Should NCAA copy what Madden did w/ players rated by scheme, and player developement?

[BV11]

Players Rated by Scheme

In Madden every player is rated by how well they fit into what scheme the team runs. Basically what this means is that a player can be highly regarded for one system, but not valuable in another one. I think that this idea fits into NCAA even better than it does in Madden since there is so much variety between systems. In the NFL, most teams line up in Pro-style sets and there isn't a whole lot of variety in what is being run.

An example of this..

Player A is a QB.
Player A: 90 SPD, 90 ACL, 90 AGL, 80 THP, 82 THA (I think NCAA should add QB accuracy short/medium/deep, but that is for another day)

This guy looks like he was tailor made for Oregon's offense. Great speed and quickness, to be able to keep the defense honest on the zone read. He is accurate enough to hit the screen passes and quick hitters that is most of what Oregon's QB's throw. You could expect this guys overall in Oregons offense to be in the 85-87 range.

Put this same player in a scheme like USC's where they like to have a pocket QB who can stand back there and get the ball down the field vertically to big play receivers, and his value is diminished. This guy might be rated in the 73-75 range at USC, because he just doesn't have the arm to get the ball down the field like they like. He of course wouldn't be penalized for his speed, but it is just not as valuable in a Pro style offense.

This could work for any position. Say a team likes to run strictly man to man coverage, a guy with a 95 zone rating and a 70 man rating isn't going to be good in that system because he is only getting to utilize his 70 man rating and never gets to play zone.

Now understand that this doesn't actually change any of the players ratings, it just compiles an overall based into how well they fit your system, and allows you to easier see who fits what you are trying to do.

User Controls Player Development

Basically what this is for guys that don't play madden, is guys earn skill points basically depending on a bunch of different factors, such as their age, potential rating, playing time, etc. You then use these skill points to develop each player however you see fit.

I think this would be an excellent addition because in college coaches tell guys the things that they want them to work on/how they would like them to progress (Another way they could do this is basically just let you prioritize which areas you would like to see a player progress in and let the CPU do it for you.)

I was just interested as to where people stood regarding these ideas.

[dude_man123]

I chose just the player ratings scheme. I think that's a great aspect on Madden. You choose the right guys for the right offense.

But I chose just schemes because of 2 things. Madden does a horrible job of ratings by potentials. And potentials are really just dumb in Madden.

[TimLawNYC]

I think the scheme-based player ratings is a good idea, and I think it needs to be integrated with recruiting as well. In the QB example from the OP, if that guy was being recruited and deciding between Oregon and USC, he should favor USC because their scheme fits his abilities better, so he knows he'd be a better player as a Duck than a Trojan. EA has taken a step in this direction already with the new "Playing Style" school rating, but if they could tailor it even more to each recruit's abilities, all the better.

One problem I see, though, is that EA still doesn't really know what players are good in which schemes. A good example is the way they treat 3-4 defenses vs. 4-3 defenses in this game. It's tough to run a successful and realistic 3-4 defense in this video game because EA does not account for the specialized type of defensive tackle that makes a 3-4 truly work. Instead, the lines play just the same as they do in a 4-3, with no effort from the NT to clog up 2 offensive linemen--which is the whole point of running a 3-4. Another example is the way the game currently has little to no real distinction between the "Air Raid" and "Spread" playbooks and schemes, while in real life there are important differences (such as the offensive linemen in the Air Raid lining up with bigger gaps between them to widen the offensive line as a whole).

As far as player development, I don't think it should be in the player's hands. I would, however, like to see a player's development be influenced by his performance on the field. If I have a freshman RB who tears it up one year and rushes for 1600 yards, that should be reflected in a big offseason ratings bump. Conversely, redshirted players who never see game action do not get as much experience and should not grow quite as much that offseason.

[BV11]

Quote: Originally Posted by TimLawNYC

One problem I see, though, is that EA still doesn't really know what players are good in which schemes. A good example is the way they treat 3-4 defenses vs. 4-3 defenses in this game. It's tough to run a successful and realistic 3-4 defense in this video game because EA does not account for the specialized type of defensive tackle that makes a 3-4 truly work. Instead, the lines play just the same as they do in a 4-3, with no effort from the NT to clog up 2 offensive linemen--which is the whole point of running a 3-4. Another example is the way the game currently has little to no real distinction between the "Air Raid" and "Spread" playbooks and schemes, while in real life there are important differences (such as the offensive linemen in the Air Raid lining up with bigger gaps between them to widen the offensive line as a whole). As far as player development, I don't think it should be in the player's hands. I would, however, like to see a player's development be influenced by his performance on the field. If I have a freshman RB who tears it up one year and rushes for 1600 yards, that should be reflected in a big offseason ratings bump. Conversely, redshirted players who never see game action do not get as much experience and should not grow quite as much that offseason.

