I was skeptical at first about seeing a players volatility rating. I thought it would give too much away. After going through my first draft as well as seeing how veteran players have reacted to their rating, I've realized it's not an exact science. One player with a volatility rating of 90 will gain or lose dramatically while another tapers off or gains slowly. It's a gamble, but never a given one way or the other.

In short, I'm a fan. What do you think?

I like it. Don't mind that it's visible.

Is there anything that dictates if a player gets a + or a -? I like that volatility opens up the amount a player can go up and down, but all that could mean is a player can tank as much as he can excel.

What ultimately governs if a player gets better or declines? Is it just a straight coin flip? I understand it's a little more complex, say 30% chance to change 0-4 points, 30% 5-10, 20% 10-15, 10% 16-18, 10% 19+ (Completely made up numbers) but what are the odds a player goes up or down? Is that just 50/50?

I think JDB said it is basically 50-50 which direction they will go, and the volatility helps determine how much they might actually move in that direction.

I don't like it ... thought about posting this for a while but since the topic came up, why not now? lol

I think the draft (IRL) has been and will always be a **** shoot.

I feel that now (in MFN land) if I have a #1 pick .. need a RB .. there is a 41/99 RB with a 2 volatility I can now know I am getting the exact player I want. But in the NFL, you don't get those assurances. On the old version, you didn't know if you were drafting in this instance Adrian Peterson or Trent Richardson ... now you have the info you need.

Here's the counterpoint though that I can see and accept .. doesn't it help the 1-15 team get better players? .. Yup. The problem that I have those with this argument is then if you are getting a player like this, you should be keeping that kind of talent instead of flipping him for pick(s) in a few seasons .. but that is the owners choice of course.

Again, this is just my opinion .. feel free to blast me .. lol.

There isn't always a player with low volatility at the top of the board.

Also, IRL there are players who are nearly a "sure thing", and others that could go either way. That is the way I see the volatility rating.

Do I take the 90 rated guy with 75 volatility, or the 80 rated guy with 5? The first player has a higher ceiling, but a lower floor. However, I'm not going to be disappointed with the 80 player because he is who I thought he was.

Then there are cases like Andrew Luck / Adrian Peterson where you pretty much know going into the draft that they are going to be great players.

I don't see it as a bad thing that we now have a little more information to help us make a better decision on who we draft. I much prefer this over a 100% **** shoot.

I don't think the NFL draft is always a 100% **** shoot for every player.

Essentially the 'real' volatility value has a range of -100 to 100. What you see on the card is the absolute value of that number, so you don't know whether it's a positive or negative value.

Makes sense. Thanks for that.

In response to be the above and if I'm being picky, I'd prefer volatility to be shown publicly as a range. Say, a player has 80-100 volatility, you know its gonna be high, but you don't know exactly how high. The size of that range could be up for discussion, but that is what I'd prefer since potential is far from absolute.

The dilemma with the volatility is a 90+ guy, his range is basically only down. A 98 doesn't have much upside but potentially a lot of downside if his volatility is a sizable number

I was on the fence at first, but have come over to liking its inclusion in the analysis process of the draft. One change I would like to see implemented, however, would be the inclusion of a small chance for players to reverse their polarity. As it stands, if a player goes up or down in their first TC, you know that they'll continue this trend for the rest of their natural lives. What I'd love is for there to exist a small chance for a player to reverse this direction, for better or for worse. This would encourage users to stick with their 'bust' draft picks for longer, hoping they might 'turn it around'.

This. It's simultaneously why I like it and dislike it. I'm not going to draft a high vol player until at least round three, and even then it'll be if I need to gamble at a specific position.

In the last season in 2 before vol was introduced Bling and I had the #1 and #2 picks. There were two running backs on the board with potentials in the 98-100 range. The one that Bling ended up drafting had a vol of 62 (hidden at the time of course) and the one I ended up drafting ended up having a vol of 38 (again hidden at the time). Bling's RB ended up falling a few points while mine has stayed about where I drafted him.

If that same draft would have been held with the vol rating, I would not have mortgaged the team to trade up to #2. Bling would have taken the RB I would have ended up drafting. And there would have been a lot less drama in the draft.