EA SPORTS College Football 25 - Offensive & Defensive Power Rankings

[cdj]

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53817844318_33c11f93e6.jpg




OFF. OVR
'23 PPG (Rank)
Ret. Starters


1. Georgia
94 OVR
39.5 (5)
7*


2. Oregon
94 OVR
41.4 (4)
8*


3. Alabama
91 OVR
31.5 (31)
7*


4. Texas
91 OVR
35.8 (13)
7*


5. Ohio State
89 OVR
30.2 (35)
7*


6. LSU
89 OVR
43.3 (1)
6


7. Miami
89 OVR
30.1 (38)
10*


8. Colorado
89 OVR
28.2 (57)
8*


9. Missouri
89 OVR
32.3 (25)
9*


10. Clemson
87 OVR
26.8 (59)
9*


11. Utah
87 OVR
22.5 (93)
6*


12. Penn State
87 OVR
34.0 (15)
6*


13. Ole Miss
87 OVR
31.9 (28)
10*


14. Kansas
87 OVR
33.7 (18)
7*


15. Arizona
87 OVR
34.3 (14)
8*


16. NC State
87 OVR
24.7 (74)
8*


17. Notre Dame
85 OVR
37.8 (8)
6*


18. Texas A&M
85 OVR
32.9 (21)
9*


19. Memphis
85 OVR
38.0 (7)
10*


20. SMU
85 OVR
36.4 (10)
8*


21. UCF
85 OVR
29.9 (39)
7*


22. Florida State
83 OVR
32.8 (23)
5*


23. Oklahoma
83 OVR
41.7 (3)
7


24. Virginia Tech
83 OVR
29.5 (45)
11*


25. USC
83 OVR
41.8 (2)
5



* indicates a returning starter at QB (at school or elsewhere via portal.)




DEF. OVR
'23 PPG All. (Rank)
Ret. Starters


1. Ohio State
96 OVR
11.6 (2)
9


2. Georgia
94 OVR
16.3 (7)
7


3. Oregon
90 OVR
17.2 (10)
9


4. Alabama
90 OVR
19.7 (16)
6


5. Clemson
90 OVR
21.4 (24)
5


6. Notre Dame
90 OVR
17.0 (9)
9


7. Michigan
90 OVR
10.4 (1)
5


8. Texas
88 OVR
18.9 (12)
8


9. Penn State
88 OVR
14.0 (3)
7


10. Utah
88 OVR
20.3 (20)
9


11. Florida State
88 OVR
19.8 (17)
5


12. Oklahoma
88 OVR
23.5 (41)
8


13. Iowa
88 OVR
14.8 (4)
8


14. Virginia Tech
86 OVR
23.9 (46)
10


15. Wisconsin
86 OVR
20.2 (19)
8


16. USC
86 OVR
34.4 (117)
9


17. Auburn
86 OVR
23.4 (40)
8


18. LSU
84 OVR
29.5 (86)
6


19. Texas A&M
84 OVR
23.1 (39)
9


20. Colorado
84 OVR
34.8 (119)
8


21. Oklahoma State
84 OVR
29.8 (91)
9


22. Louisville
84 OVR
22.9 (37)
7


23. North Carolina
84 OVR
29.0 (79)
7


24. Kansas State
84 OVR
22.8 (32)
8


25. Florida
84 OVR
29.5 (85)
6


Note: Returning starter information courtesy Phil Steele's College Football '24 Preview.

[CLW]

Man EA is flat out STUPID with these ratings. Worse part community CANNOT edit the rosters to fix it

[cdj]

Man EA is flat out STUPID with these ratings. Worse part community CANNOT edit the rosters to fix it

- The offensive ratings had some questions, but I think the defensive list might be the more questionable of the two.

- They must be putting weight into player ratings (star ratings) out of HS/portal, especially on that defensive list. We've heard how they want five-stars to outperform two-star players, so is it possible that's affecting player ratings of existing players as well?

- They are expecting MASSIVE leaps defensively by Colorado and USC (under a first year DC!).

- Is it possible for teams to have talent in-game but poor schemes with that Coaching AI system?

- The OVR is likely not taking depth into any account. Lack of depth hurt CU last year and in-game could be a factor with Wear & Tear.

- It looks like having returning starters (esp. QB) could be a boost. In his show today, Andy Staples stated as much from his visit to EA a few weeks back.

- Some of these rankings explain the TPTP list from Tuesday (or maybe vice versa.) They assume teams that have high OVRs will be good at home and vice versa, getting some inflation. They could also be placating predicted popular user teams, IE: Colorado.

- It's going to be real interesting to see how quickly they are willing to adjust player ratings if/when some of these teams vastly underperform.

[Wisey105]

From my understandings with the old games, only the starters are used to determine the Offensive and Defensive ratings. So, teams with more returning starters, will have a boost.

Also, scheme difference may make a few points difference when calculating. For example, many teams don't really use a Fullback, but one still needs to be set. So, it will usually be a backup TE or something similar to get a player into the position. This potentially lower ranked player would make a calculation lower.

Many of the Team ratings are closer than you think, but the overall team ratings are normalized for Play Now ratings to make gap between teams is a little larger.

Also, I don't envy the people making the rosters for this game. It was hard enough trying to finalize rosters by the first week or April back when the players "weren't real." I can't imagine the stress of trying to do it now.

[cdj]

From my understandings with the old games, only the starters are used to determine the Offensive and Defensive ratings. So, teams with more returning starters, will have a boost.

Did OL/DL factor in much to the team OVRs? If these lists (esp. offense) are only looking at the starters at the skill positions, that might explain Colorado being so high. It would basically be implying they have the fifth best skill guys in the country. (That's a bit more believable since their OL & depth are their biggest concerns/unknowns.)

[cdj]

Some takes on the Offensive & Defensive rankings from national media:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MABykaCIBmI


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQFYCdg5HQk


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00PuY4T_LcY


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIqtr23FYVE


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCoKXXqJKeA

[CLW]

Man who knew a “bankrupt” kid trying to not payout a judgment against him that holds the ball too long and 1 first round talent playing both ways is all you need to be a top 15 team in the game