they brought most of them own, Odoms was an 87 in 10' so was stonum, most of these guys were rated higher
FWIW. Michigan doesn't seem inclined to get re-involved.
Hearty Tip o' the Hat to On the Banks, NCAA '11 rosters are available online. You have to register for TeamBuilder and go through several unnecessary steps, but I've made it much easier on you, and here are all the gory details for the MICH roster:
Anything strike you as crazy? Denard Robinson's speed is #1 for me.
they brought most of them own, Odoms was an 87 in 10' so was stonum, most of these guys were rated higher
The Website definitely was taken down...I was on it earlier and now it won't even let me get to the team builder page. I gotta believe Marvin Robinson is #3...and I'm really surprised how slow shaw is...I mean....he's not a burner...but come on.
Shaw is a burner. He is one of the fastest guys on the team. Faster than Denard. I still don't get why people don't think Shaw is blazing fast. He has the speed to take it to the house if he hits a hole.
Shaw was the 200m National Champion. Look at his time compared to others.
Here are some other wolverines and their HS times:
Michael Shaw- 10.39 100m, 21.19 200m
Denard Robinson - 10.44 100m , 21.89 200m
Demar Dorsey - 10.53 100m , 21.48 200m
Troy Woolfolk - 10.52 100m , 21.46 200m
Darryl Stonum - 21.62 200m
Terrence Robinson - 10.78 100m , 21.87 200m
Fitzgerald Toussaint - 10.74 100m
Martavious Odoms - 10.80 100m
D.J. Williamson - 10.66 100m , 21.64 200m
didn't know that. thanks for the info.
I had no idea either. I think the reason people don't think he's fast because we don't see him play much, and, if most people are like me, we had no idea that he was a track star.
I'm too lazy to find the UFR link, but go look at his big run against Minnesota back in 08. The only reason he didn't burn right through their secondary to the endzone was because of a gimpy groin.
I stand corrected....Thanks for those times, thats phenomenal.
D Robinson should be at least 96 speed, doesn't he run in the high 4.3? D Gardner is 90 speed are you serious. M Shaw is only 87 speed yeah right. F Toussaint is 95 speed can you say good night. why do most of are freshmen have such low ratings. we have good team speed at wide recevier. K Koger has 95 acc well damn. ol line looks good. are defence will be better than the ratings. Michigan will be back this year, they will win at least 10 games in real life.
Thanks for summarizing the entire thread up to this point.
(1) I usually don't like saying anything bad about our players, but man, does J.T. Floyd must have naughty pictures of someone at EA? An 81 overall? I hope he has a great year and makes me look foolish, but that seems *highly* optimistic.
(2) We will know that video games have reached a new level when they can give someone like Terrence Robinson his true physical abilities (damn good - great quickness, acceleration, and speed) while keeping their overall value in-check. I may re-enter the world of video games when this happens.
An 81 is not very good. How is that a bad rating? Last year, with not even a single snap, Forcier was rated higher.
I checked out UM's opponents and Kevin Newsome, former Wolverine commit, is 86 overall and a 92 speed!!!! WTF!!!! Also, Matt Barkley is an 86. If I was Denard, or QB #16 for that matter, I would pray to the EA-Dilithium-hating gods and asked for forgiveness.
Kevin Newsome was a track-star in high school so it would make sense that he would be pretty fast. Now, as fast as Denard?...
But I haven't heard anything good about Newsome at all, so I don't understand that rating at all. Maybe he has improved since I heard last, but I heard he was pretty bad.
Robinson had an approximately equal passing performance in the 2009 season as Newsome (which is to say, bad).
To rate Newsome so highly when he so clearly sucked, and didn't show the improvement in spring that Denard did, or the running ability last year that Denard did, is unfair.
Guys, with Denard, the key is acceleration. As I said in the other thread, one of the huge changes in this year's game is the locomotion engine. Denard's 96 acceleration is just downright nasty, and will make him very hard to defend. 92 speed is faster than most of the players in the demo, so he will rarely be caught from behind like in last year's game. If they made him dilithium fast, the game would be unbalanced due to AI not being able to keep up with him.
I can't imagine how much it must suck having to program all that. They must have to sift through a mountain of recruiting magazines to come up with all that data.
I wish my job was to figure out how players should be ranked for a college football game. Until it came to doing Spartina. 83% chance of pre season arrest.
