NCAA Football 11 Video: "Preliminary" Dynasty Team Ratings

[DaltonT4]

Quote: Originally Posted by GatorFan1963

Using bowl games as an argument nowadays isn't saying much considering many teams with .500 records go to bowls. The fact is that Kentucky has been nothing more than a barely above .500 team if you take their records over the past 4 seasons. And of those past 4 seasons they haven't finished above 4-4 in the SEC. So 3* is right where they need to be.

I guess your right, 4 bowl games in a row is big by UK standerds, stars don't matter anyway, if you do good enough in dynasty they go up so 3* by 3 or 4 years you can be a 6*.

[dan_457]

Quote: Originally Posted by NDFan1029

For everyone complaining about the stars: The star totals for the team have absolutely nothing to do with how good a team is AT THIS POINT or the numbered ratings; it is purely based on that particular school's prestige and past program history OVERALL. Think about it: if it were based on how good a team is right now, Notre Dame and Michigan wouldn't be 6 star programs, but the stars are based off of the entire school's history.

It's actually more like a combination of the two, with recent success playing a large role, otherwise teams wouldn't change prestige raitings for 10+ years. Look at Boise state, i think they're a 5* star this year, and they don't even have any real historical prestige at all.

[bamaCT12]

I don't care what you "other" guys say but
Alabama's about to RUN THIS ****
WE SAID we were back EVEN when we went 7-6 in Saban's first year, and everybody laughed... but we knew we landed one of the best recruiting classes in history (named no. 8 all time by S.I.)
we were one quarter away for playin for a title in '08....then we landed another top class
and we finished in '09
and we will do it again
this is goin 2 be one of the sickest duo's in the history of all of sports...
and with guys like Malcolm Brown and Isaiah Crowell in town you can get used to it!!!
get your popcorn ready!!!!!
because another dynasty is coming

[TheGamingChef]

Quote: Originally Posted by jmik58

I do believe EA's policy for raising/lowering program prestige, etc. has to do with # of wins in a season and conference championships, etc. I remember my team prestige going up after a 10 win season, after a conference championship, etc. Maybe they're using some cryptic algorithm that is more than a gut feeling.

Clearly that's not the case... see Iowa State losing a star after a winning season with a bowl victory

[tswiatkowski]

Quote: Originally Posted by stoncold32

Bama's QB was near horrible last year. Unless he turned into Sam Bradford over the summer, I dont think they're deserving of a 99 offense

McElroy played all right. He wasn't the greatest, but he could certainly manage a game at the very least. I would give Bama about a 93 on offense and maybe an 89 or 90 on D. I understand only one starter is returning but there is no way that they will see the dropoff people are calling for.

[jmik58]

Quote: Originally Posted by TheGamingChef

Clearly that's not the case... see Iowa State losing a star after a winning season with a bowl victory

I said "after a 10 win season or conference championship."

I don't think anything is "clearly" understood in regards to prestige by anyone other than the person who programmed it into the game.

[TheGamingChef]

Quote: Originally Posted by jmik58

I said "after a 10 win season or conference championship." I don't think anything is "clearly" understood in regards to prestige by anyone other than the person who programmed it into the game.

But it's not an algorithm affected by "# of wins in a season" as you alluded to. It seems very subjective to me. Unfortunately, it can't be edited like player ratings.

[Jakeness23]

Why's everybody downing my Tar Heels? I know their offense isn't GREAT, but it's decent and their defense is freaking incredible.