I really don't think it's similar to what we have now. For instance there would be significant development from ages 24 - 27 which would not be seen without advanced scouting.I don't believe that currently is the case. The way I see it, right now I am pretty certain that a player is a star by the time he is 21 without any advanced budget, and usually earlier than that.What I'm proposing is that I should know what my player will be like at age 23. I paid for it. For instance I should know that my draft choice at age 24 would have 62 power, 60 R, 64 L, 58 eye 70 contact. What I would not know, without advance scouting, is if that player will remain at this level or progress 24 points in each category the next 4 years and become a 86 power, 84 R, 88 L, 82 eye, 94 contact., and unless I have him on my 40 man, somebody with advance scouting is going to know that during the rule 5 draft. If i do not promote him to the majors he will not develop the +6 ratings. Another example. 2 players may both project to be 70 power up to age 23. What I would not know is that one is a +0 for his ML career, and the other is a +6.  These are 2 vastly different players. Advanced budget would tell me that.This would mean that when I draft a player I know he wil be ML ready at age 24.What I would not know is if he will blossom in the big leagues. Some players do and some don't. That is very realistic. The more I spend on advance budget the players I see for their big league growth.20m I see all players, 10m I see 50%, 0m i see nobody.  What this would also do is allow some dropping of players in the draft. Obviously the higher the current ratings for a player the less progress he will need to become a ML player, so you would still get quality players, but draft position would not guarantee the best player because you would not immediately see his ML progressions until he was drafted and advanced scouting kicked in. I know people like fluctuations/variations like in real baseball, but at some level there has to be a reward for spending money in a category.  If you pay 20m on scouting you deserve accurate ratings. If you spend 20m on med you deserve better medical results.There is nothing wrong with getting what you paid for. If 20m was a relevant number in all categories with 100% results and you maxed out each category, you would only have 25m in player payroll.  I think the system I am talking about (numbers can be adjusted of course) would let you see players accurately. The more you spend the more players you see accurately. The modifiers, however, (they can be different, more or less, than the ones I've mentioned) would also significantly encourage/reward owners for spending money in other categories to develop these players and significantly penalize owners for not putting money into categories.What this would do is discourage the allocation of budgeting into amateur scouting and huge transfers into prospect payroll, because you couldn't just hire one good coach and put all your prospects at that level. or skimp on med because the alterations to players performance could feasibly be for several seasons. BTW. I don't think it's very complicated. I think it is very simple, I just think I'm not very good at explaining it.

Let me explain it like this.
amateur budget. 0 and I see nobody. 20 I see everybody. 5% increments in between. Ratings accurate to age 24
advanced budget. 0 I see nobody, 20 I see everybody. 5% increments in between. Ratings accurate age 25 - 28
modifiers. potentially delay or halt or decrease players progress or potentially improve progress. All categories have modifiers, injuries, makeup, coaches ratings, med, training etc. These can potentially be up to 6 seasons. All categories relevant, All coaching levels relevant. There long term effects are only seen with advanced budget.

Paragraphs my friend, paragraphs...

I think there are some good things to what you're saying.

I also think advanced scouting should help you see the rate of a player's decline. Right now there's no projection for that or anything and I think that would be good. From what I looked at, it does seem to be tied loosely to makeup, but if advanced dealt with rate of player decline I would definitely pump some money back into it.

There a simple fix to advanced scouting.    It shows you projections for any player not on a roster.  That includes HS/IFA/College players.   Those budgets will only show you x-amount of players.   Simple fix and it becomes relevant if you plan on using the draft or IFA to build your team.

Those budgets would determine how many players you see.  ADV would determine how accurate the projections are.

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/25/2012 9:34:00 PM (view original):
Those budgets would determine how many players you see.  ADV would determine how accurate the projections are.

I like this idea.  Currently with HS/Col/IFA budgets, not only do you see fewer players with lower budgets but the projected ratings are less accurate as well.  Wouldn't it be more realistic if with lower budgets you see fewer players but your projected ratings are still accurate (with a high ADV budget)?   Also, making all projected ratings tied to ADV budget would help discourage the $0mil ADV budget problem HBD has now.

I think that idea could work.It definetely makes Advanced budgeting relevant and possibly alter transfer $ into prospect budget allowing access to IFA for teams with higher payrolls. The only issue I still see is that, while it would make advanced budgeting more relevant, it would still offer a predictable progression and IMO, that would still encourage having the worst record to insure having the first pick for the best player. If some component was added to insure quality players at the top of the draft, but not guarantee the best player, I think it would be a solution.

What about this?
Amateur Scouting = How many players seen.
Advanced Scouting = Number of players rated. but only rated to a certain age, and ratings from that point on hidden to everyone.