What are we actually measuring?

If it is purely “accuracy” in the draft, then there should be no difference between nailing a first round pick with a “bullseye” and nailing one in the 6^th round.

At the outset, this is unfair, because some teams go into the draft with many more picks than others and those GMs therefore have a much greater chance of scoring a “bullseye.” In addition, teams are more likely to score this kind of “hit” in the first round than any other, and the odds diminish as we go on. This is somewhat exacerbated by the fact that a high round pick can be traded for multiple picks in later rounds.

So, somehow, we need to “penalize” incorrect picks (which will be the vast majority of those in the draft).

Possible solution: Award 1000 points for each “bullseye” pick. But then modify the total bonus by applying the percentage of such picks to the total (Rounding total down).

Examples:

Player 1: 4 picks. One hit. = 250 points
Player 2: 7 picks. None hit. = 0 points
Player 3: 8 picks. One hit. = 144 points
Player 4: 9 picks. Two hits. = 222 points
Player 5: 13 picks. One hit = 76 points

Note: You must make at least four picks in the draft to qualify for this bonus. This is to avoid the situation where someone with a couple of 1^st round picks (with a high percent of potential accuracy) trades away the rest of their draft to capitalize on this feature.

On the other hand, some of us want to measure the “inherent value” of a pick. There are two components to this. First, most agree that players taken in the first round are especially valuable. (Fifth year option and all that). As a general rule, players taken in the 2^nd round are far more likely to start than players taken in the 3^rd, who will usually debut as backups. Players taken in the 5^th thru 7^th rounds are usually destined for ST or developmental projects on practice squads.

So, for example:

Player taken in Round 1 = 100 points
Player taken in Round 2 = 75 points
Player taken in Round 3 = 50 points
Player taken in Round 4 = 30 points
Player taken in Round 5 = 20 points
Player taken in Round 6 = 15 points
Player taken in Round 7 = 10 points

Again, though, some mock teams start with much higher picks than others. How do we compensate for that? And shouldn’t there be a penalty for “reaching?” One way to do this is with “Raw value” calculations, which award bonuses or penalties for where a player is taken compared to the real draft. This can lead to strange results, though. A player taken late in the 7th round who is actually drafted in the mid fifth should not be worth as much as a player taken in the late 3rd who is drafted in the mid-first! And the current system of raw penalties don’t make sense either (without modifications) A 6^th round pick who goes undrafted shouldn’t hurt your value as much as a first round pick who drops to the 3^rd. Much of that is accounted for in the “Round Value” mentioned above, but is that enough? Also, what about teams that draft on the “cusp” of Rounds?

Proposed solution: Bonus points and Penalties.

Any pick in Rounds 1-3 that goes in the real draft more than 10 spots ahead or behind is worth a bonus or penalty of exactly 25 points. If they go more than 30 spots ahead or behind, the bonus or penalty increases to exactly 50 points.

Any pick in Rounds 4-7 that goes in the real draft more than 20 spots ahead or behind is worth a bonus or penalty of exactly 10 points. If they go more than 40 spots ahead or behind, the bonus or penalty increases to exactly 20 points.

All of this is in addition to the “inherent” value for the Round in which the player is actually taken.

“Positional accuracy” is a factor that I’m inclined to simplify. When do we categorize a player as a DE as opposed to an Edge rusher as opposed to a hybrid OLB? What about guys who are drafted for their versatility on the O-line and can play multiple positions? What about RB/WR hybrids or DBs that might play either S or CB or slot corner?
Also, while needs are important, many teams address their biggest needs via FA after our mock, but before or during the real draft.

It’s not hard to “game the system” by trading back to accumulate massive numbers of picks just to cover all the bases. For all these reasons, I think it’s necessary to simplify and reduce the current bonuses.

My proposal:

The scoring categories are:

Defensive front 7
Defensive Backfield
Quarterback
Offensive Line (including Long Snappers)
Offensive “skill” (including RBs, WRs, TEs, FBs and KRs)
Kickers or Punters.

Each time you match a position taken by the real team, it’s worth 5 bonus points. Multiple matches don’t accumulate. So if you draft 3 OLs and your real team drafts only 1, you get only 5 points – not 15. If, on the other hand, the real team picked two OLs and you picked three, then you would earn 10 points.

Note: Under the MUGS system, a bonus for positional value did not apply in case of a “bullseye.” It was assumed that you were already being awarded for that. Because the bonuses here are smaller and because the goal is to simplify scoring, these bonuses do, in fact, add to whatever bonuses you got from bullseyes.

