NCAA Football 11 Live Tuning Pack 1, Available Now

[superjew887]

APPLAUSE, APPLAUSE, F'ING APPLAUSE!!!!!

[LambertandHam]

Quote: Originally Posted by Solidice

and to compare, the top tackle ratings for CBs(simmed 6 season). 81, 79, 77, 77, 77 FSs seem to have a lot of good tacklers though.

That's why most of the time I don't even bother recruiting CB's outside of ones that have high interest in me. When a 6'3 FS has around the same coverage skills and more hitting power then my 5'10 CB, I'm going to start him.

[mgoblue678]

Quote: Originally Posted by Mobaby

This isn't that bad when you think of it this way 1 star: 40-50 2 stars: 50-60 3 stars: 60-70 4 stars: 70-80 5 stars: 80-90 I don't think a freshman should ever come in rated in the 90s, but I do think thats how it should work. The problem is that the bad schools are getting bad players. but how is this a problem? Seems to me to get a good team, it might takes years. Which is...wait for it...REALISTIC.

It is bad because 1 * guys aren't even signed by the worst teams in real life. They are D2 and D3 players. Go look at the worst teams you can imagine in the country and their recruiting classes. They are made up of all 2* players at worst. A team that didn't even win 1 game last year in Eastern Michigan didn't sign anybody below a 2 *. Since this is a D1 game they don't belong in the game let alone taking about as much of team's depth charts as they do.

And how would it not take years to build if the bad teams had their players coming in at 50-60. They are still much worse than the better teams incoming recruits.

For the record I don't really disagree with your chart there. Pretty similar to what I would come up with, but it is not the same one the game is using. I have seen mutiple 2* under 50 and some 3* under 60 simulating so far.

[Nextel Husker]

What exactly is "progression?"

[mavfan21]

Quote: Originally Posted by poopoop

Here I'll give you the top 5 in each category. This is from year 6 all CPU generated players. Top 5 Wr Elusiveness ratings: 79, 78, 77, 77, 76 Top 5 Wr Juke ratings: 80, 79, 78, then 4 guys at 77 Top 5 Wr Spin ratings: 78, then a bunch of guys at 76 I don't know what it looked like w/o the tuner. They take up roster spots leaving less depth at other positions. And if the computer teams aren't cutting these guys it could be because players at other positions are even worse.

It looked like that.

Guess the WR ratings weren't touched at all. Compared to the default rosters the WR recruits are horrible. Yeah, their OVR looks fine, but trying to use them in slants, screens, end arounds, options or any other play where you want to get them in space and try to make a guy miss....pointless. They can run and catch and get tackled, that's it.

Oh well, Madden comes out Tuesday. I've waited 4 weeks to play football, what's one more?

[Dax(FlowLyfe)]

Why does your chart still clearly show teams degrading? Shouldn't teams be in a constant state of flux, every team on this chart has gotten worse.

[mavfan21]

Quote: Originally Posted by JohnTesh

You sure? It is evident that they did NOT do that before releasing the game.

Great point.

[The Barnacle]

So they lowered tackling to fix the receiver issue of having bad elusiveness, juke, agility and what not.