I definitely agree with you about the 3-4 not playing like a true 3-4 due to the games limitations. That would in a dream world be addressed first so that size/strength really mattered. That is more on the gameplay side of things and something I really would like to see fixed. I think they could still grade players overall in schemes according to how good they SHOULD be, regardless if the games limitations allows them to play like that.

On the topic of player development, I have to say I disagree with your line of thinking. To me, the reason a player has a great season is because he IS good already (or perhaps is just in an ideal system for his skillset, which goes back to the first point).

If you have a freshman that rushes for 1600 yards, to me he should only be able to do that BECAUSE he is a good player. He doesn't rush for 1600 yards and THEN become a good player the next season. This has a lot to do with guys playing to their ratings in this game though, because sometimes if a guy has 99 speed and not much else, he can be better than a 99 Overall guy who is slow.

You are saying having a good season causes you to be better. I say already being good causes you to have a good season. That would be like saying Johnny Manziel is going be WAY better next season than he was this season since he had a good year this year. To me he was good already. I agree with your point about playing time though, the more playing time and experience a guy gets should definitely progress him faster than a guy riding the pine.

If it was my choice, I would have both a potential, and a work ethic rating for each player. Potential would be based on his athletic, physical abilities, and rated by how good a guy could POSSIBLY become. Work ethic would determine how quickly a player would reach his potential.

You got a guy who has a 50 work ethic rating but 99 potential (say a 6'4, 220 lb. receiver with 99 speed and 98 Jump)? Going to be a frustrating guy because he never will progress his skills much even though the raw athletic ability is there.

Or you could have a guy with 80 Potential (5'11 180 lb. receiver with 85 Speed and 80 Jump) and 99 work ethic. This guy is never going to become a superstar because he doesn't have the size or athletic ability, but he will be a guy who develops to his potential very fast because he works so hard.

[jello1717]

Quote: Originally Posted by BV11

Players Rated by Scheme In Madden every player is rated by how well they fit into what scheme the team runs. Basically what this means is that a player can be highly regarded for one system, but not valuable in another one. I think that this idea fits into NCAA even better than it does in Madden since there is so much variety between systems. In the NFL, most teams line up in Pro-style sets and there isn't a whole lot of variety in what is being run. An example of this.. Player A is a QB. Player A: 90 SPD, 90 ACL, 90 AGL, 80 THP, 82 THA (I think NCAA should add QB accuracy short/medium/deep, but that is for another day) This guy looks like he was tailor made for Oregon's offense. Great speed and quickness, to be able to keep the defense honest on the zone read. He is accurate enough to hit the screen passes and quick hitters that is most of what Oregon's QB's throw. You could expect this guys overall in Oregons offense to be in the 85-87 range. Put this same player in a scheme like USC's where they like to have a pocket QB who can stand back there and get the ball down the field vertically to big play receivers, and his value is diminished. This guy might be rated in the 73-75 range at USC, because he just doesn't have the arm to get the ball down the field like they like. He of course wouldn't be penalized for his speed, but it is just not as valuable in a Pro style offense. This could work for any position. Say a team likes to run strictly man to man coverage, a guy with a 95 zone rating and a 70 man rating isn't going to be good in that system because he is only getting to utilize his 70 man rating and never gets to play zone. Now understand that this doesn't actually change any of the players ratings, it just compiles an overall based into how well they fit your system, and allows you to easier see who fits what you are trying to do.

I could see the scheme thing being useful for CPU recruiting and could help CPU teams to get guys for their systems, but I don't see how it's useful for users. Does anyone even look at the OVR score anyway? I run the spread option so the first things I look at for QBs is SPD/ACC/CAR. I sort by 40 times for QBs so I wouldn't even see that 83 OVR monster QB with 90 THP and 60 SPD. I like to have a power back (so I'm looking for TRK/BKT) and a speed back (so I'm looking for SPD/ACC/AGI/ELU). Again, I don't bother with the OVR because if I'm looking for a power back this year, I wouldn't even look at an 85 OVR HB with D TRK.

[todrigo]

