First thing I see is Michigan D > Alabama D. Mattison uber alles.
EDIT: Also BS on 99 for LSU offense.
First thing I see is Michigan D > Alabama D. Mattison uber alles.
EDIT: Also BS on 99 for LSU offense.
91 Offense & 89 Defense?
I don't think LSU's 99 offense is BS. Didn't you hear what they did to Tiger Stadium after the National Championship?
First thing I see is that 97 is our overall, not offense. It clearly says in the post "Overall - Offense - Defense - Prestige" yet OP added special teams instead of overall...
Also, our defense is rated lower than Alabama's and LSU isn't rated with a 99 offense.
I have glanced through their site, but it doesn't seem like much has changed from 12. Am I wrong on this? I'm not going to buy the game unless they have some pretty hefty new features.
They've added one new spectator. Besides that the game is unchanged.
The game has a few new features/updates/improvements. Of course that would defy the logic that no competition makes them put out crap every year without worrying about it.
I'm not going to buy the game unless they have some pretty hefty new features.
Isn't that what everyone says, every year?
I don't know what everyone else says. In the past I've purchased it for major changes to the team (RR being hired) or major changes in the game (custom playbooks). I don't really see any changes that would affect my game play, which is why I'm asking.
Rule of thumb I have is to buy it every other year.
Its like breathing, I just buy it without thinking of it, without telling myself to do it, it just happens.
Just a few bug fixes and new rosters, as usual. I know I wont be buying it.
I'm gonna be honest, us having a better D than Sparty doesnt make a lot of sense to me this year especially, w our question marks up front.
More importantly... Our d higher than Alabama's
A prestige rating of 6 is the maximum rating.
How intuitive of them.
Form will be: name, offense, defense, special teams, prestige
Alabama: 97, 92, 95, 6
Notre Dame: 97, 94, 95, 6
Michigan St.: 93, 89, 89, 4
Ohio: 95, 89, 95, 6
all need their o and d ratings switched. ND needs 10 subtracted from all their ratings.
So they have MSU's offense (new QB, new WR's, etc) higher rated than their defense?? That would make me want to buy this game for it's "accuracy"
Skimmed through the ratings and it looks like defenses are lower rated across the board...I think I only saw one team with a defense rating above 95 (USC with a 99), while there were many many teams with offenses above 95.
So ND is better than Bama?
Note: You guys do know that EA doesn't create the overall rankings...right?
They're based on the player ratings and more emphasis is put on starters.
A team with 11 starters at 90...and a bunch of reserves at 60 could have a better overall rating than a team with 11 starters at 85 and a bench full of 80s. The latter is the better unit, but the game may not read it like that (that may be a dramatic example, but it IS weighted).
Also, EA traditionally doesn't "downgrade" players...so if they hyped a kid as a sophomore and he didn't play well, he'll still be good his junior and senior year.
I wouldn't be shocked to see someone like JT Floyd as like a 92 in the game. No disrespect to JT, but that's a big stretch. Someone like Craig Roh, who's started since his freshman year is also likely to be overrated in the game.
Every year I adjust the ratings and make them as realistic as I possibily can compared to other players. I wait until the names come out and then I adjust the top 50 players at each position, and then do Michigan based off that. I also use two pre-season magazines to help, so it's not biased.
The biggest reason I adjust is to boost the freshman and redshirt freshman. With the way you can recruit in the game, guys like Keith Heitzman and Chris Bryant will NEVER see the field in 4 years...in fact, they often get cut. You can make them a respectable rating in the high 70s as redshirt freshman and they eventually become starters or role players as upperclassmen.
And so begins the 14th straight year of MSU fans bitching about how they got screwed on their ratings.
Oregon is not a 6*
There are 14 schools with a 6 rating. There should only be 10 so i think these 4 should be 5's: Oregon, Clemson, Boise St., and Ohio. Picking a 4th was tough, so I made it easy.
I don't think that Miami deserves to be a 6 right now, or maybe ND doesn't, but I think OSU does.
Not sure Boise deserves even a 5.
ohio probably should be a five simply because we will never here the end of it if they are not. I feel like Miami should be a five. There previous eight seasons or so have been only mediocre in a relatively weak acc.
correction ohio 6, Miami 5
has one season where they ALMOST aren't a complete disappointment and they jump 2 stars to a 6 star team?
Sense this does not make.
Auburn and miami...ehhhh
The only time when stars are relevant is recruiting in Dynasty mode. There are 14 6* schools, and I wouldn't be surprised if Oregon is one of the 14 biggest recruiting draws for high school kids right now.
The only 6* ratings I would quibble with are Boise State (even with their success, they still can't recruit with the big boys) and Miami (not a recruiting powerhouse recently).
Come on they were shut out by an SEC defense. That is very good! Ussually because of the SEC speed an offense has negative points at the end of a game.
Clearly EA wasn't dissauded by the Orange Bowl because Clemson still got a 97, 96, 91. And I don't know what compelled them to put Utah at 95, 92 ,91
West Virginia just scored again.
Those ratings are an absolute joke.
If you were to make a top 25 based on these scores, weighting the offense, defense, and special teams scores equally, you'd get this:
Yeah.... that top 25 seems pretty bad to me.
Wisconsin being the #1 overall team was the most surprising to me.
From how the polls actually work...
