What kind of staff ratings movement are in FOF2004?

[Taur]

One of the things I loved about TCY was when you went shopping for a new staff member Age was a very important stat. Unlike its FOF counterpart TCY allowed you to develop caoches the same way you develop players.

In TCY you Hire them young and then watch them blow-up with the success of your team.

So, what is the story with FOF2004 and staff ratings development?

[corbes]

One of the things I loved about TCY was when you went shopping for a new staff member Age was a very important stat. Unlike its FOF counterpart TCY allowed you to develop caoches the same way you develop players.

In TCY you Hire them young and then watch them blow-up with the success of your team.

So, what is the story with FOF2004 and staff ratings development?

Well, anecdotally, staff ratings DO rise and fall with age.

I perceive that employment is a key to change in the ratings. Young staff members tend to see more marked improvement in those areas that relate to their current jobs (i.e., if you hire a young gun as O.C., he is more likely to develop o.c.-related skills than head coaching skills).

Also, aging coaches tend to retain their employed skills, but lose their other skills more quickly. (anectodal evidence -- in a previous career, I had a defensive coordinator who stayed with me for 24 years. At 75 years old, he was still avg/good/very good at his defensive coordinator duties, but had dropped to poor/fair in every other category).

[Taur]

(anectodal evidence -- in a previous career, I had a defensive coordinator who stayed with me for 24 years. At 75 years old, he was still avg/good/very good at his defensive coordinator duties, but had dropped to poor/fair in every other category).
What was his ratings when your hired him 24 years earlier?

[corbes]

What was his ratings when your hired him 24 years earlier?

Oh, I wish knew for sure, but I don't.

Over 24 years, he definitely increased in his key areas, and then decreased. You might imagine (V.Good -> Excellent -> Good -> Average) over the quarter century.

In his non-essential ratings, it was more like (Average -> Average/Good -> Fair -> Poor) over the same periods of time.

That's really crappy evidence, mostly cause it's made up. But it does represent what I think happened.