My understanding is that the money spent on advance scouting determines the accuracy of the projected ratings you see for players on your own team. Your high school and college scouting budgets determine the accuracy of the projected ratings you see for players in the draft. Once you sign the player, the projected ratings that you see change. Let's say you drafted a high school player, and had a large high school scouting budget, but you have a small advance scouting budget. Are the projected ratings that you see before the draft, or after signing more accurate?

If this were real life, it seems that, regardless of your scouting budgets, if you have a player in your system, you should have a better idea of how good he will be while he is in your system than before you drafted him (regardless of scouting budgets). But I am not sure whether the similation works like that.

Any ideas?

The more accurate projections are given with the higher budget figure.
For example, I always budget 0M in advanced scouting (as do many experienced players due to the predictable nature of player improvement) so the projections that I see for all players are completely worthless. Meanwhile, I typically budget 16M in one of the draft scouting groups and so the numbers I get to sort through for draft prospects give a reasonable value to determine who to draft.

My understanding is that the money spent on advance scouting determines the accuracy of the projected ratings you see for players on your own team.

Not just your own team, but any player already in the world.

That makes sense--thank you.

Advance Scouting has to do with projections on players that are already signed, and are on teams. Draft and IFA scouting has to with projections on players that are not signed yet.

The higher the budget in any area of scouting the better or more accurate the numbers.

They cost even more since they had to transfer money into the prospect budget to get to 23 and 26 They cost 42 and 48 mil. However if your team is really good I can see doing that rather than hoping to get a decent player at pick 27.

I guess the fact that IFA's cost all that money is similar to the real-life practice of recent years of bidding on the negotiating rights to a player such as, for example, Yu Darvish?