First of I’d like to Thank everyone for taking the time to provide some direct feedback for NCAA Football 10 it really helps us in keeping things together instead of filtering through 100’s of wish list/feedback posts on the entire game across multiple forums .
With that said I’m very interested in starting with Progression, given the initial feedback from the game and the released patch which changed it. I’m curious about what are your thoughts about the current state of progression in NCAA 10 and was the patch a step in the right direction in your opinion or not? Secondly I’d like to know what you feel is the most important aspect of a player progression both in our game and in reality (personally I feel they should be the same if not similar).
Some examples include:
• A players Potential – Some guys are just going to get good as they get older; sure playing time and coaches might help… but the kid is going to have All American talent
• The Team – Coaches and Facilities build great players; while a recruit has some ability he really can’t get much better unless someone helps him along the way
• On the Field – The only thing that matters is what you do on Saturday (or any other day the Sun Belt schedules a game ); meaning that his stats drive how good he can be.
I’ll be reading through every post here and we will have a Live Chat in the near future on this topic, so if you have questions put them in your post. I’ll try and get some free time to post as well, but we are working hard on the game right now.
Again, thanks for your time everyone!
-Russell Kiniry
Designer NCAA Football
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 11/20/2009 09:20:49
Why is speed so slow this year on recruits? Fastest Ive seen is 95?
That should barely increase if ever, and there should be 98 and 99 speed players out of HS just like in real life. Look at Ted Ginn in 04, he never got faster he already was fast. Same with Demps, Bush, etc.
QB Arm strength shouldnt increase much either, some of the pocket passing QBs should start with over 95 arm strength.
I think the recruits start too low in this years version especially at speed, cause it shouldnt really increase much. Usually in real life once someone is 16 to 20 they dont really get any faster, its almost impossible to get much faster than you naturally run once you are in good physical condition.
Some players should never improve more than a couple points and some should get way better fast.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 11/20/2009 10:27:31
• A players Potential – Some guys are just going to get good as they get older; sure playing time and coaches might help… but the kid is going to have All American talent
Change the ratings scale. First, they’re inflated. Second, they don’t represent reality at all.
College guys usually don't regress (some do) but many stall. The stall because of injuries, limited potential, poor work ethic, low football IQ, inability to deal with the structure and discipline needed to juggle football and college. And when they come in at 78 or 82, that's just far too high a rating. When teams recruit they look at how good someone is right now and how much potential they have. Some recruits are polished and are further along than most HS players - but have a low ceiling, and therefore aren't D1 recruits.
EA's rating scale is just not realistic. Too many 80s and 90s. We need to see 5-star recruits who are busts and 3 and 2 star recruits who become studs. Look at Notre Dame's offensive line. All 4 stars, all having had multiple years of starting, all mediocre. Yet EA has ranked them all in the high 70s or low 80s - yet, frankly speaking, as of right now, none deserve rankings higher than the low 80s.
The progression of most recruits is so predictable – all the 5-stars become 92+, and every 4-star becomes 88+, etc. There needs to be more variation.
Potential. I'd recommend a hidden potential rating. Perhaps you can access it on the player’s page. When you evaluate a player during recruiting - maybe you could see it then. Otherwise, it should be hidden to you. All current players should have theirs hidden. Why? Well, I'd be ticked to turn on the game, find that the highly-touted freshman on my favorite team, the guy who is guying to the NFL for sure, has a potential rating that sucks. And of course, you couldn’t change it.
Some players have an inordinate impact on the game due to their talent/ability – like Percy Harvin did for Florida. And Dexter McLuster does now. Let’s make high-ranking players more special.
90s are first round draft picks, max # of 30.
80's = drafted players.
70s = all-conference.
60s = solid starter.
50s = weak starter.
40s = backup, or 2-deep.
Yes this idea comes from "The College Years". But you cannot deny the logic within it. Some recruits are much more polished out of high school but lack the ability to grow much more (55/65) – the second number represents a hidden potential rating. Or they might be like Alex Smith out of San Diego who wasn't terribly polished, had a good arm, and became special in college (30/95) and the #1 pick in the draft (let's leave out NFL results).
Recruits should rarely be above 60. Most are highly-touted or given 5-stars based on size, speed, long arms, hard work ethic, perceived growth – in sum, potential. Few HS WRs run good routes or have good technique.
Most 5-stars are 5-star potential not 5-star reality. Some are ready to contribute early like Harvin or Dion Lewis at Pittsburgh, most cannot. A player like Harvin would have been 75/98. Tebow would have been 68/98. Lewis could be 70/82. You get the point.