UDFAs
This is a great tradition, but over time, the scores for this feature have inflated (primarily to encourage participation). So this is an attempt to get back to basics. Here’s the new scoring system:

Your UDFA is actually drafted, and by your team! You earn the Inherent value for the Round in which he’s taken, plus 15 points. (note: this does not count in terms of the accuracy equation detailed above)
Your UDFA is actually drafted, but by someone else: Inherent value of the Round in which he’s taken.
Your UDFA goes undrafted but signed by your team! 6 points
Your UDFA goes undrafted but is signed by some other team: 2 points.
Your UDFA is undrafted and unsigned but is invited to anyone’s pro camp or try-out camp: 1 point.

New Category Proposal: Handicaps

This is an effort to make the process slightly more fair. Your team's handicap is determined at the time that the draft order is frozen – not by what it looks like after the mock draft swings into action with trades and whatnot. To keep things simple, it looks only at your first two picks.

First pick in top 10 = 0 bonus
First pick at 11-32 = 3 points
First pick in Round 2 = 25 points
First pick in Round 3 = 75 points
First pick in Round 4 or thereafter = 150 points

Second pick in Round 1 = 0 bonus
Second pick in Round 2 = 3 points
Second pick in Round 3 = 25 points
Second Pick in Round 4 or thereafter = 75 points

All comments welcome!

Edit: Nothing ticks me off more than changing the rules after the draft and before or during the scoring, but I need to clarify one thing. For the 5-point "positional accuracy" bonus to apply, your draft pick must be actually drafted. This was the case under the MUGs system and I should make it clear that it applies here as well. If one or more of your draft picks goes UDFA, you do not get to count those particular picks as qualifying for the positional bonus. I think most vets in the Mock Draft already assumed that, since this was always the case, but I should have made that clear for newbies.

Awesome OD, I'm going to deep dive the hell out of this once I'm caught up at work. Turns out taking 3 days off for the draft, and then spending Monday just doing the scoring on company time has put me in a bit of a hole.

Old Dude, for this to work, you're going to have to actually put some thought into it. 😀 I'm thinking at least 2,000 more words.

Making it far more complicated than it has to be.

Remind me what you did in your career, Old Dude.

Anything that guarantees me victory is good

Probably the current scorring is good....but I think the biggest flaw is that ONE horrible pick kills your score...so it gives no on any incentive to deviate much from the popular big boards or to take a QB in this type of draft becuase it's safer to take a guard that you know is in the range of your pick.

What if you simply socred this thing by dropping each teams worst RAW draft pick out, totalling up the score.......and coming up with a RAW out of that value. Then, you take the 32 worst RAW from each team...average out what that RAW number is... so lets say the average bad pick was -38. You then go back and if your worst RAW was better than -38...you get that many more raw points added back to your total...so if my worst was -28, I get 10 more raw poitns...but if my worst was -58, instead of mins 58, I end up with only -20 to my score instead...I was 20 raw points worst than the average. It softens the blow of one awful pick while not blowing out the RAW score of someone who wasn't off by much.

Just an idea. probably not well explained.

Abolish positional accuracy!

A case can be made for this. Our mock draft begins weeks before the real thing, at a time when many teams are just getting ready to make big free agency moves. So, by the time the actual draft rolls around, needs have changed, and some teams draft accordingly. Others are drafting primarily for the future, and beyond the first round or two, don't expect to find immediate starters anyway.

From a simplicity in calculation standpoint, one of the most tedious things is to look at each team's overall draft and compare that to the mock choices. And, as mentioned, there are a host of hybrid players and positions to deal with. Imagine losing a couple places in the final order because the pass-rusher you listed as an "Edge" was deemed to be just a Defensive End or Linebacker.

I don't even remember everything exactly with MUG's formula, but I don't know how I got only "10" accuracy points this year when I drafted virtually almost every position the Vikings did outside a few picks. I moved up, they moved back. As far as designating players, different teams are going to view prospects different ways. How they are designated in that regard shouldn't really be relevant.

As far as RAW value goes, your solution seems plausible. I'm not necessarily against a GM getting dinged for taking a third-rounder who went undrafted, but your scoring system makes sense and I think it would really simplify that process and make the scoring more fair, but perhaps even more competitive. I just always thought RAW value was a good way to see how your evaluation lines up with the prospect's real-time draft position or LPV (league perceived value).

Goddamn, I am an admitted nerd. But OD...this is some mensa level nerd type of shit right here.

Hey OD, I finally got around to digesting this, I like it a lot! For the inherent value, you're suggesting that's the straight up points, regardless of what round the GM drafted that player in, right?

Yeah, I think we're on the same page there.