Quote: Originally Posted by BV11

Players Rated by Scheme In Madden every player is rated by how well they fit into what scheme the team runs. Basically what this means is that a player can be highly regarded for one system, but not valuable in another one. I think that this idea fits into NCAA even better than it does in Madden since there is so much variety between systems. In the NFL, most teams line up in Pro-style sets and there isn't a whole lot of variety in what is being run. An example of this.. Player A is a QB. Player A: 90 SPD, 90 ACL, 90 AGL, 80 THP, 82 THA (I think NCAA should add QB accuracy short/medium/deep, but that is for another day) This guy looks like he was tailor made for Oregon's offense. Great speed and quickness, to be able to keep the defense honest on the zone read. He is accurate enough to hit the screen passes and quick hitters that is most of what Oregon's QB's throw. You could expect this guys overall in Oregons offense to be in the 85-87 range. Put this same player in a scheme like USC's where they like to have a pocket QB who can stand back there and get the ball down the field vertically to big play receivers, and his value is diminished. This guy might be rated in the 73-75 range at USC, because he just doesn't have the arm to get the ball down the field like they like. He of course wouldn't be penalized for his speed, but it is just not as valuable in a Pro style offense. This could work for any position. Say a team likes to run strictly man to man coverage, a guy with a 95 zone rating and a 70 man rating isn't going to be good in that system because he is only getting to utilize his 70 man rating and never gets to play zone. Now understand that this doesn't actually change any of the players ratings, it just compiles an overall based into how well they fit your system, and allows you to easier see who fits what you are trying to do. User Controls Player Development Basically what this is for guys that don't play madden, is guys earn skill points basically depending on a bunch of different factors, such as their age, potential rating, playing time, etc. You then use these skill points to develop each player however you see fit. I think this would be an excellent addition because in college coaches tell guys the things that they want them to work on/how they would like them to progress (Another way they could do this is basically just let you prioritize which areas you would like to see a player progress in and let the CPU do it for you.) I was just interested as to where people stood regarding these ideas.

First EA would need a way to determine what your specific scheme is. Since almost every team playbook has overlapping possibilities and the general playbooks aren't very diverse.
On the practical side - if you are a pro-style you should already value arm attributes above speed/quickness/agility so why hurt a players overall rating based on the coaches system, besides these days good coaches adjust their systems to their players as much as they find players to fit the system. If you have a moron that can't remember 3 plays but can run and throw bombs (VY, JaMarcus) you turn them loose and let them make things happen. In this regard I wish we could see Awareness during recruiting.
One thing scheme related that I think would be interesting to impliment for sim seasons/dynastys is in-season/off-season scheme changes. They would probably affect players similarly to positions changes except be team wide and have a disapation factor as the season goes on. Off-season changes would cause small awareness/recognition reduction for the first few games, in-season changes would leave some players looking lost on the field several weeks and slowly get back normal awareness.

[BV11]

Quote: Originally Posted by jello1717

I could see the scheme thing being useful for CPU recruiting and could help CPU teams to get guys for their systems, but I don't see how it's useful for users. Does anyone even look at the OVR score anyway? I run the spread option so the first things I look at for QBs is SPD/ACC/CAR. I like to have a power back (so I'm looking for TRK/BKT) and a speed back (so I'm looking for SPD/ACC/AGI/ELU). Again, I don't bother with the OVR because if I'm looking for a power back this year, I wouldn't even look at an 85 OVR HB with D TRK.

That is kind of what this does for you. If your system preferred power backs, they would be a better fit and have a higher overall, it would just take some of the guesswork out of it. If your system preferred power backs, an 85 OVR HB with D TRK likely wouldn't exist.

[TimLawNYC]

Quote: Originally Posted by BV11

You are saying having a good season causes you to be better. I say already being good causes you to have a good season. That would be like saying Johnny Manziel is going be WAY better next season than he was this season since he had a good year this year. To me he was good already. I agree with your point about playing time though, the more playing time and experience a guy gets should definitely progress him faster than a guy riding the pine. If it was my choice, I would have both a potential, and a work ethic rating for each player. Potential would be based on his athletic, physical abilities, and rated by how good a guy could POSSIBLY become. Work ethic would determine how quickly a player would reach his potential. You got a guy who has a 50 work ethic rating but 99 potential (say a 6'4, 220 lb. receiver with 99 speed and 98 Jump)? Going to be a frustrating guy because he never will progress his skills much even though the raw athletic ability is there. Or you could have a guy with 80 Potential (5'11 180 lb. receiver with 85 Speed and 80 Jump) and 99 work ethic. This guy is never going to become a superstar because he doesn't have the size or athletic ability, but he will be a guy who develops to his potential very fast because he works so hard.

Let me clarify, because I'm not really trying to argue that having a good season causes you to be better. I'm not saying that a superstar 91 OVR QB who passes for 4,000 + yards should automatically go to 99 OVR.

My main point is really about playing time and experience (which you seem to agree with)--a freshman who starts 12 games should have a bigger ratings bump in the offseason (particularly in something like AWR) than the RS freshman who didn't see the field all year. A guy who suffers a season-ending injury in week 2 should progress less in the following offseason than his backup who steps in and plays the remaining 10 games.

My second point is that, to some extent, success in a particular attribute during a season should influence offseason development. If my halfback has a catch rating of 58 and I really focus on developing his receiving skills during a season by having him catch 40 passes out of the backfield, his catch rating should increase appropriately to reflect that extra successful work. Players with low ratings in certain areas who have good stats in a season in those areas should have their abilities adjusted to more accurately reflect the successful season they just had.

I do like your ideas about potential and work ethic ratings. I think the most important thing is development influenced by playing time (because that's how real players get better), but I'd like to see those new ratings incorporated as well.