Does Inviting Too Many Players To TC Reduce Chances of Getting Booms

[OldSchool]

Someone in my mp league had mentioned he thought someone had done some testing and come to the conclusion that inviting over 60 players to TC severely cut down the chances of having guys boom. Can't find anything via search, but does anyone know if this is the case? I usually invite a ton of guys but will change my ways if so.

[Dutch]

It cuts down chances in the sense that undrafted free agents generally are undrafted for a reason....so if you invite a bunch of them, don't expect miracles....from any of them.

The guys that are going to boom are the guys with good combines (and I'm not talking about VSOL guys here). Guys with good combines are going to be drafted. Everybody else you invite to TC is just watering down your success rate average.

Will it affect that stud 1.1 draft pick? No.

[Firefly]

I don't think Old School is talking about the success rate average. I tink he means whether a guy who would have boomed in a 60-player camp would have not in a 70-player camp.

I don't know the answer to that, but it sounds like one of those superstitions some GMs develop over time. Like, if your bad to your commish Jim will steal your children and eat them. That's not very common at all.

[dwardzala]

Like, if your bad to your commish Jim will steal your children and eat them. That's not very common at all.

I hope it never has (or will) happen. :D

[azjoe_02]

See this thread:

http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=76952

[OldSchool]

See this thread:

http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=76952

Hmm, that's interesting but I've always been scared of going over 70 anyway since supposedly it can screw the league up, and I'm not surprised going in with 100+ would end in tears. Actually I think I learned that from having seen that thread before now that I read some of the comments. Looking at how many undrafted guys are regulars on my team I'm just going to go with my own anecdotal evidence and head in with the usual 65-70 unless I hear something different about 60+ I guess.

[Firefly]

Looks to me like the guy in that thread was exaggerating a bit by quoting 3 rookies that didn't make it and 5 vets that lost points as "the worst TC I've ever seen". And you saw Solecismic's reply that it was ok to go with as many players as you wished. But each to his own.

[Dutch]

I don't think Old School is talking about the success rate average. I tink he means whether a guy who would have boomed in a 60-player camp would have not in a 70-player camp.

I don't know the answer to that, but it sounds like one of those superstitions some GMs develop over time. Like, if your bad to your commish Jim will steal your children and eat them. That's not very common at all.

Well, I was just covering the bases for why it may actually appear that TC hurts you if you have more players. As I stated though, your 1.1 is going to creep (or falter) the same no matter how many players are in TC.

[OldSchool]

And you saw Solecismic's reply that it was ok to go with as many players as you wished. But each to his own.

Oh, actually I missed that. Someone needs to write a greasemonkey script to make his posts show up in blue or something.

Well, guess I'll keep inviting the free agent world to our little preseason party.

[imdashep]

Looks to me like the guy in that thread was exaggerating a bit by quoting 3 rookies that didn't make it and 5 vets that lost points as "the worst TC I've ever seen". And you saw Solecismic's reply that it was ok to go with as many players as you wished. But each to his own.

That's me ;). Vets were one thing, but the rookies sucked. I've heard this anecdotally a few times, and the extremely low frequency of un-drafted rookie booms has just lead me to be a bit risk averse here and keep it to under 70 in TC

[Firefly]

Mhh... I may be wrong, but you are He Who Must Not Be Named, aren't you, imdashep?

Or am I mistaking you for someone else?

[imdashep]

Excuse me?