Under at least one of the older versions, the "inherent value" of a pick depended on where the Mock GM drafted the guy. You either scored that "inherent value" or failed to earn it, depending on whether the player in question was drafted at that spot, or better, or within a shifting margin of error. The biggest argument I recall about this was when Shanahahanahanahan drafted some dude in the 1st round who went 11 spots later than he was picked in the Mock. He earned zero points for inherent value and also took an -11 raw value penalty. That seemed pretty harsh, since he would have earned 100 points for the inherent value had the guy gone just 2 spots higher.

Under the system I propose, the "inherent value" of the pick is simply where he's taken in the real draft (earning whatever point value value we assign tp players taken in that range). So you can gain or lose points if your guy goes substantially higher or lower, but the rewards and penalties aren't quite so stark.

Examples:

Mock drafter, selecting at # 74 (in the 3rd round) sees the player in the real draft go at pick 60 (in the 2nd round). He'd earn 75 points for the Inherent value of a Second Round pick. And, since it's more than 10 spots ahead (but less than 31), he earns a 25 point bonus for "Raw Value." The pick nets him 100 points.

Same situation, but the guy picked at 74 falls all the way to 136 (4th Round) in the real draft. He earns 30 points for the "Inherent Value" of a 4th Round Pick. But he takes a 50-point penalty in Raw value because his 3rd Round pick fell by more than 30 spots. So the net score is -20. If the guy fell all the way to pick 184 (Round 6) he'd get 15 points for the Inherent Value of a 6th Round pick, but would once again take the 50 point Raw Value Penalty for a net score of -35.

So, you still get rewarded or punished for high or low value picks (as measured by the real draft), but the penalties aren't quite as severe, and it's all easier and faster to calculate.

i have no idea, the current system is fine by me but also a new one is fine.

Main points:
- pick accuracy
- positional accuracy
- udfa getting drafted

how its scored i dont care

I don't know how or who is going to handle the "official" scoring for this year's mock, but I'm going to apply my proposed system to see how it works. We start with the handicap scores, which are determined prior to trades. This year, the starting handicaps are as follows:

Houston Texans: 0
Philadelphia Eagles: 0
Seattle Seahawks: 0
Detroit Lions: 0
Carolina Panthers: 3
Arizona Cardinals: 3
Indianapolis Colts: 3​
Las Vegas Raiders: 3
Atlanta Falcons: 3
Chicago Bears: 3
Tennessee Titans: 6
NY Jets: 6
New England Patriots: 6
Green Bay Packers: 6
Washington Commanders: 6
Pittsburgh Steelers: 6
Tampa Bay Bucs: 6
LA Chargers: 6
Jacksonville Jaguars: 6
NY Giants: 6
Dallas Cowboys: 6
Buffalo Bills: 6
Cincinnati Bengals: 6
New Orleans Saints: 6
Kansas City Chiefs: 6
Baltimore Ravens: 28
Minnesota Vikings: 28​
Miami Dolphins: 50
LA Rams: 50
Cleveland Browns: 50
Denver Broncos: 100
San Francisco 49ers: 100

One thing I'd like to discuss for a potential change is the UDFA round. More specifically, a way to prevent the first bidder to sweep most players from the contigency list and stop the bidders from becoming sort of 'hostage' to the GM making the final pick in the draft.

For example, the contigency list could be limited to 20 names that have to be ranked in order of preference. All contigency players are worth $3000, so the player would go to the bidder that ranked him higher on his contigency list. If there are multiple GMs with the same contigency player ranked at the same spot, then we could follow the original draft order without trades.

Alternatively, if we still want to make the order of submitted bids relevant, it could be used to decide who takes the player if he's ranked at the same spot by multiple GMs.

Example:

My contigency list:

1) John Bates, TE, Boise State
2) Chris Evans, RB, Michigan
3) Ernest Jones, LB, South Carolina
4) William Sherman, G, Colorado
5) Darius Hodge, Edge, Marshall

If I'm the only GM who ranked TE John Bates #1 on the contigency list, I take him regardless of the order of submitted bids. If someone else also ranked TE John Bates #1, we either follow the original draft order or the order of submitted bids.

This way, I believe it would enhance the importance of sending the bids right, with good strategy, more than just sending them fast.
​

There are a lot of changes that need to be made to UDFA but once you tweak one thing, it impacts another so you have to end up tweaking multiple ones. It's like pulling on a string and the unravel is more than you bargained for.

Why is it only 100K still? Why is it limited to 50 bids and not less? If you eliminate time submitted then what's the fairest replacement?
This is one of the reasons why I legitimately hate UDFA, it's a blind bid, first in process that basically makes you have to do crazy shit to win.

You have no idea.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