Typical range. 5-stars would be 55-75 (3 or 4 in 70s). 4-stars would be 50-60. 3-stars would be 45-55. 2-stars would be 40-50. 1 stars would be < 40. There would be aberrations however. Understand that the typical range above would not mean that stars = ratings. You would still have problems with 5-stars who don’t qualify, never progress, have discipline problems. Likewise with 3 and 4-stars. Further, a certain percentage of each group (5-star, 4-star) would be below their rating. For example, 10% would fall below the normal 5-star range of rating of 55-75. Potential could also be a variant. 20% of the 5-stars would only have 80 as their potential max.
Position changes. Huge drops occur here unnecessarily. With the multitude of ratings, most players (not QBs or K/P) should be treated as athletes and given decent ratings on offense and defense. Look at Anthony Barr out of southern Cal - some schools want him as a RB, others as a LB, others as a DE. Maybe you have types - OG/OC/OT/DT, TE/OT, TE/DE/LB, WR/DB, RB/DB, scrambling QB/DB/WR.
Position changes occur all the time in college football with recruits, with freshman, and with sophomores. TCU DE Hughes was a HS RB. Former Miami DB Sean Taylor was a HS RB. Eric Winston from Miami got moved from TE to OT. All-conference DE, Martail Burnett from Utah, arrived as a WR/S at 6-4, 210. He became a 6-4, 255 DE that got moved by the NFL to OLB. James Bryant was a 4-star LB who signed with Miami, got moved to FB, then never progressed. TEs get moved to OT. LBs get moved to FB. Safeties to OLB or even DE. WRs to CB. QBs to Safety.
Progression should also be influenced by coaching. Coaches should have attributes - recruiting, coaching, development. The recruiting attribute affects the quality of the class, coaching attribute affects the quality of the coaching during the game (W/L), and development attribute affects how the players develop.
ps3.radoslaw77 wrote:• A players Potential – Some guys are just going to get good as they get older; sure playing time and coaches might help… but the kid is going to have All American talent
Change the ratings scale. First, they’re inflated. Second, they don’t represent reality at all.
College guys usually don't regress (some do) but many stall. The stall because of injuries, limited potential, poor work ethic, low football IQ, inability to deal with the structure and discipline needed to juggle football and college. And when they come in at 78 or 82, that's just far too high a rating. When teams recruit they look at how good someone is right now and how much potential they have. Some recruits are polished and are further along than most HS players - but have a low ceiling, and therefore aren't D1 recruits.
EA's rating scale is just not realistic. Too many 80s and 90s. We need to see 5-star recruits who are busts and 3 and 2 star recruits who become studs. Look at Notre Dame's offensive line. All 4 stars, all having had multiple years of starting, all mediocre. Yet EA has ranked them all in the high 70s or low 80s - yet, frankly speaking, as of right now, none deserve rankings higher than the low 80s.
The progression of most recruits is so predictable – all the 5-stars become 92+, and every 4-star becomes 88+, etc. There needs to be more variation.
Potential. I'd recommend a hidden potential rating. Perhaps you can access it on the player’s page. When you evaluate a player during recruiting - maybe you could see it then. Otherwise, it should be hidden to you. All current players should have theirs hidden. Why? Well, I'd be ticked to turn on the game, find that the highly-touted freshman on my favorite team, the guy who is guying to the NFL for sure, has a potential rating that sucks. And of course, you couldn’t change it.
Some players have an inordinate impact on the game due to their talent/ability – like Percy Harvin did for Florida. And Dexter McLuster does now. Let’s make high-ranking players more special.
90s are first round draft picks, max # of 30.
80's = drafted players.
70s = all-conference.
60s = solid starter.
50s = weak starter.
40s = backup, or 2-deep.
Yes this idea comes from "The College Years". But you cannot deny the logic within it. Some recruits are much more polished out of high school but lack the ability to grow much more (55/65) – the second number represents a hidden potential rating. Or they might be like Alex Smith out of San Diego who wasn't terribly polished, had a good arm, and became special in college (30/95) and the #1 pick in the draft (let's leave out NFL results).
Recruits should rarely be above 60. Most are highly-touted or given 5-stars based on size, speed, long arms, hard work ethic, perceived growth – in sum, potential. Few HS WRs run good routes or have good technique.
Most 5-stars are 5-star potential not 5-star reality. Some are ready to contribute early like Harvin or Dion Lewis at Pittsburgh, most cannot. A player like Harvin would have been 75/98. Tebow would have been 68/98. Lewis could be 70/82. You get the point.
Typical range. 5-stars would be 55-75 (3 or 4 in 70s). 4-stars would be 50-60. 3-stars would be 45-55. 2-stars would be 40-50. 1 stars would be < 40. There would be aberrations however. Understand that the typical range above would not mean that stars = ratings. You would still have problems with 5-stars who don’t qualify, never progress, have discipline problems. Likewise with 3 and 4-stars. Further, a certain percentage of each group (5-star, 4-star) would be below their rating. For example, 10% would fall below the normal 5-star range of rating of 55-75. Potential could also be a variant. 20% of the 5-stars would only have 80 as their potential max.
