TCY 1.3-->FOF2K4 Comments/Questions

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Solecismic, in the 1.3 announcement thread

In addition, a couple of tweaks were made to lessen the ratings difference in players when exported to Front Office Football.

Prior to v1.3, every indication was that the TCY future potential rating was the biggest factor in how the players looked in FOF2K4: a 40/100 bench-sitting TCYer was much more likely to be a stud in FOF than a 75/75 TCY star. I've compiled a little data on the Top 20 players in my latest draft class. Here's the info:

		FOF INFO							TCY INFO
Name	Pos	Cur	Fut	Dash	Sole	Strg	Agil	College	Cur	Fut	Rnk	Asp	Int	Hap	GF	Sct
Fisher, Gary	RB	64	78	4.44	28	24	7.33	Maryland	81	81	120	3	23	99	y	Decent
Samuels, Jeffrey	T	39	74	5.26	39	36	7.37	Michigan	22	100	68	89	76	60	y	Terrific
Byrnes, Nate	DE	33	76	4.76	23	33	7.04	Michigan State	97	99	2	61	73	23	n	Terrific
Kinney, Walter	ILB	49	78	4.66	27	35	7.12	Toledo	96	96	193	30	22	60	y	Decent
Humphries, Walt	RB	47	72	4.42	17	24	7.24	Delaware	77	77	638	42	37	74	y	VG
Perez, Sammie	RB	53	69	4.34	20	25	7.30	Penn State	50	79	76	19	0	65	y	VG
Benjamin, Matthew	CB	45	74	4.29	25	14	7.00	Wisconsin	57	100	40	42	38	99	y	Exc
Phillips, Fernando	WR	37	72	4.32	31	11	6.96	Notre Dame	96	100	278	38	33	68	y	Good
Carlson, Desmond	T	30	71	5.38	21	35	7.58	Michigan	81	81	86	39	29	59	y	Terrific
Butterfield, Vincent	DT	26	73	4.76	28	33	7.47	Purdue	96	100	99	100	99	57	y	Terrific
Marsh, Marshall	DE	31	70	4.70	24	32	7.11	Virginia Tech	71	100	104	42	50	59	y	Exc
Graham, Al	DT	34	70	5.11	15	31	7.15	Oregon State	82	99	212	32	19	66	n	Terrific
Manthey, Bennie	G	38	76	4.86	13	34	7.95	Texas Tech	80	100	177	0	7	62	n	Pret Gd
Linquist, Kim	CB	31	73	4.37	28	14	6.82	Michigan	92	100	9	36	49	40	n	Exc
August, Joseph	DE	41	63	4.90	26	29	7.01	Michigan	81	81	6	83	83	67	y	Terrific
Hawkins, Jared	OLB	39	74	4.44	32	30	7.19	Washington State	89	89	82	26	44	63	y	Good
Castellanos, Otis	WR	37	69	4.46	31	10	6.79	Colorado	93	93	459	46	43	67	y	VG
Varner, Teddy	DT	28	68	5.10	22	34	7.47	Kansas State	88	88	135	51	55	85	y	Good
Rose, Wayne	QB	27	67	4.61	35	27	7.48	Texas	74	74	4	22	20	50	n	Good
Buckley, Daryl	OLB	33	75	4.38	39	25	6.96	Florida State	92	92	77	76	75	59	y	Terrific

I'm also going to compile two other data sets:

1. All players from my school in the current draft class.
2. All players with a TCY potential of 85 or better who are NOT in the Top 20 overall in FOF.

These will be forthcoming, but I wanted to go ahead and throw this info out there for perusal/comments.

