Ok, I sign an International Free Agent with an overall rating of 90, but when I get him on my roster his overall rating drops to 75.

Why?

I have 10 budgeted for Intl scouting and zero in Advanced scouting if that means anything.....

Your IFA scouting will be more accurate than your advanced scouting, but even a 10m IFA scouting is not going to be very accurate.

Every guy that I just drafted had an overall rating that has changed significantly, sometimes up, sometimes down.  One guy I drafted in the 18th round now has a projected overall rating of 90.  I'm totally confused.  What about guys that are currently in my system?  are their true ratings totally different than what I'm seeing?

are their true ratings totally different than what I'm seeing?

Absolutely, yes.  Especially with a 0 ADV scouting budget.

Current ratings are accurate; projections rarely are. Projections are estimates, the quality of which depends on how much you spend on scouting. Advance Scouting affects projections of signed players and has been made "more accurate" than HS/COL/INT Scouting, which affect projections of unsigned players (IFA and Draft Prospects). With 0 in Advance, the projections you see for signed players are useless. 10M is not going to be a lot more accurate. Signing IFA based on 10/0 was a great concept before the last update; now you might as well go 0/0 and try to sign the stiffs who show up, hoping one actually has value

If 10m on International Scouting is inadequate, how much is needed to hit the sweet spot for much better accuracy without going overboard and blowing the budget?

What blows one team's budget is entirely manageable for another. If I have the #1 or 2 pick in a draft, I'm going to want at least $18M and probably $20M in HS or COL. If I'm picking 30th, my "sweet spot" might be $6M and hope I get one marginally decent player out of the draft. If I have money to compete for the best 2-3 IFA that come along, I'm going to want $18-20M in IFA if I can manage it.

Although we don't know this 100% for sure after the update, logic says every $1M increment will give you "better accuracy." I'd imagine that 4-5 months from now there will be enough data that people will have a good guess rather than pulling numbers out of their behinds and treating them as jewels. Until then, if someone gives you a specific answer for where projections become accurate enough, turn your bullsht meter all the way up.

I just took over a team that has the #1 pick for the draft and had someone help me set the budget but unfortunately we didn't max out either HS or COL and instead have 14m each.  Sounds like I would have been better off maxing out 1 or the other rather than budgeting a bit for both which means mediocre projects for both sets of players?

Posted by wallyworld15 on 11/21/2015 6:44:00 AM (view original):
I just took over a team that has the #1 pick for the draft and had someone help me set the budget but unfortunately we didn't max out either HS or COL and instead have 14m each.  Sounds like I would have been better off maxing out 1 or the other rather than budgeting a bit for both which means mediocre projects for both sets of players?

14 mil your first season with a team is maxing it out. You are only allowed 4 mil increases/decreases

Thanks joshkvt. That makes a lot of sense. It's going to be different depending on the situation. But, this guidance is solid.