NCAA Football 09 Team Ratings (These are NOT Final)

[therizing02]

The ratings argument could go on forever. I will give EA credit for FINALLY not overrating Notre Dame.

[davin]

Quote: Originally Posted by therizing02

The ratings argument could go on forever. I will give EA credit for FINALLY not overrating Notre Dame.

Interestingly enough in my game last year, the first couple years Notre Dame went off the map (before I did roster edits). I started to wonder why ND completely fell out of power (this was before the season).

[Preo32]

I went on a college visit to Mizzou, and thats where i want to go. I plan on makin a dynasty wit them. Before i thought about what colleges i wanted to go to, my 3 favorite teams were Georgia, Oregon and South Florida. I lived in GA so i still like em a lot, and Oregon and USF i started likin about 5 years ago. Those 4 teams are the ones id play wit online, but Mizzou in my dynasty for sure.

[Preo32]

Also. its funny u used the Rice Owls stadium as an example. on 08 i had a dynasty wit them where u make the guy (idk y but i cant remember what the mode is called) He was amazing. 83 over freshman year and won Heisman. I also beat Georgia in the Chick-Fil-A Bowl and went undefeted and ended up 14th in the polls

[AuburnAlumni]

Quote: Originally Posted by therizing02

The ratings argument could go on forever. I will give EA credit for FINALLY not overrating Notre Dame.

Here is my issue with EA's ratings system..and the reason it IS an issue is because it's been constant over the last 10 years.

There are certain "sacred teams" in NCAA that EA continuously gives the benefit of the doubt.

By that I mean....not only are the "name" players on the team rated extremely high, but unknown players stepping in as starters get rated extremely high.

Other teams have their "name" players rated high but get shafted overall because the other guys get rated pretty damn low.

Using Auburn as an example...and Auburn is definitely NOT the only team to get the shaft by EA....Ronnie Brown was rated high, Carnell, etc. But many of our starters on that team were rated in the low to mid 70s. Meanwhile, guys on LSU and UGA who weren't every experienced, etc. were rated at least an 80.

I'm sure the ratings will change some, but it's pretty damn annoying when Auburn returns 7 starters off of the #1 total defense in the SEC and I see an effing 79 rating for them on defense....while Florida...who couldn't stop a cold last year on Defense....has a 90 rating on D. Hell...going by that list..Florida, Tennessee, Georgia, LSU, and South Carolina all have much higher rated Ds on 09 than Auburn.

Obviously I'm harping on Auburn because I'm an Auburn fan and use Auburn, but you could substitute a bunch of other teams for AU and it's the same deal.

End of rant.

[peteykirch]

Quote: Originally Posted by AuburnAlumni

Here is my issue with EA's ratings system..and the reason it IS an issue is because it's been constant over the last 10 years. There are certain "sacred teams" in NCAA that EA continuously gives the benefit of the doubt. By that I mean....not only are the "name" players on the team rated extremely high, but unknown players stepping in as starters get rated extremely high. Other teams have their "name" players rated high but get shafted overall because the other guys get rated pretty damn low. Using Auburn as an example...and Auburn is definitely NOT the only team to get the shaft by EA....Ronnie Brown was rated high, Carnell, etc. But many of our starters on that team were rated in the low to mid 70s. Meanwhile, guys on LSU and UGA who weren't every experienced, etc. were rated at least an 80. I'm sure the ratings will change some, but it's pretty damn annoying when Auburn returns 7 starters off of the #1 total defense in the SEC and I see an effing 79 rating for them on defense....while Florida...who couldn't stop a cold last year on Defense....has a 90 rating on D. Hell...going by that list..Florida, Tennessee, Georgia, LSU, and South Carolina all have much higher rated Ds on 09 than Auburn. Obviously I'm harping on Auburn because I'm an Auburn fan and use Auburn, but you could substitute a bunch of other teams for AU and it's the same deal. End of rant.

Hell what pissed me off was how poorly they rated the starting offensive lineman for Rutgers. You had a team that gave up what? 6 or 7 sacks in a whole season, and the highest player was 85 overall.

[countryboy]

Quote: Originally Posted by AuburnAlumni

Here is my issue with EA's ratings system..and the reason it IS an issue is because it's been constant over the last 10 years. There are certain "sacred teams" in NCAA that EA continuously gives the benefit of the doubt. By that I mean....not only are the "name" players on the team rated extremely high, but unknown players stepping in as starters get rated extremely high. Other teams have their "name" players rated high but get shafted overall because the other guys get rated pretty damn low. Using Auburn as an example...and Auburn is definitely NOT the only team to get the shaft by EA....Ronnie Brown was rated high, Carnell, etc. But many of our starters on that team were rated in the low to mid 70s. Meanwhile, guys on LSU and UGA who weren't every experienced, etc. were rated at least an 80. I'm sure the ratings will change some, but it's pretty damn annoying when Auburn returns 7 starters off of the #1 total defense in the SEC and I see an effing 79 rating for them on defense....while Florida...who couldn't stop a cold last year on Defense....has a 90 rating on D. Hell...going by that list..Florida, Tennessee, Georgia, LSU, and South Carolina all have much higher rated Ds on 09 than Auburn. Obviously I'm harping on Auburn because I'm an Auburn fan and use Auburn, but you could substitute a bunch of other teams for AU and it's the same deal. End of rant.

[baylrballa]

Quote: Originally Posted by DookieMowf

I couldn't make out Baylor's ratings. They all looked like they were in the 40s to me. =/

looks like 49s across the board

[CM Hooe]

UVa got pooed on.

[o 99 PROBL3MS o]

Quote: Originally Posted by countryboy

Yeah I have to agree hear man. Certain teams always get the benefit of the doubt. I'm an Arkansas fan and we've led the SEC in rushing 8 out of the last 10 seasons (save the two years Auburn had Caddy and Ronnie) and our offensive line is always one of the worse on the game. How can a team who leads the nations best conference in rushing virtually every year and also finishes in the two 3 or 4 in sacks allowed have 70OVR's across the board. Casey Dick our QB went from an 85OVR on NCAA 07 all the way down to a 77OVR on NCAA 08. Casey isn't a superstar but is he really the worse starting QB in the NCAA??? Thats what EA thinks apparently although both of Miami's QB's who had worse seasons saw a ratings increase.