NCAA Football 12 News Post

NCAA Football 12 Team Ratings and Prestige Revealed (Tradition Sports Online)

06:37 PM - June 8, 2011 by RynoAid

Hellisan, over at Tradition Sports Online, spent some time today documenting NCAA Football 12 team ratings and put together the info for all 120 teams, including prestige.

Game: NCAA Football 12Reader Score: 7/10 - Vote Now
Platform: PS3 / Xbox 360Votes for game: 104 - View All

NCAA Football 12 Videos

Member Comments

# 201 TDTGodfather @ 06/09/11 11:27 PM

LSU's off and def ratings should be reversed imo.

# 202 NDFan1029 @ 06/10/11 03:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaredlib


	Last year it was explained to me simply: To go from five-stars to six stars you have to finish in the top 5 or make it to the BCS title game. To lose a star, go from six star to five star, you have to finish out of the top 15. That was the explanation given to how the game decides these things. Why Texas didn't drop, I don't know, that's EA's prerogative

If that's true, ND should've dropped a star about 4 years ago.

# 203 NDFan1029 @ 06/10/11 03:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chicagopax


	They play maybe one or two nationally ranked teams a year than fill their schedule with mid level talent at best. USC and Mich/MSU (either or) will typically be their ranked opponents, than after facing middle level talent they fill their last 4 games with cupcakes (sometimes backfires) Their schedule isn't on par with a Big Ten(12)/SEC schedule. Only AQ conference they could be scheduling better than is the Big East, than again that's not difficult.

Well, they only play Div. 1 schools. SEC teams start the season with 2 games against East Wyoming State. By opponent's win %, Notre Dame played the toughest schedule in the nation in 2010. They also played Stanford, who I believe finished #4 in the nation. Florida is playing Furman the 2nd-to-last game of the season....FURMAN!

# 204 BtothejizA @ 06/10/11 03:39 AM

Wait a minute, Michigan an A-? Bahahahhaahhahhahahahah

# 205 dickey1331 @ 06/10/11 04:20 AM

SMU is 70th. Not sure about that.

# 206 4solo @ 06/10/11 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cane305


	What EA needs to do is create a "tradition" rating which would be seperate from the prestige star rating therefore teams that have great tradition such as the "michigans, notre dames,miami's" that have struggled in the past years would not be rated as high in current prestige however there tradition rating would remain among the best....IMO of course...

Best thing I've heard all thread. I realy think you hit the nail on the head b/c prestige and tradtion or different. To me prestige fluctuates and is more about recent win and losses which will greatly effect recruiting. But Tradition is more static so a school can still lose and still get good ball players b/c of strong tradition.

# 207 kevj349 @ 06/10/11 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4solo


	Best thing I've heard all thread. I realy think you hit the nail on the head b/c prestige and tradtion or different. To me prestige fluctuates and is more about recent win and losses which will greatly effect recruiting. But Tradition is more static so a school can still lose and still get good ball players b/c of strong tradition.

You can use tradition in a pitch. I am fine with the stars. Teams like ND are still up there because they are still respected and can bring in some serious star power for the field. Michigan can still do the same. They have be dipping just a little but there is no doubt that it will turn around in the very near future.

# 208 4solo @ 06/10/11 10:20 AM

Quote:


	You can use tradition in a pitch. I am fine with the stars. Teams like ND are still up there because they are still respected and can bring in some serious star power for the field. Michigan can still do the same. They have be dipping just a little but there is no doubt that it will turn around in the very near future.

But again they respected and get good recruits b/c of strong tradtion even though they have been having sub-par seasons lately. Recruits will say yea i know they have been losing but its still ND or Michigan. And that's b/c of a winning tradtion. I'm just saying tradtion should play a bigger role than just a pitch in the game. B/c IRL it does matter alot.

# 209 kevj349 @ 06/10/11 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4solo


	But again they respected and get good recruits b/c of strong tradtion even though they have been having sub-par seasons lately. Recruits will say yea i know they have been losing but its still ND or Michigan. And that's b/c of a winning tradtion. I'm just saying tradtion should play a bigger role than just a pitch in the game. B/c IRL it does matter alot.

Yea I get what you are saying but that is why ND and Michigan are still 5* teams in the game, so they still get the respect and bring in some top notch guys.

# 210 Cane305 @ 06/10/11 02:49 PM

Yeah...so EA just needs to throw another rating system in and have tradition which is long term and prestige which would be current and both affect recruiting in the game...

