IMG Grading Unveiled

[DI Keith Fowler]

2 minutes ago, RP London said:

yes sorting yourself out off the field is priority 1 to then go after that... which really is the way it would be wisest to do this anyway even today. If you overspend on the field and miss promotion or relegation then a CVA is looming, as we have seen with many. 

It ought to be a virtuous circle. By improving off the field you will likely increase revenues which can be invested in a better playing side which brings results in the table.

Right now there's no point investing in off the field measures when you can just put all your eggs in one basket, buy up all the best players and get promoted that way. I think we need to move past the notion of sporting integrity underpinning P&R, 99% of the time it's just who spends the most, at least with the grading you'll force clubs into sensible long term decisions. 

[RP London]

5 minutes ago, DI Keith Fowler said:

It ought to be a virtuous circle. By improving off the field you will likely increase revenues which can be invested in a better playing side which brings results in the table.

Right now there's no point investing in off the field measures when you can just put all your eggs in one basket, buy up all the best players and get promoted that way. I think we need to move past the notion of sporting integrity underpinning P&R, 99% of the time it's just who spends the most, at least with the grading you'll force clubs into sensible long term decisions. 

Couldn't agree more!

[Archie Gordon]

13 minutes ago, RP London said:

...

While they havent specifically said about weighting the part AG has quoted has implied that it will be, they should do more than imply I agree but thats how I would read that. 

The bit I quoted wasn't a reference to weighting it was a reference to finding clever ways to protect the top 12 once they have a top 12.

Presumably Sutton wants an objective way to measure the 12 best clubs in any given year. But, at the same time, Sutton doesn't want "overchange". An odd word to use but that surely means finding ways of restricting movement in and out of SL by shaping the data. I think this is one of the thorny issues still to be resolved.

[Wakey Til I Die]

19 minutes ago, RP London said:

yes sorting yourself out off the field is priority 1 to then go after that... which really is the way it would be wisest to do this anyway even today. If you overspend on the field and miss promotion or relegation then a CVA is looming, as we have seen with many. 

While I agree with your view on the points for places etc you mention rattling around the bottom end.. if you take that random number thing i had a team that was 12th 11th and 8th... they would have ended the 3 year group of 12 teams in dead last, just above them was a team with 10th 7th and 10th... they would have been relegated to my fictional Club B by 0.333 and 0.2222 points... so 1 grand final win would have been enough to knock out 1, 1 grand final and an 1895 the other.. depending on your definition of "rattling around the bottom" if the weighting is done well then I can see change between the leagues happening.

Out of interest we know their are ‘mock exam results’ at the end of this season but will the actual grading include next seasons finishing positions? Or is it based on 2021-2023?

[RP London]

6 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

The bit I quoted wasn't a reference to weighting it was a reference to finding clever ways to protect the top 12 once they have a top 12.

Presumably Sutton wants an objective way to measure the 12 best clubs in any given year. But, at the same time, Sutton doesn't want "overchange". An odd word to use but that surely means finding ways of restricting movement in and out of SL by shaping the data. I think this is one of the thorny issues still to be resolved.

Interesting how the same thing can be read so differently.. i do wish they had been a bit clearer. 

As I say i read that as much as safety for promoted teams that they dont want constant changes like the yoyos we have seen and that IMG are doing a lot of work to make sure that the system works.. as, in my previous reply to you, get the weighting wrong and there is a huge yoyo potential, get it right and those that are well structured and can gain from the Super League boost will do so whilst those that are not set up to gain from the Super League boost will find themselves slip back down again.. which is what they will want to happen (and we should all want to happen to be fair) to get the commercial strongest Super League.

[RP London]

1 minute ago, Wakey Til I Die said:

Out of interest we know their are ‘mock exam results’ at the end of this season but will the actual grading include next seasons finishing positions? Or is it based on 2021-2023?

good question. I think I have seen somewhere an answer but not sure, as they are hoping to announce the make up mid season, though wonder whether it will be everything but the end positions to add.. not sure. 

2024 and post the "mock exam", IF there is weighting, will be interesting as there will be both a promoted and relegated team to test that weighting algorithm on (I am sure they will be testing it on past promotions and relegations too but this is the real test I expect). 

[Archie Gordon]

10 minutes ago, RP London said:

Interesting how the same thing can be read so differently.. i do wish they had been a bit clearer. 