It certainly doesn't track the consensus polls, but it's not too silly (other than Notre Dame at #6, obviously). And remember, these are based only on video game player ratings - they overrate recruiting hype (as opposed to performance, which leads them to overrate disappointing 4* and 5* recruits - e.g. Notre Dame) and don't take into account things like coaching acumen and experience.
Honestly the only justification I can see for this is that they want no one to be less than 80. They need a better scale if everyone is in the 90s. If someone's offense is a 45, well, they should play better. If I can autoplay a game against a terrible team and have it not be a blowout, there's something wrong there.
Agreed. If I autoplay a B1G's first week against a 1-AA team, it shouldn't even be close.
Is Oregon's defense higher rated than it's offense?
In Denard's speed. First ever over 100? Assume he will have highest ever speed rating for a QB. Vick, Roberson, White, Crouch and Bollinger have to be up there.
I went out and bought NCAA 2006 for $3. Everyone should do the same.
Why the hell didn't you already have it?
I had it loaded on my PS2 HDD. I want a copy I can take to work.
A few weeks ago, I think you made a comment, along with other people, on how people were still playing NCAA 2006 to this very day. After this, I frantically looked everywhere for my old Xbox and NCAA 2006 game, to no avail.
That was a damn good game, I miss it.
Overall Offense Defense
That would seem to make more sense.
It looks like the site changed it to this now. However, that still makes no sense -- how would a Michigan offense of 94 and defense of 91 add up to an overall of 97?
EA has historically been pretty bad at aggregating player ratings (or, at the very least, the aggregated rating isn't a simple average). But I think part of the reason for this is that a team's aggregate strength isn't necessarily just the average of their offense and defense. For instance, EA might rate Michigan's offense as better than 94/100 of the other offenses in the NCAA and their defense better than 91/100 of the defenses. But since it's hard to have both a good offense and a good defense, this might make their team better than 97/100 of the teams in the NCAA.
Obviously some other factors go into these numbers, but I think this is the general idea.
when i go to the link it says overall, offense, special teams. No defense rating is listed when i look at it
That makes no sense to show there, but it's what it is. It also must mean that Michigan has a 98 or 99 defense if we have an overall of 97 with a 94 offense and 91 ST.
the overall rating can be higher if both your offense and defense are top rated for each. I think both our O and D are in the 6.
Are they gonna actually incorporate neutral site games this year ? In the game last year I played a season with Oregon and had to play the first game at LSU NOT cowboy stadium
Hope so. Not looking forward to our season starting in Alabama on the game.
2004 was the best...I played that non stop...League Daddy was the shit.
I have a soft spot for '07. Your receivers could actually burn a corner if he had the speed, and playing with option teams is SO much fun. Pat White was an absolute beast. I could play with WVU or Michigan all day
Terrible. I will not buy NCAA this year, for the first time in a while. I will take a long hard look at Madden though. I think they have a new physics engine this year, but I don't think they have fantasy draft, which kinda sucks.
Here are individual player ratings for Michigan's offense. I think Denard's ratings got worse... No dreads either.
The split M logo has finally been replaced. At least ea sports "gets it" in regards to the current marketing image that the AD wants to trot out there.
They don't have hemmingway's new number either.
First, NCAA 12 was an excellent game that incorporated a lot of new features like Coaching Carousel and Conference Changes. The issue was the gameplay which after reading reviews of the demo sounds like the gameplay is improved, if not amazing.
Second, don't buy the game on release. Wait two weeks for truly dedicated individuals to re-do their rosters and adjust likenessess (Denard w/dreads), ratings, names, etc. and also for a decent slider set to emerge.
EDIT: I realize "excellent" may be a bit of a leap. It wasn't excellent, but it was good outside of the super-jumping LBs and psychic DBs, and the problems running screens, options, or play action. Okay, fine, the gameplay was bad. But, COACHING CAROUSEL. CONFERENCE REALIGNMENT. I loved that ish.
I'm gonna chalk Texas as a 99 overall to be a typo because that is IMPOSSILBE. I watched seval of their games and Ash will be no higher than an 86. No chance they have a 99 OFFENSE.
Everytime I buy this game I get really excited at first. Then I realize that Denard always gets hurt and it is the same game every year. They barely change anything.
My biggest issue w/this game is the amount of time they force you to spend on recruiting. In the old ones, you would just put recruiting points on players. Now you have to work on each player individually and each one take a few each week and it's way too much of a time committment/
I used to love recruiting but now if im playing several seasons I hate it. 30 minutes every week if you really want to get dialed in. Just give me an end of the year only recruiting option so it doesnt take 17 hours to play a season.
With Michael Vick and Denard, EA made it impossible to break away and run.
I haven't bought either game since the 2007 versions.
Virginia Tech 99 D. :o
Been in NCAA hibernation since 06, so I might get this one. Hear a lot of complaints about gameplay though, "rocket catching", inaccurate defensive play, et cetera
Hit me up for a game or dynasty. Gamertag: Ih8ohiost8
These ratings are a joke. I wont make a comment about Michigans, but LSU with 99 offense? MSU with a better offensive rating than their defensive rating? According to player ratings, MSU's best player is the kicker, and William Gholston isn't even in the top 10. I really hope these are still a work in progress
The only time I ever really liked Madden and NCAA was drafting and recruiting. I ended up always getting pissed off instead as things always seemed to be too random for me.
Michigan starts at 8:06 of video.
Not a fan of Denard only getting 90 ACC, oh well easy fix