# 211 jhawk886 @ 06/10/11 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaredlib


	As a Penn State fanatic I agree. They should be five stars and probaby a B+ overall at best

They should take away a star from Penn State and give it to KU. We're 3 years removed from a 12-1 season and an Orange Bowl win. One bad season under a new coach with the players learning a new system and the coach bringing in the highest rated recruiting class in school history this year does not deserve a drop to 2*s in my mind.

I love the game and think EA is doing some great things but one area they consistently lack in is properly evaluating the players, programs, and universities. I mean heck, they constantly come on here asking us for info about our favorite schools. I mean don't get me wrong, I love that they're trying to get some community input, but don't you think with the millions they make off of us every year (for generally just buying an "upgrade" rather than a new game) that they could afford to hire some people to do some research and get proper analysis in order to have an accurate representation of the players, schools, and programs?

Just my 2 cents...

# 212 The JareBear @ 06/10/11 03:27 PM

LOL so true. Sometimes I see things on the game that make me wonder if any actual research was done or did they just watch a highlight vid and read an article on ESPN and go from there.

# 213 He1nousOne1 @ 06/10/11 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4solo


	Best thing I've heard all thread. I realy think you hit the nail on the head b/c prestige and tradtion or different. To me prestige fluctuates and is more about recent win and losses which will greatly effect recruiting. But Tradition is more static so a school can still lose and still get good ball players b/c of strong tradition.

They do have both Program Prestige and Program Tradition in the game. You see it when you are recruiting players. What you want is for Program Tradition to have a separate star system from the Prestige Star system? I had figured both "Program Prestige" and "Program Tradition" as seperate variables were what made up the Prestige Star system final tally. Some programs drop faster then others and that is likely due to that program tradition score as it is the one that changes less frequently where as the program prestige score is based more upon the record a team has been having.

# 214 coogrfan @ 06/10/11 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jhawk886


	They should take away a star from Penn State and give it to KU. We're 3 years removed from a 12-1 season and an Orange Bowl win. One bad season under a new coach with the players learning a new system and the coach bringing in the highest rated recruiting class in school history this year does not deserve a drop to 2*s in my mind.

Imo 2*'s is a fairly accurate refelection of the state of KU football, in fact one could argue that KU should never have been granted 3* status in the first place (the Jayhawks have been playing fb since 1890; in all that time they have posted back to back bowl seasons just once).

As for your "one bad season" argument, 2010 wasn't just a bad season-it was catastrophic:

3-9 (1-7 in conf)

Lost 3-6 to FBS school North Dakota State at home;

1-7 in conference play last season (all seven losses by double digits, 5 of them by 28+).

# 215 He1nousOne1 @ 06/10/11 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goh


	USC and Ohio State with 6? Not up to date then. Why can't we edit this stuff?

Until Ohio State gets hits with any sanctions like USC did I do not see why they should be taken down as a program from 6. The coach messed up and some players did but as a program it will easily rebuild from such. It will still most likely be the team in the first ever Big Ten championship game. It still gets the cream of the crop of athletes in the north. Until we have proof On The Field that they are not a Six Star team then I do not see why they should drop. What happened was just a minor bump for OSU.

USC on the other hand had top talent Leave the school because of their sanctions and that killed their chances at recruiting top talent or getting a top coach so yes that drop in prestige is warranted.

# 216 jhawk886 @ 06/10/11 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coogrfan


	Imo 2's is a fairly accurate refelection of the state of KU football, in fact one could argue that KU should never have been granted 3 status in the first place (the Jayhawks have been playing fb since 1890; in all that time they have posted back to back bowl seasons just once). As for your "one bad season" argument, 2010 wasn't just a bad season-it was catastrophic: 3-9 (1-7 in conf) Lost 3-6 to FBS school North Dakota State at home; 1-7 in conference play last season (all seven losses by double digits, 5 of them by 28+).

If the entire spectrum of teams' prestige was based on the history of the individual programs, then yes, I would agree with you. But, as has already been established, other than the likes of Notre Dame & Texas, EA bases their prestige levels on recent performance. And within the past 6 years KU has 3 bowl victories with 1 of them being a BCS victory.

While turmoil in the program has hurt the program the past two seasons, it has not destroyed it (As evidenced by Gill bringing in the highest rated recruiting class in school history).

While last season was an **** failure, they should not have dropped to 2 stars. Another season like the last and yes, they maybe should.

One horrible season and losing to an FCS team should not have caused KU to fall. Did Texas or Florida who had comparable catastrophic seasons with MUCH
higher expectations drop? Did Virginia Tech who lost to an FCS team drop? No.

