06:37 PM - June 8, 2011 by RynoAid
Hellisan, over at Tradition Sports Online, spent some time today documenting NCAA Football 12 team ratings and put together the info for all 120 teams, including prestige.
NCAA Football 12 News Post
06:37 PM - June 8, 2011 by RynoAidHellisan, over at Tradition Sports Online, spent some time today documenting NCAA Football 12 team ratings and put together the info for all 120 teams, including prestige.
NCAA Football 12 Videos
Member Comments
Syracuse has a B- overall. I'd be fine with that if the defense was rated higher than what EA gave it the offense was rated much lower since its what held the team back all year. Syracuse's defense was ranked 7th in Division 1 football holding teams to 165.3 passing ypg and 136.2 rushing ypg according to CBSSports.com and they got a B- while the offense got a B? How are these ratings derived? Syracuse is a 4 prestige school not a 3.
The Main issue I have with these High ratings is that the players across the board must have high ratings to bump up their OVR's which elevates the Teams OVR to notated level.
With that, as stated, the Recruits will be in line with the default rosters, and we went through this garbage last year with their Tuner Adjustments to ratings that caused issues in other areas after Tuner was applied.
I do remember Dev's mentioning that teams will improve/drop depending on season play, which hopefully means Recruits with High Ratings will not go to lower rated schools or the Ohio State's having 50'ish rated players on their roster as a means of balancing out a Dynasty after year 5.
But I'm also realistic about what's dropping on July 12 also.
There hasn't been a year thus far, were a Patch/Tuner wasn't needed to fix something in this area since being on Next-Gen.
I thought I heard that NCAA had DPP which would negate all of the rating discussion, but realized it takes a couple of years to get something like this included.
It's amazing how so many other things were high on the priority list, yet allowing Recruits or Mid-Season player editing was not up there while they listened to the community.
Very strange!!!
Part B:
In order for Teams to be rated so high, player's must have high ratings across the board to increase their OVR which increases the Team OVR.
Well with that being the case, that would mean that players must have ratings in areas increased that would push them out of their Classification.
Meaning, in order to have an 85'ish OVR OL, his positional ratings would have to be jacked up to meet that OVR.
-His Pass and Run Blocking attributes must be rated high as all tie into the OVR for OL
Problem here is that with the way the current system works, such a high OVR means that OL is Classified as a "Balanced" lineman.
If teams are supposed to play towards their Playbook style, how will an Option Team perform when the Style requires a Run Blocker or an Air-Raid Team that depends on a Pass Blocker, but must have Balanced classified player in order to have a high rated O'Lineman?
Can't have a 85 rated Run Blocker because the current system forces them to be classified as "Balanced" as you increase the positional attributes that separate the two.
They've Tuned players to behave according to their classification (see ? pertaining to Scrambling QB's) so could there be a correlation with why some have noted how Spread Teams (AI) are having issues with running consistantly out of those systems?
-Is there a major difference between a Balanced OL and a Run Blocking OL?
-If not, how can an OL perform within the respective play style they're in if the Classification is outside the type of lineman needed for the Offense to behave accordingly?
This issue also pertains to 3-4 OLB's.
They are either classified as Coverage or Run Stoppers, while there is no classification as Pass Rusher for them.
Again, if they've Tuned so that player's will behave according to their Classification, we will have the same issue with non-rushing 3-4 OLB's as last year.
2nd, how will we know which LB's are coded to be Pass Rushers if there is no Classification to let the gamer know?
I apoligize if I haven't worded my concern correctly so that folks can understand what I'm trying to say, but some things just don't add up and I foresee us going through the same Patch/Tuner waiting game that we had to endure last year to help Gameplay because of Ratings effect.
Oh, well!!!
With that, as stated, the Recruits will be in line with the default rosters, and we went through this garbage last year with their Tuner Adjustments to ratings that caused issues in other areas after Tuner was applied.
I do remember Dev's mentioning that teams will improve/drop depending on season play, which hopefully means Recruits with High Ratings will not go to lower rated schools or the Ohio State's having 50'ish rated players on their roster as a means of balancing out a Dynasty after year 5.
But I'm also realistic about what's dropping on July 12 also.
There hasn't been a year thus far, were a Patch/Tuner wasn't needed to fix something in this area since being on Next-Gen.
I thought I heard that NCAA had DPP which would negate all of the rating discussion, but realized it takes a couple of years to get something like this included.
It's amazing how so many other things were high on the priority list, yet allowing Recruits or Mid-Season player editing was not up there while they listened to the community.
Very strange!!!
Part B:
In order for Teams to be rated so high, player's must have high ratings across the board to increase their OVR which increases the Team OVR.
Well with that being the case, that would mean that players must have ratings in areas increased that would push them out of their Classification.
Meaning, in order to have an 85'ish OVR OL, his positional ratings would have to be jacked up to meet that OVR.
-His Pass and Run Blocking attributes must be rated high as all tie into the OVR for OL
Problem here is that with the way the current system works, such a high OVR means that OL is Classified as a "Balanced" lineman.
If teams are supposed to play towards their Playbook style, how will an Option Team perform when the Style requires a Run Blocker or an Air-Raid Team that depends on a Pass Blocker, but must have Balanced classified player in order to have a high rated O'Lineman?
Can't have a 85 rated Run Blocker because the current system forces them to be classified as "Balanced" as you increase the positional attributes that separate the two.
They've Tuned players to behave according to their classification (see ? pertaining to Scrambling QB's) so could there be a correlation with why some have noted how Spread Teams (AI) are having issues with running consistantly out of those systems?
-Is there a major difference between a Balanced OL and a Run Blocking OL?