As I say i read that as much as safety for promoted teams that they dont want constant changes like the yoyos we have seen and that IMG are doing a lot of work to make sure that the system works.. as, in my previous reply to you, get the weighting wrong and there is a huge yoyo potential, get it right and those that are well structured and can gain from the Super League boost will do so whilst those that are not set up to gain from the Super League boost will find themselves slip back down again.. which is what they will want to happen (and we should all want to happen to be fair) to get the commercial strongest Super League.

I just think you are 180 degrees wrong on this. Get the weighting exactly right, and you have huge potential for yo-yoing if 10th to 15th are pretty much interchangeable. Adjust the weighting to build in an incumbency advantage - as Sutton suggests is the plan - and you protect 10th to 12th for reasons of stability. 

EDIT: I think stability is good (though I wouldn't try to achieve it like this). But I think it should be explicit rather than implicit that the system is building an incumbency advantage in by design. 

 

Edited April 5, 2023 by Archie Gordon

[RP London]

5 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

I just think you are 180 degrees wrong on this. Get the weighting exactly right, and you have huge potential for yo-yoing if 10th to 15th are pretty much interchangeable. Adjust the weighting to build in an incumbency advantage - as Sutton suggests is the plan - and you protect 10th to 12th for reasons of stability. 

 

Interestingly I dont see it that way at all.

The key is that those teams that are being relegated have proven what they can do and failed they will lose points because the algorithm would take into account what HAS happened.. so once they go down they would need to show major improvements to get those points added back in the weighting. Weighting really only applies to teams that havent a history there, those that do will have real life data for the specifically. 

Edited April 5, 2023 by RP London

[GUBRATS]

BORING

[RP London]

4 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

BORING

but I keep saying "interestingly".... 

[Tommygilf]

1 hour ago, Archie Gordon said:

Yes. 

If the 13th, 14th and 15th best clubs in 2025 are the 10th, 11th and 12th best rated in 2026, it seems unreasonable to hold them down.

To be unreasonable the scenario presented has to be at least realistic.

[Wakey Til I Die]

2 hours ago, RP London said:

good question. I think I have seen somewhere an answer but not sure, as they are hoping to announce the make up mid season, though wonder whether it will be everything but the end positions to add.. not sure. 

2024 and post the "mock exam", IF there is weighting, will be interesting as there will be both a promoted and relegated team to test that weighting algorithm on (I am sure they will be testing it on past promotions and relegations too but this is the real test I expect). 

I think this is part of the problem, we don't really know what the full plans are, or at least how the implementation of them will work in practice. Maybe the clubs know more but when you listen to interviews of the officials they seem as in the dark about some areas as the humble fan on the terraces. And yet in a couple of weeks they will have to vote for it despite probably not knowing the full picture, it all seems a little woolly to to me be honest. Personally i'd want the full facts before i ticked a box signing the game away for 12 years but there you go.

[Oxford]

37 minutes ago, Wakey Til I Die said:

I think this is part of the problem, we don't really know what the full plans are, or at least how the implementation of them will work in practice. Maybe the clubs know more but when you listen to interviews of the officials they seem as in the dark about some areas as the humble fan on the terraces. And yet in a couple of weeks they will have to vote for it despite probably not knowing the full picture, it all seems a little woolly to to me be honest. Personally i'd want the full facts before i ticked a box signing the game away for 12 years but there you go.

It's all a bit like being contacted by Nigeria's only astronaut who can only get back to Earth if we send him all our money.

The full facts, now there's an expectation!

 

[RP London]

1 hour ago, Wakey Til I Die said:

I think this is part of the problem, we don't really know what the full plans are, or at least how the implementation of them will work in practice. Maybe the clubs know more but when you listen to interviews of the officials they seem as in the dark about some areas as the humble fan on the terraces. And yet in a couple of weeks they will have to vote for it despite probably not knowing the full picture, it all seems a little woolly to to me be honest. Personally i'd want the full facts before i ticked a box signing the game away for 12 years but there you go.

Fair points

Got to hope the clubs have the full info.. the presentation does say they will so fingers crossed

[gingerjon]

8 minutes ago, RP London said:

Fair points

Got to hope the clubs have the full info.. the presentation does say they will so fingers crossed

Telling the clubs their exact grading before a vote?

Nah.

Treat 'em mean, keep 'em keen.

