Player Development: My 7-Season Study and Analysis [Long]

Note: If you prefer to skip the detailed methodology, data analysis, and observations, feel free to jump to the "Quick Read" section at the bottom.

Sheet 1 for full details. Sheet 2 for a quick overview.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dBCRxoStdOaBcZoWJ6Mpu4BDe6sRfXrqD0re5xqrYyM/edit?usp=sharing

Redshirt Explanation
For those unfamiliar with the concept of a redshirt, it means a player sits out their freshman year, extending their eligibility by one additional year. Thus, a player's fifth year is equivalent to what would normally be their senior year. For example, a player labeled as Sophomore (RS) would typically be a Junior if they hadn’t redshirted.

At the start of each season, I recorded players’ overall ratings and total number of caps. This allowed me to track changes in their overall performance and the number of caps broken each year. Players who left early or graduated are highlighted in green, indicating their final year stats recorded before leaving in their 5th year, 5SR column. Only 2 players got drafted their Junior year, so their final stats at the end are recorded under SR column, and then also copied to their 5SR column. Would mess up the numbers if I left it blank.

I aimed to recruit players to replace seniors immediately. When a player reached their Junior year, I found a replacement, redshirted them, so that when the Junior player became a Senior, my new recruit would be a Freshman (RS), gaining that extra year of training and experience. My roster size remained around 80 players throughout, with no cuts, ensuring every player started at least one full season.

 

Reason for This Test
I aimed to determine whether it was more effective to develop players long-term through faster experience for starters (Talent Developer), cap breaks (Architect), and off-season boosts (Motivator) or to focus on recruiting high-star players. I simulated every game because playing would not provide the same experience as the simulated games. Given the extensive time commitment involved in playing over 100 hours just to assess player development, simulating was the more efficient option.

As the offensive coordinator for Georgia, I strategically saved coach points to enhance player development. My coaching tree includes:

  • Recruiter: Tier 2 – LB, Tier 3 – DB (needed to spend in Recruiter to unlock Talent Developer).
  • Talent Developer: Tier 3 – QB, Tier 4 – WR/TE, OL, DL, LB, and DB.
  • Motivator: Tier 3 – QB, RB/FB, WR/TE, OL, DL, LB, and DB.
  • Architect: Tier 2 - QB, RB/FB, WR/TE, OL, DL, LB, and DB.
  • Tactician: Tier 1 – OL and LB, Tier 2 – QB and DL, Tier 4 – DB.

Parameters

  • Simulated every game to ensure consistent experience gains.
  • Stayed with the same school throughout the study, forcing wins in two seasons to recruit 4-5 star players without excessive competition.
  • XP sliders were set to 50 across the board.
  • Kept recruiting numbers low so every player got a fair chance at starting for one year, regardless of their overall rating.
  • No players were cut.
  • No adjustments were made to ratings, height, weight, or numbers.

 

Methodology
I employed a simulation-based methodology over 7 seasons, opting not to play any games to maintain consistent experience gains. Playing games would have led to varying experience levels due to shorter game durations, so simulating all games ensured that my players received a consistent amount of experience, which was crucial for a fair comparison. During this period, I recruited players across various skill levels, including a notable season where I brought in 11 two-star recruits. All recruits were redshirted, allowing them to start during their Junior, Senior, or 5th Senior years. This approach enabled me to closely observe the impact of the Architect’s cap breakability on lower-star players in starting roles.

To track player development, I recorded each player's initial overall rating and the number of skill caps they possessed at the beginning of each season. This tracking continued until players were either drafted or graduated. By retaining all players on the roster, I ensured that the results accurately reflected the true impact of player development strategies across the entire team. This data collection allowed me to analyze how different player development methods—particularly the Talent Developer - influenced the progression of both high- and low-star recruits, Motivator (off-season boosts), and Architect abilities – cap breaks to potentially raise a recruit’s overall level above limit with caps.

I recorded data for 103 players but could have easily included more in my analysis, started to become very time consuming so I stopped after 7 seasons. Some positions had as few as three players, who were the starters most of the time. I chose not to include Kickers or Punters, as their inclusion would have skewed the results. Without any coaching abilities specifically tailored for them, their overall ratings would improve but their skill caps remained unchanged, leading to a 0% cap break percentage. This would have negatively impacted my overall findings, so I decided to exclude those positions. Including more players would have provided a clearer picture of the data, as a larger sample size would give a better understanding of the percentages involved. Regardless, the 103 players analyzed yielded an average cap break percentage of 10.05%.

There wasn’t a significant distinction between development traits: Normal traits averaged 12.36%, Impact averaged 8.11%, Star averaged 11.08%, and Elite averaged 11.23%. Positions that seemed to have a higher chance of breaking caps included OL, DT, and LB. I acknowledge that schemes play a factor in these results; I was running a 4-2-5 defense, which would yield different results from someone using a 5-2 or 3-3-5. I can safely assume that there won’t be a huge difference in schemes, perhaps around ±3%.

Thoughts
If you want to focus on cap breaks and player development, I’d recommend concentrating on 1-2 positions. Invest in Tier 4 Talent Developer to maximize lower-rated players and starters, Tier 3 Motivator for off-season training boosts, and Tier 4 Architect to enhance chances of breaking caps. By focusing on a single position for all three abilities, that would require 79 skill points, which could be better utilized in OL or DL positions, where several positions can be impacted, rather than on QB. This way, you can get more out of your coach abilities while spreading your coach points more effectively.

Interesting Observations
During playoffs, I noticed teams like South Alabama, Appalachian State, Tennessee, Iowa, Washington, UCF, Georgia Tech, and Michigan State became powerhouses around 2030, while traditional giants like Georgia, Clemson, Texas, Alabama, Oregon, and Michigan struggled. Despite high overall ratings, they found themselves mid-pack in their conferences and missed the playoffs. Georgia's coaching changes were particularly notable, with the head coach being fired three times in four years, and I was offered the HC position 2 of those times. I quickly declined because I didn’t want to associate myself with such a trash school. KIDDING!! I was the OC there for a few years, so I can’t bash them.

Quick Read:
10.05% cap break chance from 103 players recorded. Player dev traits didn’t really matter on chance of breaking skill caps. A 20-25% cap break percentage would be more acceptable and probably worth spending coach points to pair Tier 4 Talent Developer, Tier 3 Tactician, and Tier 2 or Tier 4 Architect. Personally, I find it not worth it. Focus on Recruiting abilities - can include CEO and Program Builder, Tactician, and Motivator.

Thanks for reading!