-If not, how can an OL perform within the respective play style they're in if the Classification is outside the type of lineman needed for the Offense to behave accordingly?
This issue also pertains to 3-4 OLB's.
They are either classified as Coverage or Run Stoppers, while there is no classification as Pass Rusher for them.
Again, if they've Tuned so that player's will behave according to their Classification, we will have the same issue with non-rushing 3-4 OLB's as last year.
2nd, how will we know which LB's are coded to be Pass Rushers if there is no Classification to let the gamer know?
I apoligize if I haven't worded my concern correctly so that folks can understand what I'm trying to say, but some things just don't add up and I foresee us going through the same Patch/Tuner waiting game that we had to endure last year to help Gameplay because of Ratings effect.
Oh, well!!!
# 63
stevensa08 @ 06/08/11 11:41 PM
|
|||||||||||||
|
# 64
STLcardz-NDirish @ 06/08/11 11:45 PM
Wow Michigan is waaaaay overrated.
how the hell does notre dame drop to a 5* program???
how the hell does notre dame drop to a 5* program???
# 66
pirates946 @ 06/08/11 11:48 PM
Texas Tech's offense has the same rating as its defense (B). Thats never happened before and makes me scared for the individual offense ratings. Obviously im going to go homer and say offense should be a B+
# 67
stevensa08 @ 06/08/11 11:49 PM
I wanted to use Pitt for one of my offline dyansties on 11, never did. I think they will be the first team I will use in 12 now being a 3*. Not agreeing with dropping Tennessee down to a 4* though. A lot of questions on these ratings
# 68
STLcardz-NDirish @ 06/08/11 11:55 PM
|
|||||||||||||
|
# 69
bucknutz18 @ 06/08/11 11:57 PM
1. Mich D a B+ is the biggest joke of all
2. Oregon is not a 6* prestige....1 Rose Bowl win ever and 1 BCS win ever back in 02...
3. UCLA 2* and Tenn 4* are jokes....prestige needs to be based off of more than the last 3 years ea...jesus...speaking of jesus ND has legit beef being dropped as well...and oh yea OSU obvi shouldt have an A+ offense anymore =(
2. Oregon is not a 6* prestige....1 Rose Bowl win ever and 1 BCS win ever back in 02...
3. UCLA 2* and Tenn 4* are jokes....prestige needs to be based off of more than the last 3 years ea...jesus...speaking of jesus ND has legit beef being dropped as well...and oh yea OSU obvi shouldt have an A+ offense anymore =(
# 70
The JareBear @ 06/09/11 12:02 AM
So Penn State should be dropped but ND shouldn't?
Doesn't make sense to me, honestly
Not saying the ratings are right, just saying I am looking for consistency in the arguments...
Prestige rating affects recruiting ability as well as in-seasons and offseason player progression. Just because a school was great 20 years ago doesn't mean they should still have a leg up on schools that are doing better than they are the past 4-5 years. They still recruit but I think a lot of their classes are overhyped considering the results.
Doesn't make sense to me, honestly
Not saying the ratings are right, just saying I am looking for consistency in the arguments...
Prestige rating affects recruiting ability as well as in-seasons and offseason player progression. Just because a school was great 20 years ago doesn't mean they should still have a leg up on schools that are doing better than they are the past 4-5 years. They still recruit but I think a lot of their classes are overhyped considering the results.
|
|||||||||||||
|
The 2 biggest jokes on that list is Michigan as a B+ on defense and also Michigan droping to a 5* prestiege.
I expect Michigan's D to improve but after the past 2 seasons I don't see how anyone can justify a B+ rating. I would rate them a C or C+ at the absolute max. Plus Michigan can have 10 losing seasons and would still be one of the most prestiegious teams in America.
I expect Michigan's D to improve but after the past 2 seasons I don't see how anyone can justify a B+ rating. I would rate them a C or C+ at the absolute max. Plus Michigan can have 10 losing seasons and would still be one of the most prestiegious teams in America.
# 73
huskersbears @ 06/09/11 12:17 AM
They really need to allow users to edit prestige ratings if they want to, and they could also use some sort of mass ratings changes, where you can take a team's 95 rating on offense and quickly lower it to a certain rating by automatically making small deductions from every offensive player.
# 74
STLcardz-NDirish @ 06/09/11 12:17 AM
|
|||||||||||||
|
anyways... I know ND hasn't won a lot of ball games recently, I'm all for that and i see your point from that prospective. But, I dont see how you knock a school down a prestige when they are 1:as of now getting better, 2: have the largest fan base in the nation, 3: continue to roll in top recruiting classes, 4: have the most national tittles & hisemen winners, 5: have thier own TV network and 6: have tons and tons of tradition.
I am in no way trying to brag about past accomplishments but I'm just saying, those should be taken into account.
As i stated, if the prestige ratings are based on Ws and Ls, then why did ND go down if they won more then they did the year before?
That my friend, is what doesn't make sense to me, Honestly
# 75
The JareBear @ 06/09/11 12:33 AM
I apologize, earlier it had been said a couple times that PSU should be down to five stars.
The truth of the matter is, all you have to do is have one good season and you will be back to 6* again.
The truth of the matter is, all you have to do is have one good season and you will be back to 6* again.
Colorado a 2* prestige? Ouch... Hawkins has to go down as one of the worst BCS coaches in history. I understand Colorado has been pretty bad the past five years, but bad enough to erase the past history and make them a 2* prestige school? Even Colorado State who has been atrocious is rated higher, that's bad.
# 77
LionsFanNJ @ 06/09/11 01:17 AM
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUU- great Rutgers a 3* this year. Expected but makes it more of a challenge to build them up as the big east power.
# 78
The JareBear @ 06/09/11 01:19 AM
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
Post A Comment
Working...