Re: doubling # draft players:
I, too, have concerns, and I think the biggest is that doubling the draft does not fix the draft pool.
A full transparancy of server data of draft +/- and a median *and* mean variable of #+ and the #- difference post T?C is something I think most players - especially long time players would like to see.
It's an important data set for fixing the draft, and not the only one.
Doubling the players available in a draft does not fix anything but increasing players. It does nothing regarding the quality of players ratio of players by position.
It does however, mean that if in the current pool of generated players, the X TE's above a 70 default rating (currently 3-7, maybe 8) would be (hopefully) 6- 10, maybe 12.
The ratios of players generated would remain the same so...
The theory is that the ratio of viable players in the draft should also double.

I really want to know how it works out. I'd like full data release ex post facto.
Very glad increasing the draft player pool is being looked into.

If i want to point fingers - I believe the change in volatility from being a static number prior and post draft to being a number that re-generated after a player was drafted is a big mistake. One that I would repeal immediately.

I suggest it is worth MFN subscribing to an AI to start processing data at mass volumes, and using AI to help interpret such data in order to obtain the direct information required to efficiently find issues and prioritize those concerns.
I'm not suggesting letting AI code/fix/alter anything that JDB does/can/would/or will do.
I'm certainly not going to suggest an AI to use.

also the above post was not posted at 3:13 am. It's currently 9:17PM MDT.
Please fix the time stamp issue.
Thankee, sai.

The increased draft is just in MFN-1 from memory. Think it's very much a see how it goes approach.

TE is a great example. It's so difficult to draft an all rounder - needs to block, needs to be a receiver. I'm leaning these days to horses for courses, getting pureareceivers, pure blockers and fitting them into formations that fit.

In theory, the increased count should generate more draftable players. I think a lot of players just aren't bothered by rounds 5+ anymore - just go high vol and hope somebody booms. There's also been some drafts in some leagues I've struggled from round 4 onwards.

Tbh, MFN-1 draft is coming up and I've not yet prepared - the draft class is generated, so you could always take a look.

My view is rounds 1-2 you're looking to draft a starter,. 3-5 depth, 6-7 ST/prospects that may not make roster as a rule of thumb.

re: volatility change post draft

I kinda almost like it if I'm honest. It's imo modeling the impreciseness of scouting - there's no tape, no college stats, no combine.

thanks for your answer in the previous post - we're thinking in the same playgrounds.
I disagree with having player volatility change after drafting that player.
Volatility impacts boom/bust.
I've always drafted (low V) players with that knowledge - even in later rounds.
I'm in the few players that manage their draft from rd 1 through rd 7.

I'm well prepped. MY manual board is exacting and updated not by round, but by pick.

I ALWAYS know who I'm drafting and why i'm drafting any player, and I know having the time to stay current pick by pick is a privilege.
If Im drafting for low volatility (and I *always* do) - especially in rd 1-4, in an effort to prevent dramatic busts and booms, then having a player i drafted in the 3rd rd with a V under 40 suddenly having a V over 90 after drafting....
IT completely negates V as a consideration.
If volatility is not static, then volatility is not a statistic worth including.

Volatility is an attribute that either is or is not.
Not knowing WHY it changes and having it change after drafting and i'm guessing that volatility change is variable by the team that drafted that player...
WE NEED TO KNOW HOW THIS WORKS.

Because V changes after drafting, then there's absolutely no reason to have volatility as an attribute.

This message brought to you by V, Vought Industries, and Vought International.
It's the V in me that makes us, exceptionally.
Vought Industries!
(queue fanfare music and commercial fade out, focus on Deep's smile, Sunset beach background).

ha!

It's soooo not 1:16 am.
:P

I've not seen one as dramatic as 40-90 personally, if you say you have then I'd agree, that seems extreme.

I tend to view it as being "college player now in big leagues, is it too much for them" kinda thing. Equally, if that player now 90 vol booms, that's a massive benefit.

Low vol in rounds 5-7 makes zero sense. Attributes are going to be lower, so rely on a big boom - if not, can cut with minimal impact. I suspect the approach may change with MFN-1 being tested with a larger pool of players.