Which way of displaying scouted potential ratings do you prefer?

Baconi · 05-06-2026, 08:51 PM

There’s been a lot of debate about this recently. To explain, an “expected value” system of potential ratings means that the potential rating would reflect where the player would, on average, end up in their career. This means that players with 70-80 potential ratings would be extremely rare - in real life, most scouting orgs only give out 80 potential ratings once every 10-15 years. But if a player does have a very high potential rating, it carries significant weight. Whereas a “ceiling” rating would reflect the absolutely best possible outcome for the player’s potential, even if the chance of them reaching that potential is very low. This means there would be many 70-80 potential players each year, but the vast majority would never reach that. However, this approach would result in more granularity and separation between players instead of everyone being mostly concentrated in the 45-55 zone.

snepp · 05-06-2026, 09:24 PM

Put me down with the Real™.

Sweed · 05-06-2026, 11:05 PM

In a game that wants to simulate reality there should only be one answer. Reality, or at worst something very close to it. There is no legitimate argument for OOTP to have eleven 80 overall pot players in a draft when this, as the OP notes may happen once in a 10-15 year period. In addition to that I don't think any of those guys are 80 overall. They only possess at least one 80 pot skill. At least any Google search I've ever done has only talked about players with one or more skills. Never have I seen an 80 overall. If that is wrong I'd be happy to see who it was and when.

A model with overrated players not only is unrealistic it makes the game look bad. This "inflated ratings" model was the cause of users continually complaining about how bad OOTP is because the players they draft never develop to those high scout ratings. Of course they can't or the league is going to be filled with Hall of Famers. Then add in the complaint that the "developers don't care enough to fix it". It is such a bad look.

It's fool's gold, there is no real value to the ratings.

View Poll Results: Which way of displaying scouted potential ratings do you prefer?
Expected Value (Realistic, few high potential prospects)	9	75.00%
Ceiling (Optimistic, many high potential prospects)	2	16.67%
Somewhere In Between	1	8.33%
Voters: 12. You may not vote on this poll

05-06-2026, 08:51 PM	#1
Baconi Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Oct 2017 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Posts: 257	Which way of displaying scouted potential ratings do you prefer? There’s been a lot of debate about this recently. To explain, an “expected value” system of potential ratings means that the potential rating would reflect where the player would, on average, end up in their career. This means that players with 70-80 potential ratings would be extremely rare - in real life, most scouting orgs only give out 80 potential ratings once every 10-15 years. But if a player does have a very high potential rating, it carries significant weight. Whereas a “ceiling” rating would reflect the absolutely best possible outcome for the player’s potential, even if the chance of them reaching that potential is very low. This means there would be many 70-80 potential players each year, but the vast majority would never reach that. However, this approach would result in more granularity and separation between players instead of everyone being mostly concentrated in the 45-55 zone.

05-06-2026, 09:24 PM	#2
snepp All Star Starter Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,818	Put me down with the Real™.