Or throw the volatility ratings to the 90s on the mid-range and late talent. If you want people to pay attention to the late rounds, 90-100 volatility on 50% of the sub-60 rated talent will keep the interest going.

I like the idea of the top 10 being full of sure things, with the rest of the first being either solid starters or gambling for superstars, but as of this point there is no mechanism for 3rd-7th round talent to reach elite status. I think tweaking volatility would help this. Most 3rd and beyond players are solid at best, and mediocre more times than not. But every now and again 1 rises to the top of the league, and by dramatically increasing the volatility of players ranked below 80 we will see more draft participation and active trading of picks currently deemed worthless by most.

Good idea, except that when a player starts out that low it takes way too long for them to improve enough to even warrant a roster spot, let alone playing time.

It would be nice if you'd see some late round picks boom enough in training camp that they could start right away, like +30. That's never going to happen in MFN unless you already have a really crappy roster to begin with.

I still like bigger booms ,but a changing volatility each season . So it's harder or rarer for for an extreme change. Up one season and down another . .....back up another. Still have it tied to volatility but the trend is more volatile . And a 1st round bust with down trends and big losses is almost unplayable . Very rare that guy may be but a late rounder that had three plus 30s or a 30 and a 20 and a 10 could be a legit late round star.

Still, I can't to see the outcome of 87 draft/ camp. I am wondering if any will slip through. ....

That would equal even less late round booms.

I am talking some one not even on the draft radar. 24/52 with a volatility of 100. He ends up being a 99 after five seasons. Currently our system would have him max in the 80's somewhere.

More super booms and just as many of the others. They would be super rare

I'd like more Tom Brady, less Jamarcus Russell.

Is volatility supposed to be better the higher it is? Because I drafted a rookie FB who had a Future potential of 92. By the end of the second season he was -38 Future potential. His volatility was at 100.

Volatility just dictates how "volatile" the player's growth is going to be, positive OR negative. So a low vol player will generally end up pretty close to whatever their initial ratings started at, but a high vol player can potentially "boom" or "bust" significantly.