

If we were to do the top 20 via Pairwise, it would give us:

Minnesota
Boston College
Union
Wisconsin
St. Cloud State
Ferris State
Quinnipiac
UMass-Lowell
Notre Dame
North Dakota
Providence
Vermont
Cornell
Michigan
Northeastern
Colgate
MSU Mankato
Yale
UM-Duluth
New Hampshire

a few others I feel should be added include:

Maine
Nebraska-Omaha
Denver
Colorado College

which would situate us at 24 teams. I think I'm going to go ahead and start looking through for players on the top 20 teams regardless

[Mac910]

I know BU isn't in contention this year but they remain very popular.. we should add them to the list.

[phatkroger10]

I've got a workbook up already on Google Docs. PM anyone's email who will be working on it (preferrably gmail). I would recommend filling out the workbook while the Revamped team finishes touch-ups/glitches/updates.

[mngophers21]

Kroger I will PM you my email address so I can upload my stuff to the workbook.

So far I have went through Minnesota -> Quinnipiac and got player numbers, names, height, weight, overall ratings, NHL rights, and if they are already present in the Revamped Play Now roster (this part I need to go back through again). I am going to do that for all the top 20 teams at least to start.

I plan on going back through team websites and getting handedness and then the individual attribute numbers for each of the players who are already in the roster so the players who need to be created can be better judged based off ratings given already.

Once I complete that, I'd like to begin creating the teams on my xbox console. Kroger, if I created the teams, would they be able to be extracted from my file and then placed into an updated version later on or would my work go to waste? If that cannot be done, I am just going to wait and try to gather more information about the players.

[phatkroger10]

Quote: Originally Posted by mngophers21

Kroger I will PM you my email address so I can upload my stuff to the workbook. So far I have went through Minnesota -> Quinnipiac and got player numbers, names, height, weight, overall ratings, NHL rights, and if they are already present in the Revamped Play Now roster (this part I need to go back through again). I am going to do that for all the top 20 teams at least to start. I plan on going back through team websites and getting handedness and then the individual attribute numbers for each of the players who are already in the roster so the players who need to be created can be better judged based off ratings given already. Once I complete that, I'd like to begin creating the teams on my xbox console. Kroger, if I created the teams, would they be able to be extracted from my file and then placed into an updated version later on or would my work go to waste? If that cannot be done, I am just going to wait and try to gather more information about the players.

It's possible, but would be a real pain. We have no timetable for getting an update for the the Revamped rosters touched up, but I've been working on it all day. Honestly, I can plug in all of the information in under a day, but that spreadsheet needs to be filled out totally.

For reference, here is how my general rating scale works:

60+ Very best players in NCAA. Typically only reserved for people dominating the competition or have an ELITE skill set. Guys who could make the jump and be an NHL player right away. High draft pick exceeding 1.2 points per game. Examples: Johnny Gaudreau, Jake McCabe, Devin Shore, Rocco Grimaldi - because he has such a strong skill set, it is almost impossible to make him lower without deminishing his skills
55-59 Very good players. Usually players who are doing very well but may not have skill set to translate to the pros. Also, players who are emerging as a talent and/or are well developed. Guys who may take a couple years to reach the NHL or are destined for a 3rd/4th line role. Players who have consistently broke a point per game or are high draft picks doing so. Examples: Josh Archibald, Nic Dowd, Mark Zengerle, Nic Kerdiles
50-54 Good college players. Developing players or blossoming stars who have potential. Also, players who play to a unique skill set that may not translate to points or stats - typically seniors who were a late round draft pick and are seasoned. A couple years from the NHL for high ceiling guys, older guys that will likely play in the AHL or Europe. Between .85-1.0 PPG Examples: Sam Warning, Matt Peca, Jordan Samuels-Thomas, J.T. Compher
45-50 Good college players, not producing. These players are usually the players who have not lived up to their potential (being drafted), or are a top six type forward without much future beyond college. Also, young prospects who are taking a good step to their next level of potential. Examples: Max Gardiner, Max Everson, Connor Leen
40-44 Above-average college players. These aren't bad players, but are guys that would take a miracle to make it to the NHL. Skill sets are average, may produce some points, but haven't excelled or flourished in NCAA.
36-40 Undrafted players that get ice time. Typically 2nd and 3rd line players who aren't producing more than 0.7 points per game.
HARD 36 These are guys that are typically 3rd and 4th line guys. They may be a mainstay in the lineup, but do not have a good skill set or have any potential beyond college. If a guy is in and out of the lineup frequently, he belongs here (36 is as low as the game will go, the calculation will go lower).
I hope that it's implied the PPG estimates do not apply to defensemen. It is much more situational for defense.