[RP London]

41 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Telling the clubs their exact grading before a vote?

Nah.

Treat 'em mean, keep 'em keen.

I meant more the process rather than the result.. otherwise there may be claims of a fix.. and they'll be plenty of them anyway!!

But I do like t"reat em mean keep em keen".. better than the current idea of "treat a few like dictatorial megalomaniacs get a failing commercial entity".  

[Anita Bath]

My head hurts reading this thread…..even I can manage two points for a win, team with most points goes up, team with least points goes down.

Under this proposal we will need some pointy head with a degree in theoretical mathematics to tell us who goes up and who goes down, who cannot go down no matter how poorly they play and who cannot go up no matter how well they play.

I suppose it will ensure we will finally be able to beat Australia (as we were promised by the proponents of super league). Oh wait a minute…..

We certainly need to have a clear identification of what this is intended to achieve in what timeline so that we can judge the success of the proposals and ditch them when they dont achieve those goals. A matter of accountability.

[GUBRATS]

8 hours ago, Anita Bath said:

My head hurts reading this thread…..even I can manage two points for a win, team with most points goes up, team with least points goes down.

Under this proposal we will need some pointy head with a degree in theoretical mathematics to tell us who goes up and who goes down, who cannot go down no matter how poorly they play and who cannot go up no matter how well they play.

 

Hence my BORING conclusion 

[gingerjon]

8 hours ago, Anita Bath said:

My head hurts reading this thread…..even I can manage two points for a win, team with most points goes up, team with least points goes down.

Must have been awful during the 3-2-1 points era for you.

Or looking over old tables. Like this classic where a duplicitous team gamed the system to finish top https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1905–06_Northern_Rugby_Football_Union_season.

 

[RP London]

9 hours ago, Anita Bath said:

My head hurts reading this thread…..even I can manage two points for a win, team with most points goes up, team with least points goes down.

Under this proposal we will need some pointy head with a degree in theoretical mathematics to tell us who goes up and who goes down, who cannot go down no matter how poorly they play and who cannot go up no matter how well they play.

I suppose it will ensure we will finally be able to beat Australia (as we were promised by the proponents of super league). Oh wait a minute…..

We certainly need to have a clear identification of what this is intended to achieve in what timeline so that we can judge the success of the proposals and ditch them when they dont achieve those goals. A matter of accountability.

We already know what it is meant to achieve and a timeline.. clubs should be striving towards a Cat A status in 12 years time (probably 11 now) we should have many more Cat A clubs. Arguably super league should be a closed shop because the top 12 teams maybe 14 are Cat A and can't be relegated and the next set would expand the league.. 

This will then (in IMGs plan) be part of raising the "commercial property" of Rugby League leading to increased investment (not necessarily tv deals as the world is changing and that may not be what you need it could be measured differently). 

IMG have pretty much laid this out in the documents they have. But it has to be long term because chopping and changing every 3-5 years doesn't and hasn't worked as it doesn't let systems bed in. 

In terms of simplicity I agree it's not easy but believe it's necessary because the club owners just aren't prioritising things that ironically will help them. Thats on them not IMG. I'd be ok with on field P&R but with some clubs told they won't go up if they finish top because their grade B is so low (a line has to be drawn).. but I do believe that in practice this isn't going to be as complicated as it looks at the moment. 

Edited April 6, 2023 by RP London

[Oxford]

Had to laugh at SARL's take on this

https://www.seriousaboutrl.com/how-the-biggest-super-league-clubs-have-been-disadvantaged-by-img-amendments-72362/

I suppose smaller clubs get raw deal would be a dog bites man story, but really?

[Toby Chopra]

19 minutes ago, RP London said:

IMG have pretty much laid this out in the documents they have. But it has to be long term because chopping and changing every 3-5 years doesn't and hasn't worked as it doesn't let systems bed in. 

Agreed, but that's why we have to get the criteria right at the start and I fear that the tweaks, although welcome, don't fix the fundamental problem.

Which is that we're giving an incumbency bonus to clubs that don't deserve it, and won't make the best of it. We're locking in a system where 10 years down the line the Wakefields and Salfords of this world have kept their SL place because of the inherent advantages of already being in SL, but they're still a million miles away from being Cat A. That isn't what this system is supposed to do, it looks like it's going to repeat the worst bits of licensing.