[Ben E Lou]

Current Alabama Draft Class (from the Bear Bryant Challenge)

		FOF INFO							TCY INFO
Name	Pos	Cur	Fut	Dash	Sole	Strg	Agil	College	Cur	Fut	Rnk	Asp	Int	Hap	GF	Sct
Woods, Brady	WR	38	60	4.44	24	5	6.79	Alabama	69	69	144	45	50	23	y	Terrific
Durham, Kendall	QB	19	50	4.42	22	14	7.61	Alabama	66	85	440	22	31	61	y	Good
Gillespie, Dana	DE	22	44	4.95	23	29	7.5	Alabama	76	76	259	75	69	64	y	Exc
Caldwell, Dominic	CB	12	30	4.54	19	11	7.23	Alabama	53	82	464	57	39	60	y	Decent
Mosley, Corwin	OLB	19	32	4.79	24	18	7.38	Alabama	64	75	447	55	55	67	y	Terrific
Armstrong, Jonathan	TE	11	27	5.11	23	20	7.69	Alabama	36	62	987	78	70	30	y	Terrific
Garner, Tyrell	G	2	24	5.4	27	22	8.23	Alabama	27	55	xxx	29	37	60	y	Pret Gd
Williford, Brett	DT	9	14	5.18	25	24	7.8	Alabama	51	69	841	94	84	50	y	Exc
Mayes, Kelvin	S	11	18	4.7	32	12	7.53	Alabama	62	77	xxx	60	80	33	y	Decent

[Flasch186]

but what does it all mean, dad?

[WSUCougar]

I think it means guard Tyrell Garner needs to back off the buffet line a bit.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

but what does it all mean, dad?

I'll make some preliminary comments later today, but I'm looking for feedback from the rest of the board, too. Right now, I'm compiling all these >85 guys to look at them.

[Ben E Lou]

OK. Here are approximately 1/3 of the TCY Seniors who were rated 85 or better (alphabetically, these guys are on the squads of Air Force through Indiana):

C Clarence Woodley 72/88-->15/43
C Ernest Kramer 75/91-->7/30
C Kendrick Turner 37/90-->9/56
C Mario Horn 46/88-->13/47
C Rich Guthrie 49/86-->7/48
CB Glen Lynch 75/93-->13/33
CB Patrick Walters 69/90-->7/15
CB Rod Maxwell 67/90-->10/24
DE Bubba Cassidy 54/88-->30/42
DE Chris MacDonald 75/99-->23/62
DE Jim Armstrong 32/85-->7/12
DT Butch Collins 76/91-->31/55
DT Don LeGrande 73/87-->14/37
DT Glenn Robertson 39/87-->6/15
DT Luke Gentile 87/97-->33/49
DT Norm Adams 63/88-->16/33
FB Everett Randle 84/89-->27/54
FB Lewis Hevey 71/88-->9/24
FB Shane Looper 77/100-->22/51
G A.J. Vanden Bosch 43/100-->37/69
G Raymond McCarthy 83/88-->14/26
G Irv Stargell 48/87-->6/28
G Lorenzo Kyrouac 75/86-->26/55
ILB Lenny Hodges 36/85-->11/43
K Ernie Harmon 94/100-->23/38
K Ian Andrullis 67/86-->19/56
K Otis Cazares 48/100-->17/36
K Steve Benson 63/90-->24/45
OLB Damon Money 73/87-->14/27
OLB Darrin Hall 62/100-->33/71
OLB Daryl Buckley 92/92-->33/75
OLB Harold Donato 57/100-->18/41
OLB Ike Martinez 70/87-->13/20
OLB Shane Gomez 70/90-->12/25
OLB Trevor Hopkins 56/89-->8/23
P Charles Unsbee 72/94--14/21
P Clyde Gerhardt 31/91-->11/24
P Irv Clements 60/100-->69/73
P Keith Powell 86/86-->36/51
P Kevin Hastings 50/100-->27/64
P Rich Murray 47/92-->20/28
P Wayne Scruggs 85/100-->29/30
QB Bubba Blackwell 62/90-->32/59
RB Kevin Barrett 77/93-->41/55
RB Kurt Powell 77/88-->24/33
RB Leon Burks 73/90-->19/27
S Chester Morris 54/90-->9/26
S Donald Paup 82/90-->12/30
S Howard Branch 61/100-->26/74
S Ron Corbett 46/93-->22/49
S Winston Clemons 82/99-->20/49
S Xavier George 85/85-->38/68
T Britt Randle 79/100-->20/68
T Chris Honti 48/85-->15/48
T Dwayne Duran 21/100-->12/26
T Monty Givens 49/100-->12/38
T Nick Tate 79/96-->7/34
T Norm Pravato 35/89-->8/18
T Toby Gracia 34/91-->19/29
TE Donovan Brandon 66/90-->9/22
TE Rickey Jose 60/91-->18/38
TE Shannon O'Donnell 73/92-->28/54
TE Sherman Allred 64/85-->11/29
WR Brandon Patterson 92/100-->44/63
WR Carl Reed 91/91->23/55
WR Harris McGee 79/100-->27/41
WR Juan Johnstone 52/89-->18/33
WR Leon Greene 84/100-->17/31
WR Otis Castellanos 93/93-->37/69
WR Phil Rhodes 77/90-->15/27
WR Scottie Lofton 70/91-->37/63