I feel that, but don't quote me on the following
CC is #24
Furman is #3
I want Wilkins, Black, and Ash, all in the game....and where the heck is Jeremy Gallon!?
Having been in the locker room this past weekend at a camp, I can safely say #54 is Richard Ash, #24 is Cullen Christian, #14 is in fact Conelius Jones
Davion Rogers and Jake Ryan are going to be #38 and #39 respectively so it is hard to say with DE #33 and LB #30, but I'm willing to bet if the DE is tall and fairly light its Davion Rogers, while the LB is Jake Ryan.
This one I'm not for sure about, but if I recall correctly Marvin Robinson's name was above the #3 locker.
Thanks for the roundup. Like the idea of Cullen Christian running 'round out there in a #24.
Shoelace's speed is blasphemy.....
Just ran all over Ohio St. (On Heisman) with Jacory Harris, who has 85 speed and 76 accel, I'm not too worried about Denard anymore. If you haven't played the demo yet, download it, feels a lot better than last year's game.
#3 is Marvin Robinson.
#33 DE is Ken Wilkins.
A lot of these weights/heights align directly with rivals.com
I really don't want to be that guy, but DE #33 can not be Wilkins unless he dramatically changed skin tones....
But I feel like the rating does fit (if Wilkins) pretty well 77 OVR
Have they finally changed the scholarship limits from 75 to 85 yet? Does anybody have a good reason on why in the game you get less scholarships than real life?
I only ask because I (like probably everybody else here) oversign like a mofo every year and inevitably I have to boot some random guys off the team. I have e-guilt over this, and a 85 limit would help limit that.
It has to do with the disc not being able to hold 85 players. So that's what I have heard.
I have a hard time believing that if only because that number has remained constant even as they've built up more and more intensive features in the game. With the ability to create your own teams and download rosters to your hard drive, the game can ship with 75 players, but an 85 cap would only strain your console's HD, not the disc itself.
Other reasons why I don't buy the "We don't have enough space" theory:
The game generates and maintains something like 2,000 unique recruits every year. An extra 1,000 static guys is nothing compared to that.
PS3 versons would be able to take advantage of the format and should have scads of extra space on the disc.
I've heard the same thing. It's a shame for PS3 owners; the game's practically just a 360 port, and the scholarship limits would likely be a holdover from that if true. NCAA Football 11 even coming remotely close to filling up a blu-ray disc is laughable.
Some of the teams are missing....as you can see...Arizona State, Arizona, Alabama, etc...this is a list that was provided on pastapadre.com....seeing as some teams aren't even on the list, I don't know how accurate it really is....
School – Overall – Offense – Defense
Army D+, C, C+
Auburn B, B+, B+
Ball State D, D+, D
Baylor B-, B, C+
Boise State A-, A+, B+
Boston College B, B+, B+
Bowling Green D+, C-, D+
Buffalo D+, C-, C-
BYU B, B, B
California B, B+, B+
Central Michigan C+, C, C+
Cincinnati B, A-, B-
Clemson B+, B+, B+
Colorado B-, B-, B-
Colorado State C+, B-, C+
Connecticut C+, B-, C+
Duke C+, B-, C+
ECU C+, B-, C
Eastern Michigan D, D, D
Florida A-, A-, A-
Florida Atlantic D, C-, D
FIU D, D+, D+
Florida State B+, A-, B
Fresno State C+, B-, C
Georgia B+, A-, B+
Georgia Tech B+, B+, B+
Hawaii C, C+, C
Houston B-, B+, C
Idaho C-, C, C-
Illinois C+, C+, C+
Indiana B-, B, C+
Iowa B+, A-, B+
Iowa State B-, B, B-
Kansas B-, B-, B-
Kansas State B-, B-, B-
Kent State D, C-, D+
Kentucky B-, B, B-
Louisiana Tech C-, C, D+
Louisville C+, B-, C+
LSU A-, A-, A-
Marshall C+, B-, C+
Maryland B-, B, B-
Memphis C, C+, C
Miami A-, A, B+
Miami (OH) D, D+, C-
Michigan B, B+, B
Michigan State B, B+, B
Mid Tenn State C, C+, C+
Minnesota B, B, B
Mississippi State B, B-, B+
Missouri B, B+, B-
Navy C+, B, C+
NC State B-, B, C+
Nebraska B+, A-, B+
Nevada C+, B, C
New Mexico D+, D+, C
New Mexico State D, D+, D
