NCAA Football 11 News Post

NCAA Football 11 Video: "Preliminary" Dynasty Team Ratings

02:41 PM - June 17, 2010 by Steve_OS

Credit to MadScientist06 and The Gaming Tailgate.

Here is a spreadsheet for those interested. Thanks godwhyme.

Game: NCAA Football 11Reader Score: 8/10 - Vote Now
Platform: iPhone / PS2 / PS3 / Xbox 360Votes for game: 83 - View All

NCAA Football 11 Videos

Member Comments

# 61 jeremym480 @ 06/17/10 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dan_457


	Alabama fans seem to be the only ones here who don't recognize how dumb these ratings are. crazy homerism.

That's not entirely true. Bama fan here and I don't think that they deserve a 99 in Offense or Defense. However, I said this last year and I will say it again this year.... just about every team and just about every player is rated too high.

Whatever happened to stretched ratings?

Quote:

Originally Posted by AUChase89


	I hate Alabama as much as the next guy, but there's no sense in attacking an entire fan base because a few ignorant people. Alabama should be somewhere around 94-96 offensively imo. Let's not get this discussion off topic before it starts..

Thanks man.

# 62 Tovarich @ 06/17/10 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jolson88


	Okay, I'm an Oregon/Oregon State guy and I'm a little bit surprised about a #4 rating for the Ducks. But that may just be me. Also, sweet, with an overall of 60 (tied for lowest with Eastern Michigan), it looks like Western Kentucky in the Sunbelt will be my rebuild project this year . Though UL Monroe at 64 could be fun as well. Too bad it looks like stadium expansions won't be in this year though . I don't want to be stuck in smaller stadiums after I'm a powerhouse program :/.

Our big brother in Eugene's rating/ranking would likely go down if Masoli wasn't most likely on the roster since that happened too late to remove him. Might not be significant, but it would make a difference.

# 63 mkam89 @ 06/17/10 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michgantown


	Cal - 3* Central Michigan - 3* What?

I think the 3 stars are the most screwed up.
MSU - 3*
UCF - 3*
USF - 3*
Tulsa - 3*
Really?

Most the 3* in BCS conferences should probably be 4* except like Northwestern, Kentucky, Kansas and a few others

# 64 jmik58 @ 06/17/10 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BAMAJD


	I don't think we should have all 99's. Ive noticed a lot of the new bama users on here are half ********. I'll give Alabama an 94 or 95 on offense because we have tons of talent & experience on that side of the ball. Defense i'll give us a 94 or 93 we lost some in the secondary but everything else is just reloaded & in some cases better than last year.

Finally some objective insight. Points like this are things I can respect regardless of any little disagreement.

I do think the lack of returners on defense will be a problem, but I also see how it's possible for this year's starters to be just as good or better in time.

# 65 edscott @ 06/17/10 05:36 PM

Haha

Roll Tide. 99's! No wonder they didn't put us in the demo!

In all seriousness though, I would not argue that Alabama doesn't have a 96-99 offense. We have a heisman trophy winner returning, and a backup that in my opinion is a better running back than he is. QB is a game manager, nothing too spectacular, but he does what he needs to do. Everyone else that's returning has experience, with the exception of one or two OL. I do think it will be the best offense in college football, competition considered, which is the first time I have been able to confidently say that in years, maybe ever.

Defense, I'd give a 90-94 though, just because we have some highly touted, yet unproven players.

And for all you haters, give us a break. It's been a long time since we have been really great in this game, especially in recent years. Last year we were decent, but Florida, Texas, and Oklahoma were just ridiculous. Were people this upset about Florida's rankings last year? They had all A+'s before the edits right?

# 66 spartyon6686 @ 06/17/10 05:39 PM

How is Michigan a higher ranking than Michigan State
1. We are projected like 4th in BT this year they are like 9/11 in the BT.
2. We have beat them like the past few years.
3. We have had a better recruiting class then them this year.
4. Greg Jones
5. Are coach isn't a cheater.

# 67 UATide @ 06/17/10 05:47 PM

................roll tide

# 68 slingblade73 @ 06/17/10 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by edscott


	Haha Roll Tide. 99's! No wonder they didn't put us in the demo! In all seriousness though, I would not argue that Alabama doesn't have a 96-99 offense. We have a heisman trophy winner returning, and a backup that in my opinion is a better running back than he is. QB is a game manager, nothing too spectacular, but he does what he needs to do. Everyone else that's returning has experience, with the exception of one or two OL. I do think it will be the best offense in college football, competition considered, which is the first time I have been able to confidently say that in years, maybe ever. Defense, I'd give a 90-94 though, just because we have some highly touted, yet unproven players. And for all you haters, give us a break. It's been a long time since we have been really great in this game, especially in recent years. Last year we were decent, but Florida, Texas, and Oklahoma were just ridiculous. Were people this upset about Florida's rankings last year? They had all A+'s before the edits right?

edscott speaks the truth...

# 69 slingblade73 @ 06/17/10 05:54 PM

All the gatas had no problem when they were lights out....

now a new era...

# 70 dan_457 @ 06/17/10 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeleDinho


	Yo stfu forreal man. Where did all of these Bama' fans come from to begin with? "now a new era" Ohh really now? You guys win a NC when arguably the best QB in the country last season gets hurt 1st quarter and still almost let a UT team with a TRUE Fr. pull of a comeback & now you guys run the College world? Come on man, your kid who switches teams every year...

That's what I've been wondering.

