I think it determines qutoe a bit in this years game. Maybe not as much for offensive players, namely WR's, but on defense I think it plays a larger role. I'll notice lower awareness guys taking extra time to react to a play, biting more on play action etc. I think the gap should be bigger at times but it's there.
I think for defenders, it has more to do with "play recognition" than "awareness" (aren't they the same thing, essentially? lol).
The problem is balancing it out to a certain extend because you risk the game getting diluted with a bunch of 99's. It's a balancing act from a prgramming POV I would imagine as if the ratigns drive teh game it's tougher for players to have "down" year or plateau out as most do at some point. With it being a ratings driven game it would be impossible for a player to flatten out if he keeps putting up better and better stats and before long you have a lot of 99 rated players. Maybe a hidden potential rating of sorts can keep this in check but I would imagine it's difficult to balance out.
Instead of it being a "hidden" rating, it should be out there.
However, if you have a 60 OVR DE that records 16 sacks in a season and his "potential" rating is merely only a C-, sounds kind of ridiculous for him, after being a 16 sack guy and a first team AA the next year, for him to be rated a 71.
I mean, he doesn't have to be a 95 OVR, but he needs to be rated elite relative to where he plays. So, if he is playing in the MAC, and the MAC's "best" is at or around an 85 OVR, that guy needs to be up there after a monster season.
Didn't the College Hoops series get this right?
I mean, IIRC, your guys go up and down based on how they are playing and they have a "potential" attribute that fluctuates with their time in the league. The ratings are fluid throughout and were determined how you played and how you scheduled your practices with them.
Right now, as is, small schools basically do not develop talent, which is the opposite of what happens.
How would I fix this?
Attributes should be fluid. Constantly changing with how they are playing, regardless. I mean, if you have a WR getting a 140 and 2TD every week, he should be extremely high OVR, because he is just balling.
Backups and players that rarely play shouldn't have too much development outside of a token upgrade to AWR or position relation attributes like "play recognition"...however, you should have the option to develop these players during practice with the "spend X amount of time doing ___________"...or have points that you can divvy out to certain players to focus on certain things. So, your 5th string CB that needs to work on zone coverage, you have him work on it and there is your development.
At this point, the yearly progression is bunk and I'd say broken...it doesn't reflect anything real. Players get better daily-weekly-etc. Not yearly. And it isn't determined by a certain glass ceiling. You let it play out of the field, practice or otherwise for players to get better.
This needs a HUGE upgrade in the future. It would be something that completely changes the game and for the better. Incorporate this with the addition of coaches, coaching carousel, etc. Coaches have ratings that determine how good of a coach they are, and this reflects how progression is based.
If you have a defensive coordinator that has a specialty in coaching D-Line, your D-Line should improve really well throughout practice and those that play well, are better OVR and attributes. While the DBs may not progress as well unless they play better, therefore upping the coaches ability to coach...making future units better.
Other games have done this...it can not be that hard.
