I know a lot of people have been visiting this blog after doing a Google search for NCAA Football 11 rosters. There was a USF roster for PS3 posted here a few weeks ago that was built using EA's TeamBuilder site, but all that did was put names on all the players. Since then I've gone back and revised some of the absolutely dreadful ratings that individual players were given. I won't get into any of the obvious conspiracy theories about where the game was produced and who did the player ratings, but I think we can all agree that USF has more talent on its team than schools like Marshall, SMU, or Washington State.
HERE IS OUR UPDATED TEAMBUILDER ROSTER. This is for PlayStation 3 users - I don't know if the roster will work if you have an Xbox 360.
The game lets you import TeamBuilder rosters into a dynasty, which is a major time saver. However, if you're willing to take the large amount of time to manually adjust the ratings of the original team, you'll get more customization down the line. TeamBuilder doesn't let you officially change the positions of players, or make any more ratings changes. So for example, you can play Evan Landi at quarterback on your depth chart and move Craig Marshall to defensive end where he belongs, but they won't be actually listed at those positions on your overall roster.
Here's how I went about fixing the USF roster. First, I took all the returning players and translated their ratings over from NCAA Football 10. A lot of players mysteriously got worse from last year's game to this year's game, which is ridiculous since they're the same players, and it doesn't look like there were any drastic system-wide player attribute changes. For example, B.J. Daniels actually got slower with a weaker arm, and all of the offensive lineman had their blocking ability noticeably weakened. That was all corrected. Most of the new players were rated so low that hardly any college team would keep them on a roster, so I bumped them up to about the level where it would at least make sense to redshirt them. The only exceptions are Terrence Mitchell and Todd Chandler, who were bumped up to about the level that four-star recruits like themselves would enter the game at (generally in the mid-70s).
Instead of the game's C+ overall rating (B- offense, C+ defense), the team is now rated as a B overall (B+ offense, B defense). I might have been a little gung-ho on offense, but the rating makes sense compared to most preseason rankings, which have USF around the 45-50 range. I counted 35 teams in the game still rated higher overall than the revised Bulls, and about a dozen others are roughly equal. Figuring that most of those equal teams (along with a few others with less talent, like Houston) would be placed higher in a real-life ranking because they have more experience and continuity, this new USF team should be pretty accurate.
With the new rankings, the Bulls are still either #4 or #5 overall in the Big East, behind Pittsburgh, West Virginia, and Cincinnati, They're even with Rutgers, and somewhat ahead of UConn, Syracuse, and Louisville. Keep in mind the game's ratings are based almost completely on talent, and don't take into account offseason flux like ours, or how certain real-life teams are coached up beyond their skill level - UConn being a perfect example. These shouldn't be confused for an actual preseason ranking or a prediction of how the season will play out.