[Icy]

Skydog, i'm not sure if your point is that the issues has been fixed, but at least on a fast read, i can't find any good pattern, it still looks too random for me.
Like:

C Mario Horn 46/88-->13/47
compared with:
CB Glen Lynch 75/93-->13/33

WR Phil Rhodes 77/90-->15/27
compared with:
WR Scottie Lofton 70/91-->37/63


IMHO, Glen should be much better that Mario, the two WR should have about the same rattings, etc, but of course i need to look closer to it and also wait for your final conclusions.

[Lucky Jim]

It definitely looks better than it once did I think. The vast majority of your top 20 guys are pretty developed. SD I think including the volatility these guys have could give us something interesting to look at. It would be great if these underdeveloped guys were high volatility as well. Other than that I'm also struggling to find meaningful trends.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Icy

Skydog, i'm not sure if your point is that the issues has been fixed, but at least on a fast read, i can't find any good pattern, .

Well, we're dealing with several issues here....

1. Having to compress the draft class down to fit into FOF: Here's an example of what I mean by this. In the draft class above, there are seven potential "star" OLB's--out of less than 1/3 of the teams in the TCY universe. By comparison, I just pulled up a random game-generated draft class, and there are only four OLB's in the entire draft class with a future potential of 50 or better. For just that example, we're talking about only 20% of some VERY GOOD TCY players panning out into anything above mediocre.

2. (partly speculation here) Relatively wide range of scout error in TCY: Based on seasons when I've changed scouts, I've seen MUCH larger ratings changes in TCY than the much-smaller variances in FOF that have been definitively revealed by multiplayer. If I recall, I've seen changes of 25 points or more in future potential when changing scouts. That's a *HUGE* potential for variance. If 25 is the potential for variance, that means that your 85/85 TCY guy might only *really* be 60/60--only a slightly-above-average college player, with no hope for the pros.

3. FOF2K4 Hidden Development/Volatility/Booms/Busts/Etc: There definitely isn't enough of a body of evidence from importing TCY careers into the 5.1 family of FOF to know how much of a potential for error that we're talking about in the numbers I've posted here from FOF.

Those are the first three that come to mind immediately, and there may be others...

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Lucky Jim

It definitely looks better than it once did I think. The vast majority of your top 20 guys are pretty developed. SD I think including the volatility these guys have could give us something interesting to look at. It would be great if these underdeveloped guys were high volatility as well. Other than that I'm also struggling to find meaningful trends.

Interesting theory...

Samuels (22/100) has 99 volatilty
March (71/100) has 81
Benjamin (57/100) has 96
Perez (50/79) has 96

As far as the 100% developed guys...
Fisther: 48
Kinney: 92
Humphries: 71
Carlson: 32
August: 81
Hawkins: 19
Castellanos: 89
Varner: 51
Rose: 58
Buckley: 51


So, all of the underdeveloped guys had high volatility, but the fully developed guys varied.

