joeyb

June 5th, 2012 at 4:40 PM ^

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.

MGoVillain

June 5th, 2012 at 4:42 PM ^

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.  

hart20

June 5th, 2012 at 4:43 PM ^

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

woodfeld

June 5th, 2012 at 4:48 PM ^

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.

Mr. Yost

June 5th, 2012 at 10:47 PM ^

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.

 

D-Rob4Prez

June 5th, 2012 at 5:13 PM ^

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.

Other 6's:

Bama

Auburn

Florida

LSU

Miami

ND

Oklahoma

Texas

USC

Us

MgoRayO3313

June 5th, 2012 at 6:37 PM ^

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.

Ali G Bomaye

June 6th, 2012 at 12:08 PM ^

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).

lhglrkwg

June 5th, 2012 at 5:13 PM ^

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

Drill

June 5th, 2012 at 5:16 PM ^

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:

1 Wisconsin
2 Texas
3 USC
4 LSU
5 Oregon
6 Notre Dame
7 Oklahoma
8 Alabama
9 Clemson
10 Florida St.
11 Michigan
12 Virginia Tech
13 Ohio St.
14 Oklahoma St.
15 South Carolina
16 Utah
17 Arkansas
18 Georgia
19 TCU
20 Auburn
21 Stanford
22 Texas Am
23 Michigan St.
24 Washington
25 Nebraska

Yeah.... that top 25 seems pretty bad to me.

Ali G Bomaye

June 6th, 2012 at 12:10 PM ^

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.

ryebreadboy

June 5th, 2012 at 5:26 PM ^

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.

D-Rob4Prez

June 5th, 2012 at 5:36 PM ^

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.