# 71 Barkley7 @ 06/17/10 06:07 PM

LOL @ Alabama. Good luck stopping those beasts online. Boise and TCU seem overrated this year for pounding their conference's oversized highschool teams. What has Boise done the last couple years? Beat up WAC teams and go 3-1 vs Oregon and TCU. Big whoop weirdos.

On a side note, EA overrated Miami. What has Miami's offense done to deserve a 94? Oh, and Washington's offense (93) being higher than Florida's offense (92) is hilarious. I think one of the creators is probably an alum.

# 72 thaima1shu @ 06/17/10 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by osubeavs721


	Um the overall and the offense are WAAAY to high for washington. In the last 3 years they have won 9 games and that includes an 0-12 season. Washington should be no higher than an 85. They wont finish in the top 5 in the pac 10 again this year.

And 5 of those 9 wins came last year, off of a winless year, with a new coach installing a brand new system. And regarding our offense, it was already pretty decent last year. And now we have 9 returning starters, losing our fullback and Ben Ossai on the o-line (who sucked anyways). A top 5 finish is also quite realistic, and expected, at least to me.

# 73 edscott @ 06/17/10 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeleDinho


	Yo stfu forreal man. Where did all of these Bama' fans come from to begin with? "now a new era" Ohh really now? You guys win a NC when arguably the best QB in the country last season gets hurt 1st quarter and still almost let a UT team with a TRUE Fr. pull of a comeback & now you guys run the College world? Come on man, your kid who switches teams every year...

I am tired of this argument that Texas would have won had Colt McCoy not gotten hurt. One man cannot score 16 points by himself, and even if he could, it's a flaw in their scheme that their offensive production relies that heavily on ONE person. Colt McCoy was a shrimp (5'11", 185 lb) pitted up against monsters (the one that hit him was 6'3", 280), it was inevitable that he would get hurt eventually if he kept trying to run the ball. And we let off the gas a little bit after Colt got hurt too, I think. There was just an obvious change in tempo, I don't think either team knew how to react. The better TEAM won. Texas never really stood a chance, especially on Defense.
My .02

# 74 Michgantown @ 06/17/10 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by edscott


	I am tired of this argument that Texas would have won had Colt McCoy not gotten hurt. One man cannot score 16 points by himself, and even if he could, it's a flaw in their scheme that their offensive production relies that heavily on ONE person. Colt McCoy was a shrimp (5'11", 185 lb) pitted up against monsters (the one that hit him was 6'3", 280), it was inevitable that he would get hurt eventually if he kept trying to run the ball. And we let off the gas a little bit after Colt got hurt too, I think. There was just an obvious change in tempo, I don't think either team knew how to react. The better TEAM won. Texas never really stood a chance, especially on Defense. My .02

# 75 o 99 PROBL3MS o @ 06/17/10 06:21 PM

Bama fans should be wary of "reloading". USC recruits just as well as Bama and thought they would just reload after replaces 8 or so starters defensively. I don't expect the same thing from a Saban coached team but their will be some growing pains early on. It wouldn't suprise me at all if this year's Bama D is nearly as good as last year's by season end. You don't lose McClain, Cody, Anders, Jackson, Reamer, Deadrick, Fanney, Woodall, and MJ without feeling it. They will be nice by years end but 95-99 Nice? I think they should be in the 91-94 range defensively.

# 76 edscott @ 06/17/10 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michgantown

# 77 TracerBullet @ 06/17/10 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thaima1shu


	And 5 of those 9 wins came last year, off of a winless year, with a new coach installing a brand new system. And regarding our offense, it was already pretty decent last year. And now we have 9 returning starters, losing our fullback and Ben Ossai on the o-line (who sucked anyways). A top 5 finish is also quite realistic, and expected, at least to me.

I'm pretty sure they'll be in the top 5 in the conference as well. They may be slightly overrated, but its not too far off imo. WSU getting a C+ and a B- offense is a bigger deal too me. No way they are a C+ caliber team.

# 78 Barkley7 @ 06/17/10 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by edscott


	I am tired of this argument that Texas would have won had Colt McCoy not gotten hurt. One man cannot score 16 points by himself, and even if he could, it's a flaw in their scheme that their offensive production relies that heavily on ONE person. Colt McCoy was a shrimp (5'11", 185 lb) pitted up against monsters (the one that hit him was 6'3", 280), it was inevitable that he would get hurt eventually if he kept trying to run the ball. And we let off the gas a little bit after Colt got hurt too, I think. There was just an obvious change in tempo, I don't think either team knew how to react. The better TEAM won. Texas never really stood a chance, especially on Defense. My .02

I know that isn't McCoy's size. I think he's like 6'2" 215. I agree though. Bama tried to play milk the clock football all of the second half, which resuted in three and outs. Texas killed themselves with the shovel pass for TD, and plenty of dropped passes.

# 79 edscott @ 06/17/10 06:25 PM

I cannot wait for the season to start. Anyone hear go to UA and get student tickets? That stadium is gonna be so loud now that it's closed in!

# 80 edscott @ 06/17/10 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barkley7


	I know that isn't McCoy's size. I think he's like 6'2" 215. I agree though. Bama tried to play milk the clock football all of the second half, which resuted in three and outs. Texas killed themselves with the shovel pass for TD, and plenty of dropped passes.

Looked it up, and yea, you're right. 6'2" 210. My bad. Still pretty small in comparison though...

« Previous 1 2 345 6 7 8 9 10 Next »

More Links

NCAA Football 11 Video: "Preliminary" Dynasty Team Ratings