Overall, I'd still contend that the top factor in conversion is the future potential rating.

[Gallifrey]

Great work Skydog.
But I think my head is going to explode.

[Buzzbee]

SkyDog - Any thoughts regarding weight? We know that players develop in TCY as they gain weight. Could those top TCY players simply not fit in the FOF weight ranges, and therefore not be good fits for the position?

In other words, might a 255 lb stud DL in TCY show up as a crappy DL in FOF? Whereas a 310 lb average RT in TCY might pan out to be decent RT in FOF. Also, might that 255 lb TCY stud convert well to a FOF MLB?

Just some additional fat to chew on.

[MizzouRah]

In my experience so far, it seems much better at predicting good FOF players from looking at the TCY players. There is still a big random factor.. at least as far as I can tell, but Blade and I can somewhat tell where our players are going to be drafted.

Todd

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Buzzbee

SkyDog - Any thoughts regarding weight? We know that players develop in TCY as they gain weight. Could those top TCY players simply not fit in the FOF weight ranges, and therefore not be good fits for the position?

In other words, might a 255 lb stud DL in TCY show up as a crappy DL in FOF? Whereas a 310 lb average RT in TCY might pan out to be decent RT in FOF. Also, might that 255 lb TCY stud convert well to a FOF MLB?

Just some additional fat to chew on.

Great thought, but that doesn't seem to be it--at least based on draft ratings (keeping in mind that I haven't seen how these guys actually will turn out...a MUCH more difficult thing to track...).

The first three or four guys on the long list who ended up being rated very, very low were all right in the normal weight range for their position group. For example, CB Patrick Walters (69/90-->7/15) is 6'0", 193 pounds, and didn't change weight from FOF-->TCY.

For those who haven't realized it, if a guy hasn't maxed out his weight yet in TCY, he'll get his weight gain between his final year and entering into the draft class. T Jeffrey Samuels (22/100-->39\74), for example, was only a Sophomore, but suspended during the 2009 season, and left afterward. He was 6'5", 277 at Michigan, but 6'5", 286 in the draft. This is also true for Seniors. Point being: it is safe to assume that if a guy weighs 193 in TCY and 193 in FOF, then he had reached his optimal weight.

[Buzzbee]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Great thought, but that doesn't seem to be it--at least based on draft ratings (keeping in mind that I haven't seen how these guys actually will turn out...a MUCH more difficult thing to track...).

The first three or four guys on the long list who ended up being rated very, very low were all right in the normal weight range for their position group. For example, CB Patrick Walters (69/90-->7/15) is 6'0", 193 pounds, and didn't change weight from FOF-->TCY.

For those who haven't realized it, if a guy hasn't maxed out his weight yet in TCY, he'll get his weight gain between his final year and entering into the draft class. T Jeffrey Samuels (22/100-->39\74), for example, was only a Sophomore, but suspended during the 2009 season, and left afterward. He was 6'5", 277 at Michigan, but 6'5", 286 in the draft. This is also true for Seniors. Point being: it is safe to assume that if a guy weighs 193 in TCY and 193 in FOF, then he had reached his optimal weight.

Well, it doesn't sound like it, but this is making me wonder if there is any correlation to weight and volatility, and also to booms/busts. I'm guessing not, and that weight is only taken into consideration for position changes. However, it would be pretty neat if weight was like combine scores in helping identify booms/busts. Oh well.

[Ben E Lou]

I guess what I'd like to get a little better handle on overall is this: what factors are important, and what factors matter little (or not at all). I'm guess this will be an ongoing discussion, and I hope others will weigh in (like Todd, who says he can predict 'em well). For now, I can hypothesize two things:

1. It appears that stats and playing time can't play a huge role in the initial assessment. Otherwise, T Jeffrey Samuels, who was on the field for a grand total of 21 offensive plays during his college career, couldn't be the second-best player in the draft class.