There needs to be a mechanism where the SL Bs need to show they're making genuine progress to Cat A status, not just keeping their noses ahead of challengers below.

Use it or lose it!

[Oxford]

28 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

Agreed, but that's why we have to get the criteria right at the start and I fear that the tweaks, although welcome, don't fix the fundamental problem.

Which is that we're giving an incumbency bonus to clubs that don't deserve it, and won't make the best of it. We're locking in a system where 10 years down the line the Wakefields and Salfords of this world have kept their SL place because of the inherent advantages of already being in SL, but they're still a million miles away from being Cat A. That isn't what this system is supposed to do, it looks like it's going to repeat the worst bits of licensing.

There needs to be a mechanism where the SL Bs need to show they're making genuine progress to Cat A status, not just keeping their noses ahead of challengers below.

Use it or lose it!

I think, nore or less the opposite will take place and that's what the purpose of grading is to get rid of Wakey and SRD.

The idea that these two have inherent advantages over other Bs is laughable.

I've said all along that A is the problem and that everyone sould start with a B and see who makes progress in their particular areas for improvement.

Cat  A shouldn't be seen as an end but part of the same process of improvement because no matter how good A might be it can't possibly be perfection.

Or we could spend all our time arguing about how it's not fair, then again if you like Ofsted type things not only is it a never ending process where you ignore the oustanding but you can keep moving the goalposts with new demands just like they do!

[RP London]

1 hour ago, Toby Chopra said:

Agreed, but that's why we have to get the criteria right at the start and I fear that the tweaks, although welcome, don't fix the fundamental problem.

Which is that we're giving an incumbency bonus to clubs that don't deserve it, and won't make the best of it. We're locking in a system where 10 years down the line the Wakefields and Salfords of this world have kept their SL place because of the inherent advantages of already being in SL, but they're still a million miles away from being Cat A. That isn't what this system is supposed to do, it looks like it's going to repeat the worst bits of licensing.

There needs to be a mechanism where the SL Bs need to show they're making genuine progress to Cat A status, not just keeping their noses ahead of challengers below.

Use it or lose it!

Totally agree with you.

For that part I honestly believe that is not the case as I cannot for the life me believe that IMG would want this. The above scenario will not bring the rewards that IMG need and what they have stated so I really cannot see this being the case. Hence the feeling, and reading into comments, that there will be weighting and that it will be done in a way that satisfies the above.

If you have not been able to capitalise on it then this is the potential of the next cab off the rank lets see if they can maximise that potential if they dont within 2-3 years then their grading reflects reality rather than potential and maybe the next one gets ago etc. 

[steve oates]

11 hours ago, Anita Bath said:

My head hurts reading this thread…..even I can manage two points for a win, team with most points goes up, team with least points goes down. Under this proposal we will need some pointy head with a degree in theoretical mathematics to tell us who goes up and who goes down, who cannot go down no matter how poorly they play and who cannot go up no matter how well they play. We certainly need to have a clear identification of what this is intended to achieve in what timeline so that we can judge the success of the proposals and ditch them when they don't achieve those goals. A matter of accountability.

It's a great post, posted at a time some posters are starting to pretend they understand all the IMG gobbledigook.

Look at the league tables. Superleague is 12 clubs. Now look at the Championship. Top club is Featherstone whom I guess nobody in Superleage want when we have Cas and Wakey already struggling to compete.  Hasn't the Featherstone boss said he's packing in? With no French TV contract to share, and the travel costs why would any SL club want Toulouse either?

After that it's Sheffield Eagles whom we all love, but  aren't a Superleague club in waiting in any shape of form. Then we have ex-SL clubs massively devoid of the private finances they used to have like Widnes and Bradford.

I also keep noting the lack of reality when it comes to quality professional players. I read a big article yesterday on the head knocks thing. That's putting people off playing, and if you look at the way the amateur game in all codes is falling it looks like this is why we seem to be stuffed with more failed Aussies than ever.

This ain't "doom and gloom" it's reality, and I would agree with the SL bosses that Superleague is the manifestation of a dozen clubs just about capable of maintaining a TV deal of some sorts. So forget the P & R nonsense (which wrongly became the focus of the game when Nigel Wood was running things) and just have a settled Superleague of the 12 biggest clubs.

Not that that is any long term solution. If the quality of players drops further or rich owners walk or TV deals drop, look out for the 10 club Superleague and the formation of "Calder RLFC"