Position changes. Huge drops occur here unnecessarily. With the multitude of ratings, most players (not QBs or K/P) should be treated as athletes and given decent ratings on offense and defense. Look at Anthony Barr out of southern Cal - some schools want him as a RB, others as a LB, others as a DE. Maybe you have types - OG/OC/OT/DT, TE/OT, TE/DE/LB, WR/DB, RB/DB, scrambling QB/DB/WR.
Position changes occur all the time in college football with recruits, with freshman, and with sophomores. TCU DE Hughes was a HS RB. Former Miami DB Sean Taylor was a HS RB. Eric Winston from Miami got moved from TE to OT. All-conference DE, Martail Burnett from Utah, arrived as a WR/S at 6-4, 210. He became a 6-4, 255 DE that got moved by the NFL to OLB. James Bryant was a 4-star LB who signed with Miami, got moved to FB, then never progressed. TEs get moved to OT. LBs get moved to FB. Safeties to OLB or even DE. WRs to CB. QBs to Safety.
Progression should also be influenced by coaching. Coaches should have attributes - recruiting, coaching, development. The recruiting attribute affects the quality of the class, coaching attribute affects the quality of the coaching during the game (W/L), and development attribute affects how the players develop.
Youre insane if you think high 70s should be all conference. Every all conference player should have at least a 90 in the BCS conferences.
You think the players are rated too high? I think the incoming players are rated too low considering the exsisting teams have higher rated players.
playing time and performance should be the main factors that influence progression, which should also be suited towards the play style. a player can be on the field, but if he cant make plays, he's not getting better.
progression for the most part, should be based off of a weekly trend. lets use a qb for this example. if he's only putting up average numbers (15-30, 150 yards, 1 td, 1 int), he should receive a very minimal amount of progression (like a tenth of a point, since he is getting game time reps). if a qb is putting up heisman like numbers (35-40, 350 yds, 4 tds, 0 ints) every week, he should receive the max amount of weekly progression.
however, progression should not be handed out like candy on halloween night. players should have to prove they can play at a better level, than what they currently are at, in order to receive those progression points. that being said, if a player proves he cant play at a certain level or isnt given a chance, he shouldnt progress at all (maybe even go backwards). this proving ground should be at the minimum of a couple of weeks, and should be based off of the trend (meaning 1 awful or great game, in the middle of a streak of average performances doesnt skew the stats).
i play as hawaii in my offline dynasties. at one point, i had 3 runningbacks who were rated 90+, even though they were getting at most 5 touches a game. 5 touches! and yet, they were some of the best offensive players on my team. that just doesnt make sense at all. in pass heavy offenses, the qb's and receivers should be the easiest to progress (vice versa for rb's and fb's in run based offenses).
I thought it was perfect the way recruiting and player progresion worked in 09.
The problem with 09s recruiting, MLBs, DTs, TEs, Cs, K, P, FBs sucked and there werent enough good ones.
a 3 star fullback should be like a 5 star Tailback. Reason hes rated 3 stars is because the position isnt as highly rated, same with kickers and punters.
There shouldnt be 5 star kicker and punters, just 3 and 4 max becasue a 4 star kicker would have like an 80 plus rating and be like a 5 star at another position. Same with Fullback.
incoming freshman are also rated way too high. virtually every single year, i've managed to get some o and d-lineman, wr, or safety who's come in rated 87 or above (the worst was a true freshman d-tackle who came in as a 91). those type of players do not pop up every single year in real life. look at michael crabtree, who was probably the best receiving talent we've seen in maybe 10 years. the guy was a stud at the college level, yet we manage to see those caliber of players year in and year out at every position.
I think the player progression is perfect other than Speed, Arm Strength shouldnt increase very much maybe 1 to 3 points a career.
Which directly relates to recruiting. The recruits should have higher speeds than they do and improve almost 0 on speed, cause it is a natural ability they either dont have or have out of high school, same with arm strength, rarely do QBs arms get much bigger, maybe 5 yards max.
Progressions are okay at best. I agree though, there should be busts and hidden gems. A 2* like Kevin Smith who almost broke the record for most yards in a season. It is really difficult though cause playing time doesn't automatically mean a player is progressing but sitting doesn't mean he isn't learning or getting better either. It should be based on a mixture of Coaching, Facilities, the scheme and how they fit in it (a pocket passer may not progress very well in an option offense), playing time, on field results and others that I can't remember right now. Try to talk to some explayers (some of your Madden consults could give you feed back on what helped with their progression through college), coaches, NFL scouts and others who evaluate talent for the pro and college teams. I will post more ideas when I think of them.