Please reference the North Dakota spreadsheet for your team. It should be formatted the exact same way. Highlight players in the Revamped roster yellow. Please place a goal overall next to the calculated overall. Setting an aiming point helps a lot. This is the system used for the Revamped rosters (even though there are some obvious flaws with prospects), so please try to follow it as closely as you can. Offense and Defensive awareness play a huge percentage in the calculation, so it being extremely high or low will have a big impact. Please post if you have questions/uncertainties on the ratings.

[Mac910]

Quote: Originally Posted by phatkroger10

It's possible, but would be a real pain. We have no timetable for getting an update for the the Revamped rosters touched up, but I've been working on it all day. Honestly, I can plug in all of the information in under a day, but that spreadsheet needs to be filled out totally. For reference, here is how my general rating scale works: 60+ Very best players in NCAA. Typically only reserved for people dominating the competition or have an ELITE skill set. Guys who could make the jump and be an NHL player right away. High draft pick exceeding 1.2 points per game. Examples: Johnny Gaudreau, Jake McCabe, Devin Shore, Rocco Grimaldi - because he has such a strong skill set, it is almost impossible to make him lower without deminishing his skills 55-59 Very good players. Usually players who are doing very well but may not have skill set to translate to the pros. Also, players who are emerging as a talent and/or are well developed. Guys who may take a couple years to reach the NHL or are destined for a 3rd/4th line role. Players who have consistently broke a point per game or are high draft picks doing so. Examples: Josh Archibald, Nic Dowd, Mark Zengerle, Nic Kerdiles 50-54 Good college players. Developing players or blossoming stars who have potential. Also, players who play to a unique skill set that may not translate to points or stats - typically seniors who were a late round draft pick and are seasoned. A couple years from the NHL for high ceiling guys, older guys that will likely play in the AHL or Europe. Between .85-1.0 PPG Examples: Sam Warning, Matt Peca, Jordan Samuels-Thomas, J.T. Compher 45-50 Good college players, not producing. These players are usually the players who have not lived up to their potential (being drafted), or are a top six type forward without much future beyond college. Also, young prospects who are taking a good step to their next level of potential. Examples: Max Gardiner, Max Everson, Connor Leen 40-44 Above-average college players. These aren't bad players, but are guys that would take a miracle to make it to the NHL. Skill sets are average, may produce some points, but haven't excelled or flourished in NCAA. 36-40 Undrafted players that get ice time. Typically 2nd and 3rd line players who aren't producing more than 0.7 points per game. HARD 36 These are guys that are typically 3rd and 4th line guys. They may be a mainstay in the lineup, but do not have a good skill set or have any potential beyond college. If a guy is in and out of the lineup frequently, he belongs here (36 is as low as the game will go, the calculation will go lower). I hope that it's implied the PPG estimates do not apply to defensemen. It is much more situational for defense. Please reference the North Dakota spreadsheet for your team. It should be formatted the exact same way. Highlight players in the Revamped roster yellow. Please place a goal overall next to the calculated overall. Setting an aiming point helps a lot. This is the system used for the Revamped rosters (even though there are some obvious flaws with prospects), so please try to follow it as closely as you can. Offense and Defensive awareness play a huge percentage in the calculation, so it being extremely high or low will have a big impact. Please post if you have questions/uncertainties on the ratings.

Kroger I hope that we do not completely base ratings off of ppg... There are many players who do not get a lot of points but they make a difference