2. Future potential still seems to be more important than current value, but I'm thinking that it doesn't have as much weight as it used to have.

I'll check in at some point later in this thread with an update on any busts from this draft class. It would be interesting to see if any patterns emerge after their "real" ratings get revealed. Ultimately, if someone wanted to *really* test this out, I'd say the best thing to do would be to import a TCY draft class into an FOF career with injuries turned off, run it for three or four seasons, and see how everyone turns out. I don't really have the inclination to do that at this point, but just throwing the idea out there if anyone wants to do some more serious research into this.

[Plundun]

Having a draft file saved, doesn't mean it is going to come out the exact same way every time. Some players will be great one time, mediocre the next. There is however certain players that will be promising each and every time.

What seems most helpful to me would be to load the same draft file three+ times and see if there is a common trend among the players that are good every time.

[OldGiants]

Don't forget the scout "masking." there's an old thread where I talked about why I stopped using TCY draft files because it was too simple to pick out the hidden gems. Quicksand had a thread about "scout masking" and I realized that was what was going on.

In essence, some of the "yellow" potential college players will be left to the later rounds to become late-round gems. this is a function of how the scouts see the players, that is, scout error. However, if you have TCY open to the graduating class, you can lookup the players and discover who has the potential to be a gem. Worked all the time for me. Made FOF even more unbalanced.

I'm most interested in finding out if this problem still exists.

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by MizzouRah

In my experience so far, it seems much better at predicting good FOF players from looking at the TCY players. There is still a big random factor.. at least as far as I can tell, but Blade and I can somewhat tell where our players are going to be drafted.

Todd

Yah, but like skydog most of my predictions(which have been coming true for the most part) are based on future potential the #1 factor. Current helps, as a 99/100 will do better then 1 23/100 it seems, but im still learning the system.

[yabanci]

This might be stating the obvious, but I think the conversion is still way below where it ought to be and hopefully where it will be with the next generation version(s) of TCY/FOF. I started a solo career using TCY as a feeder for the FOF league. I recognized some improvement over the past, but it's still too random, such that watching TCY players develop into FOF players became more of a distration to me than an enjoyment. After a few years I ditched TCY and continued on with FOF generated drafts.

Another thing, the players in drafts generated by TCY come out wierd looking to me compared to FOF generated players. A lot of them have extreme variation among ratings, such that you often have guys rated 100 in a few categories and nothing or next to nothing in all the rest. You get a lot of players generated with TCY drafts that you would never get with FOF generated drafts. That bothered me too.

I think it's great that you're taking a look at this, Skydog. I spent a lot of time studying the TCY/FOF transition in my solo league, but finally I concluded that it wasn't worth the time because the transition is what it is and it's not going to get any better until the next generation of games is released.

I think it would be great if Jim focused on this for future versions of the games. Right now it seems more like an afterthought or incomplete feature than something that's supposed to work in a realistic manner and simulate the transition of college players to the pros.

[Ben E Lou]

Ummm....it still seems pretty heavily tied to future potential, which imho is probably the best way to do it. Plus, the other thing that is good is that skills translate: if a guy is better at run blocking than pass blocking in TCY, he will be in FOF--even if he drops from 80/80 in TCY to 5/20 in FOF. The translation of strengths/weaknesses is *very* solid. I'm just trying to get a better handle on if it is possible predict what 15-20% of the really good TCY players will become the really good pro players. Obviously, because we're dealing with SUCH a small percentage (and so much TCY scout variance), it is going to look pretty random, but I have a feeling that there may be more underlying order that we're missing.