I think agree with the people about some of the attributes that increase to much such as speed which in real life will rarely increase dramatically but over 4 years in college will increase slightly. I think recruits should come in with high ratings in certain categories but those ratings only change slightly through progression. The attributes should be speed, agility, acceleration, jumping, throw power, and kick power. Along with higher ratings in some areas recruits should also come in with lower ratings in others such as awareness and play recognition among others but these attributes increase more with progression. It would also help if more emphasis was put on the intangible attributes(elusiveness, ball carrier vision, route running, block shedding, pursuit, and play recognition). These attributes are underrated and should have more impact on how good a player is.
Also it would help if there were two different progression periods. You could have the one in the offseason and one in preseason. Of course you could split up the points more so as not to have such huge numbers in both. I think in the offseason everything could have the chance to get better but in the preseason only the intangible attributes should improve at all, because in the preseason a lot of players have a good increase in awareness and other places but would never increase in speed or agility.
I like the idea about potential but I don't think there should be a set potential rating I think if you put more emphasis on the intangible type attributes it would allow for some recruits to be gems and some busts. Along with his it is to easy to know what you are getting as far as the ratings being available right there. You should have to unlock them or something and even as you unlock them it isn't always exactly what they say. As you recruit a player more you realize well maybe he isn't as fast as we thought or well he isn't as accurate as we thought.
First of all, my hats off to NCAA. As Madden continues to disappoint on the new-age console, NCAA has been a bright spot since NCAA 2007 and continues to improve. With that said, my view on progression...
I'd love to see positional progression. If you recruit offensive linemen hard and emphasize their importance to your school and your system, I'd like to see your school get better at developing that specific position.
Secondly I'd like to see something that helps improve your school's academic level. What I mean is that it seems like it only goes down for me; furthermore, some players you scout say it's important while some say it's not, yet it doesn't necessarily let you know who's a good student and who's a bad student. There should be a educational or ethics grade attached to each player, and maybe use it as a risk/reward system. If an incoming student is a poor student, maybe he won't have much potential but he'll be better right away; where as a good student might not be as highly-rated, but would have more potential. Finally with this, go back to where you might have to sit a player for the season if he can't get his grades up.
One more thing I'd love to see with progression is relative progression and relative ratings. If I sign a quarterback with 75 carry and 75 speed in my option system, I'd like to see his speed and carrying progress instead of his throwing power or throwing accuracy. With relative ratings, If I have a speedy quarterback with good carry and I run an option offense, he should be rated higher than my pocket-passing quarterback with 55 speed.
Finally something that really frustrates me is recruiting kickers because of their progression. I take my kicking game very seriously; yet, I've had years where I signed the four-star kicker who comes in at 77 and someone who gets a walk on kicker is a 78. And if I start this kicker for four years, in his senior season he still misses extra points and I've never seen him get over 90.
Moderator
Joined: 05/30/2009 14:52:47
Messages: 918
Location: Canton, Ohio
Offline
I think you guys really did a good job with the progression patch this year. It made the game a lot better imo.
For NCAA11 I think it should be a combination of:
Coaching Staff Head Coach, Offensive Cord., D. Cord., and staff should have stats that are visible and have direct effect on their players. Also your staffs stats should fluctuate, giving us the ability to fire and hire new staff accordingly.
Facilities There is a team rating for this for recruiting, it should factor as a progression tool as well. The ability to upgrade your facilities to make players better could also be a neat feature that would help tie into progression.
Player Potential This stat should remain hidden, yet I also think there should be a way to every year of recruiting have an option to see a couple players progression rating. I think there should be more extremes too, such as; A low caliber player going from a low overall to a very high overall in a few years. On the other side of the coin there should be really high caliber players that just can not deliver on the college level. These should be a rarity and not to much of a common occurrence.
Thats all I can come up with right now, just want to say thank you to Russ for giving us, the community, the opportunity help shape on of our favorite games.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 11/20/2009 14:25:57
![[Search]](/eaforum/templates/default/skins/en_US/ea_sports/images/icon_mini_search.gif){kind=icon}
![[Groups]](/eaforum/templates/default/skins/en_US/ea_sports/images/icon_mini_groups.gif){kind=icon}
![[Post New]](/eaforum/templates/default/skins/en_US/ea_sports/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
![[Up]](/eaforum/templates/default/skins/en_US/ea_sports/images/icon_up.gif){kind=icon}
![[Avatar]](http://www.dghugo.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/ea_sports.png)
.
![[Avatar]](http://img693.imageshack.us/img693/1183/174286.jpg)
![[Avatar]](http://icons.iconator.com/591/ICONATOR_abe868f64742ba66680af080dd6771ab.gif){kind=icon}