North Carolina A-, B, A
North Texas C-, C, C-
Notre Dame B, B+, B
Northwestern B-, B-, B
Northern Illinois C, C, C
Ohio C-, C, C-
Ohio State A, A+, A
Oklahoma A, A, A-
Oklahoma State B+, A-, B+
Ole Miss B, B+, B+
Oregon State B+, A-, B+
Oregon B+, A-, B+
Penn State A-, A, B+
Pittsburgh B+, A-, B+
Purdue B-, B, B-
Rice D, C-, D+
Rutgers B, B+, B
San Diego State C, C+, C
San Jose State D, D, D+
SMU C+, C+, C+
South Carolina B, B, B
Southern Miss C+, B-, C+
Stanford B+, A-, B+
Syracuse C+, B-, C+
TCU B+, A, B+
Temple C, C+, C
Tennessee B, B, B+
Texas A-, A, A-
Texas A&M B+, A-, B
Texas Tech B, A-, B-
Toledo C-, C, C-
Troy C, B-, C
Tulane D+, C-, C-
Tulsa C+, B-, C
UAB C+, C+, C+
UCF B-, B-, B
UCLA B-, B, B-
UL Lafayette C-, C, C-
UL Monroe D, C-, D
UNLV C-, C, C-
USC A-, A, B+
USF C+, B-, C+
Utah B, B+, B
Utah State D+, C-, D+
UTEP C, B-, C-
Vanderbilt B-, B, B-
Virginia B-, C+, B
Virginia Tech B+, A, B+
Wake Forest B-, B, B
Washington B+, A-, B+
Washington State C+, B-, C+
West Virginia B+, A-, B+
Western Kentucky D, D, D
Western Michigan C-, C, C-
Wisconsin A-, A, B+
Iowa A- offense!?!
I was whining for someone to post this on the last page.
PSU A- Off. with a potted plant starting at QB and OL issues....Hmm
In my online dyn. Michigan is off limits(since we'll all UM fans) looks like I'll have to go with Stanford this year.
PSU's offense can not be an A....Evan Royster can be an A, but not their entire offense.
FWIW, Texas has an A- offense compared to them, and also, there's no way Iowa's offense (A-) can compare to Texas IMO.
Our offense is only a B+??? Come on...if they could rate Shaw's speed correctly and have Gallon in the game, does that make this a different story? No idea....but I'll let our on-field play do the talking
and A- overall(wat a joke). we're always a little worse than we should be on NCAA.
That's the only time Ohio State fans will see straight A's in their lives! *rimshot*
...and there it went
My understanding is that it's a limitation with the Xbox hardware. Too bad they can't let us PS3 players have 85 (btw we only get 70 on both platforms).
The craziest thing to me is Gibbons' rating. I don't know what he's done to deserve an 85 overall rating. I hope he proves that he deserves it this season. I think next would have to be Shaw's lack of speed. It's ridiculous to say that he's our slowest running back.
Looks like you're going to have to score a lot of points to win with M on this game. Especially if you're going to use them online.
We should def have a bowl team this year.
Hopefully they will all be as good or better than what NCAA predicts.
I usually think its funny how off the real life people are compared to NCAA. But this so far looks legit, some numbers could be changed but not as bad as previous years.
what are the catch ratings for your WRs?
I'll post the question on here instead of making it's own thread. If it fails to get attention then I'll make a new thread:
For those of you who plan to use the OperationSports rosters (360) for Dynasty how would you like to see Michigan's defense configured?
We're putting out 2 sets of rosters - one for online play without huge changes and then one for online dynasty play with more rerates, etc. Michigan is currently in a 4-3 in the game (Roh @ DE). So my question is would you like the rosters to be completely moved around and built for a 3-3-5, or do you just want to use Roh as the 4th down lineman?
The 3-3-5 is fine as long as YOU are playing with the team, but if you're not it's going be 4-3 using wrong personnel. Since the roster is being made for more than just UM fans, that is my one sticking point.
Anyway, any thoughts would be appreciate. Thanks.
I get the game every year and never know which gamertag to download my rosters from...
Depends on what system.
Check out Operation Sports Roster forum here: http://www.operationsports.com/forums/ncaa-football-rosters/
If you're 360 they will be up on my GamerTag (Abwehr) when they are fully named, then a second version will be up for online dynasty play a little bit later.
Sweet...yea i'm on 360. thanks