Their prestige system should be needs to be completely reworked. If they're going to make it more fluid and based on recent performance, then they need to do that for all schools (including Texas, Florida, Notre Dame, Michigan, etc.) and follow those guidelines from season to season based on real life (AKA if their prestige system would've dropped Texas a star on the game due to a season like the Longhorns had last year, then they need to do it).

Otherwise, they need to make the system much more static and based more on historical performance with it taking a long time to increase program prestige.

# 217 He1nousOne1 @ 06/10/11 05:16 PM

A team like Texas or Florida has a bad year and they still remain the top team in their respected states when it comes to recruiting capability and the states of Texas and Florida are prime territory for top recruits so a bad year for them is easy to bounce back from.

A team like Kansas if it wants to rise in the ranks has to rely on recruiting heavily outside of its state thus bad performances have a much bigger affect on their ability to bounce back through recruiting so yes a school like Kansas will effectively drop in prestige quicker then a school like Texas or Florida. Its just the nature of the beast we call College Football.

# 218 dickey1331 @ 06/10/11 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jhawk886


	If the entire spectrum of teams' prestige was based on the history of the individual programs, then yes, I would agree with you. But, as has already been established, other than the likes of Notre Dame & Texas, EA bases their prestige levels on recent performance. And within the past 6 years KU has 3 bowl victories with 1 of them being a BCS victory. While turmoil in the program has hurt the program the past two seasons, it has not destroyed it (As evidenced by Gill bringing in the highest rated recruiting class in school history). While last season was an **** failure, they should not have dropped to 2 stars. Another season like the last and yes, they maybe should. One horrible season and losing to an FCS team should not have caused KU to fall. Did Texas or Florida who had comparable catastrophic seasons with MUCH higher expectations drop? Did Virginia Tech who lost to an FCS team drop? No. Their prestige system should be needs to be completely reworked. If they're going to make it more fluid and based on recent performance, then they need to do that for all schools (including Texas, Florida, Notre Dame, Michigan, etc.) and follow those guidelines from season to season based on real life (AKA if their prestige system would've dropped Texas a star on the game due to a season like the Longhorns had last year, then they need to do it). Otherwise, they need to make the system much more static and based more on historical performance with it taking a long time to increase program prestige.

With Texas, Virginia Tech and ND they will rebound so 1 bad season won't hurt them but with Kansas you don't know. They are historical a bad program so I understand why they are a 2 star. Prestige shouldn't be a system thats the same for every program. It should take Texas much longer to drop than Kansas.

Do you really care where I sent this from?

# 219 schumj @ 06/10/11 05:34 PM

I can see both sides when it comes to Kansas. If we are assuming they basically throw out most of history and only look at recent success with the exception of those listed, Kansas isn't much different then a team like say Stanford.

In the BCS era Stanford has only played in 2 BCS bowl, Kansas 1. Stanford has had 1 finish in the top 10, Kansas also has 1. They have both only had one 10 win season, and if you look at every weeks poll since 98 KU was ranked # 2 one week Stanford's highest ranking was #4.

I guess you can look at it two ways, Stanford overrated or KU underrated.

IMO if I were to say Kansas and Stanford who is more prestigious, I would probably say Stanford. But in recent success? Since 98 Stanford has won 70 games, Kansas has won 69?

# 220 Gloves 82 @ 06/10/11 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by schumj


	I can see both sides when it comes to Kansas. If we are assuming they basically throw out most of history and only look at recent success with the exception of those listed, Kansas isn't much different then a team like say Stanford. In the BCS era Stanford has only played in 2 BCS bowl, Kansas 1. Stanford has had 1 finish in the top 10, Kansas also has 1. They have both only had one 10 win season, and if you look at every weeks poll since 98 KU was ranked # 2 one week Stanford's highest ranking was #4. I guess you can look at it two ways, Stanford overrated or KU underrated. IMO if I were to say Kansas and Stanford who is more prestigious, I would probably say Stanford. But in recent success? Since 98 Stanford has one 70 games, Kansas has won 69?

The problem with KU is that in the last 4 years, their record has gotten worse. 12-1, 8-5, 5-7, 3-9

Stanford has improved their record each year. 4-8, 5-7, 8-5, 12-1

« Previous 1 2…5 6 7 8 9 101112 13 Next »

More Links

NCAA Football 12 Team Ratings and Prestige Revealed (Tradition Sports Online)