FoF 2007: Ratings

Just a quick note on the ratings scale in FoF 2007. I wish every football game did this. (Every sports game, in fact)

Does it bug you that in most sports games, you see a slew of players rated 90+? It’s always bugged me. FoF is taking a new approach to this and I welcome it with open arms. The game knows it is a career based simulation and not a game trapped in 2006. When you see a player rated 95, for example, this is one of the best players to ever play at that position. Tom Brady is around a mid 90-rated QB. Tom has earned that — to be mentioned with the best QBs ever. (Michigan ties aside..)

Eli Manning? A 40. Yep — a 40/100 for a player who is considered a talented QB in today’s game. His potential rating is much higher than that, as it should be, but does anyone right now think that Eli Manning should be considered a HoF caliber QB? I don’t. Keep in mind that a 40/100 player doesn’t mean he can’t have a good game or even have a good season, it just means he isn’t elite and in terms of league history, is an average QB.

Aaron Brooks is a 22.

Can you imagine firing up Madden and seeing a starting QB rated a 22?

Send in the lawyers!

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to FoF 2007: Ratings

  1. Pete says:

    Bill – don’t know if you’ve ever noticed, but SI’s Football Manager has been doing something similar for a while. Players have a current ability level and a potential ability level. The decisions you make as a manager can directly impact whether a player ever reaches his potential. SI also uses a 20 point scale for attrbutes, which is a different discussion (it took a while, but I like it now.)


  2. davet010 says:

    Indeed it does – one of the great things about discovering a new talent who plays well is trying to judge (or get your assistant manager to judge) whether he’s going to get even better or whether even at an early age, he is already as good as he will ever be.


  3. Brando says:

    I’ve always wondered why EA uses a 100-point system and then rates the lowest players in the 50s. FOF handles it a lot better and provides much more nuance between players.


  4. Neil says:

    Front Page Sports Football had potential ratings, too, and that was like 15 years ago.The ratings inflation is always at the behest of the player associations, who can hold the game up if they think the game relfects badly on their members.


  5. bill says:

    Well, my point wasn’t that FoF was different because it had “potential” ratings. Tons of games have done and still do that. FoF uses its entire 100 point scale, which is ultra rare and I think the best way to approach it.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s