[mhass]

I'm wondering if there's a definitive answer to all this (i.e., Jim *knows* how this works). I'm sure he can point to some code that builds the TCY draft class with player ratings, but does that code contain such a significant random factor that there is no "model," per se, to predict high/low ratings. There is a clear correlation to future potential, but I'm thinking that the calcs to make a draft class contain so much random behavior (like RL) that we're as close to "knowing" as we're going to get.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by OldGiants

Don't forget the scout "masking." there's an old thread where I talked about why I stopped using TCY draft files because it was too simple to pick out the hidden gems.

Can you give me a little more insight into this, or a link?

[sovereignstar]

Maybe this was the thread he was referring to.

http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/for...ad.php?t=22700

[sovereignstar]

http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/for...ad.php?t=17533

[Ben E Lou]

More hypothesis:

it IS still closely tied primarily to future estimate, but with more masking than in the past.

Supporting anedoctal evidence (besides the comments in the old threads mentioned...which were, of course, pre-1.3): I had a third-year guy and a fourth-year guy get nice ratings gains. Both had future potential >95 in college, but showed up in FOF as medicore (or worse) players...

LDE Ken McLaughlin: was 49/100 in TCY, was 29/38 in the draft, just jumped to 45/51 in training camp of year 3.

RG Matt Garner: was 94/96 in TCY, was 31/53 in 2007 draft class, but dropped to 28/36 in '08, 32/35 in '09, but jumped to 54/55 in 2010.

Also, my biggest bust so far has been this guy....

LCB Amos Donaldson: was 59/59 in TCY, 10/68 in 2009 draft class, but is now down to 12/48 by 2010.

[Buzzbee]

Next question would be how the combine ratings relate (if at all) to the potentials. Were those boom players AAA combine guys, or were they only above average? Curious if there is any correlation.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Buzzbee

Next question would be how the combine ratings relate (if at all) to the potentials. Were those boom players AAA combine guys, or were they only above average? Curious if there is any correlation.

Unfortunately, I'm not doing year-by-year saves in this career, so I can't tell you. That's one reason, however, that I did post the combine numbers for the players from the Class of '09 in this thread. As they develop (or bust), I'll be able to track them.

Again, if anyone wants to do extensive testing, I do have TCY draft files from 2004-2009, along with year-by-year TCY saves, so we could do some serious examining of this. I won't be able to do that extensive of a test until early April, I'm fairly sure.

[OldGiants]

Those are two of the threads, but there's a third one. I think its about scouting and started by QS. I'll hunt for it, but my time is limited today. that's the one that mentions scout masking. Essentially, it is what differentiates the scouts and makes sleepers and busts possible. As I remember, the game deliberately shifts certain players true ratings (higher or lower) so there will be booms and busts. If you are looking at a TCY draft file, you can see who these players are because the AI drafts them "wrong." You might, too, if you didn't have TCY open, which is the point.

To summarize, the way the game appears to be coded is that the TCY draft file is 'correct' and FOF 'masks' the scouts' view of certain players to create booms/busts. If you go back to the relavant TCY year end save file and sort through the seniors, you can easily defeat the mask. that's becaue an 6.0 prospect in FOF who is 55/57 is going to be a bust, while a 4.4 prospect who shows as 60/88 in TCY is the sleeper waiting for you to pick him.

[OldGiants]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Unfortunately, I'm not doing year-by-year saves in this career, so I can't tell you. That's one reason, however, that I did post the combine numbers for the players from the Class of '09 in this thread. As they develop (or bust), I'll be able to track them.

Again, if anyone wants to do extensive testing, I do have TCY draft files from 2004-2009, along with year-by-year TCY saves, so we could do some serious examining of this. I won't be able to do that extensive of a test until early April, I'm fairly sure.

The yearly saves and comparision to TCY with yearly saves is necessary. I wanted to follow players from HS to the pros (as one of the threads mentions) but to do that revealed too much of the inner workings of the exported draft files. Being able to make fantastic late round picks with the certainty afforded by looking at the TCY year-end save files spoiled the project for me.

[mhass]

Was the generous concensus that this "peeking" back to TCY is cheating/exploiting? Because, to me, that seems like the way the pros do it. They scout colleges and form an opinion that might be wholly different than the scouts.

[OldGiants]

Originally Posted by mhass

Was the generous concensus that this "peeking" back to TCY is cheating/exploiting? Because, to me, that seems like the way the pros do it. They scout colleges and form an opinion that might be wholly different than the scouts.

IMO it isn't like real scouts looking at college players. It is a game function, not reality, and it was never wrong in the 10+ seasons I played and looked at very carefully. I was hoping all it would be was what you suggested, but the facts were that I never had a bust pick (they weren't all all-stars, of course) in the early rounds and I found lots of gems late in the draft.

I admit its pretty easy to find top quality RBs and QBs late in regular FOF drafts (FAs, too) but they don't always turn into stars. Some guys don't pan out. This way took all the doubt out of the game.

I love the draft part of FOF and spend more than half my actual game play time on it (I blast through the games in a couple of hours. I've called two plays in my life, just to be certain it would bore me stiff, with every game quick simmed). So I really wanted the TCY into FOF to make both games more interesting. Instead it pretty much killed my desire to link the two.

I hope Skydog discovers this has been fixed, for I really want TCY to FOF draft files to be fun.

I hope so, but I doubt it.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by OldGiants

I hope Skydog discovers this has been fixed, for I really want TCY to FOF draft files to be fun.

What if you just don't look at a complete scouting picture? What I'm doing for my office MP league:

- Playing TCY as South Florida. I'm paying basic attention to ratings, but focusing more on scouting and some player development. I'll have a fair idea who the best players on this team are, but I rarely look at scouting information for other teams.

- Use the TCYHTML export utility to generate stat pages.

- Import the TCY class into FOF and make the stat pages available to all GMs.

- Import the stat pages into DraftAnalyzer so I can see how these guys did in college.

So I'm more interested in "how well do TCY stats indicate a player will do in FOF?" In other words, can you take a fan-level look at the TCY draft class (stats, who they played for, win-loss records, etc) and still enjoy using the draft file?

The two problems I've run into with this are:

- The "non-starter" being highly ranked in FOF. Worst case was 3 punters from Florida graduating, with the starting punter being ranked the worst of the 3. So you had two highly-rated punters in the draft who never played a down, and the one who did was very mediocre. I would like to see stats used as a factor in skewing the FOF scout view of a TCY player.

- The bug where Tight Ends all have zero for Big Play receiving.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

So I'm more interested in "how well do TCY stats indicate a player will do in FOF?" In other words, can you take a fan-level look at the TCY draft class (stats, who they played for, win-loss records, etc) and still enjoy using the draft file?

I would say this "absolutely not," based on what you're defining as a "fan-level" look. That being said, I disagree with that definition. No half-decent fan would ever have thought that Neil Lomax or Andre Ware would be superstars in the NFL, but their stats were dominant-looking. A fan has his own "scouting report" of a player, too--not just stats. If you asked me about UGA's Seniors' prospects in the draft, I wouldn't just tell you their stats, I could give you FOF-style ratings. The difference is that a pro scout would be more accurate.

This is the primary reason that I am glad the TCY-->FOF conversion seems to be primarily ratings-based, rather than stats-based. Ratings represent talent.

[Flasch186]

the TE big play receiving bug can be manipulated by hand prior to the draft though right?

[OldGiants]

I agree with Skydog on the stats comment. 2000 yard rushers from Utah State aren't likely to be outstanding pros if they come from TCY. They might be if its an FOF internal draft.

Another use for looking at the whole TCY file is to see a player's complete college career and whether or not his bad stats were injury related. This is important because I'm certain Jim has posted that TCY injury-proness does not get carried over into FOF.

Or there is the cases of the academic casualty TCYer who comes into the draft as a top prospect after dropping out. As a matter of personal taste, I refust to draft these characters for my team.

[Ben E Lou]

Bump for Quik.