IMG Grading Unveiled

[redjonn]

15 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Sky promote their sports with those sports and events selling points.

Who gets relegated from The Masters in Augusta?

Don't you need to be invited.... that is you will not be invited unless your performance on the golf course is good enough or you have a life time legends membership based on your life time achievement winning the big tournaments... you don't get points for using certain type of golf clubs or bag and what digital profile you have.

Although I get your point but maybe not the best example.

[RP London]

11 minutes ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

Indeed. I mean, I think he's completely wrong, to the extent that it suggests he doesn't understand the system he has voted in - if Batley had beaten Leigh in the Final last season does anyone think under the new points system that has been unveiled that they would even be close to any of the current SL teams? In fact they would probably have been well behind some of the Championship teams that didn't reach the final.

This is the Chief Executive of one of the biggest teams in SL saying that the chances of the Championship Grand Final winners not making SL are "very remote". As he says himself, "if any club is still unsure, they need to ask themselves why".

I can see those quotes getting a lot of mileage in a couple of years' time.

I love the fact that people who have been talking directly to IMG, have been shown the information, have been asking them questions and been given answers etc are the ones that are wrong and not random people on an internet forum!

[Jughead]

On the whole finishing bottom thing, Hull KR finished 10th or 11th during the 2020 season but given the freedom of survival, threw in Mikey Lewis and a couple of others and went through that truncated year by playing an expansive, entertaining brand of rugby and building towards 2021, where they were 80 minutes from a maiden Grand Final appearance and subsequently 2022, where they were 80 minutes from a Challenge Cup final. All of this onfield stuff while doing a lot off the pitch with investment, the stadium, the introduction of the fan park behind the sticks and improvements to the matchday experience. Finishing bottom with no relegation really harmed them, didn’t it?

[RP London]

7 minutes ago, phiggins said:

But I thought one of the main arguments against P&R was that it took away the stability that clubs would require to be able to improve? If that is the case, then won't B graded clubs still have the same issues with the threat of relegation, hindering their efforts to become A graded?

which is why the best thing to do is to improve off the field (as well as on if possible) to get to an A grade and get that stability, therefore increasing the commercial viability and attractiveness of the sport. 

[glossop saint]

11 minutes ago, David Shepherd said:

Roughly half the entrants at the end of round 2?

Don't they fail to make the playoffs?

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

38 minutes ago, HawkMan said:

I asked that because currently Sky are bigging up the P+R in football,  quite rightly,  who's coming up from Championship,  who's getting relegated from EPL etc, all down the leagues in fact.  They're sort of able to that with SL now though Wakefield means there's not much mystery as to who's going down. From 2025 will Sky be able to big up a tasty relegation 4 pointer if gradings are a factor not yet determined.

Brian Carney " well there you have it an exciting battle at the bottom,  Salford lose big match and could be down,  they're hope is Featherstone don't get the stadium improvements done in time,  and their fan engagement figures fall short,  we'll keep you posted."

Doesn't quite have the same " zing" as straight ,lose and you're down.

I genuinely don't think Sky or any media partner really wants to focus on relegation, or sees it as a strength of the product. It's a story, so they sell it because that's what they have in the locker to sell, but the reality is that the "relegation batle" content involves two poor sides playing each other in scrappy, low-quality games, with a focus on failure. The positive stories, with great quality product, are far better for them - and for us, in terms of finding new viewers. The NRL doesn't need P&R to get exposure and interest. 

[HawkMan]

In the NFL there's no relegation,  never has been, never will be, so everyone knows where they stand.

But under IMG proposals , there might be or might not. Bottom team might go down or might not. 11th might or might not.

Fans going to games ;

" we've just seen our team save themselves from the drop, or might not have."

" got my tickets for the big relegation 4 pointer, or it may not be, dunno "

Edited April 20, 2023 by HawkMan

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

16 minutes ago, phiggins said:

But I thought one of the main arguments against P&R was that it took away the stability that clubs would require to be able to improve? If that is the case, then won't B graded clubs still have the same issues with the threat of relegation, hindering their efforts to become A graded?

It's a least-bad option, as we transition from an open model to a semi-closed one. Whilst B-grade sides can get relegated, so have jeopardy, they also know the other scoring factors they can influence in order to return to the elite league. Those involve clubs making long-term investments which benefit the game, rather than the current model of short-term excess spending on wages in order to bounce back up, which don't benefit the sport. 

[sentoffagain2]

   When will the clubs be graded before the start of next season or after?.I think they pick themselves.A Warrington,Wigan,Saints,Leeds,Catalan,and Hull KR. B +Hull Fc,Leigh,and Huddersfield. B Cas,Wakefield,and Salford.

[phiggins]

8 minutes ago, RP London said:

which is why the best thing to do is to improve off the field (as well as on if possible) to get to an A grade and get that stability, therefore increasing the commercial viability and attractiveness of the sport. 

I'm on board with that, however, my point is, if the lowest place B graded team is still likely to be relegated (i don't know if this is the case, as read conflicting reports on this), and if P&R is seen as a factor that stops teams improving off the field, then what will change? Teams will still be fighting to avoid being lowest ranked B team, and invest more on first team than off the field.

Feels to me like the danger with these plans is it is neither one thing nor the other. 

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

Just now, HawkMan said:

In the NFL there's no relegation,  never has been, never will be, so everyone knows where they stand.

But under IMG proposals , there might be or might not. Bottom team might go down or might not. 11th might or might not.

Fans going to games ;

" we've just seen out team save themselves from the drop, or might not have."

" got my tickets for the big relegation 4 pointer, or it may not be, dunno "

Yes, it's a transitional period, by their very nature any transition is imperfect (otherwise we'd already be at the destination).

The focus should be the stories about clubs at the top, which we are moving towards. I think we'll have a closed league within 5 years, and only a few "jeopardy" clubs within 3. This plan is all about getting the sport to a better place in 12 years, not making it perfect next year.  

[phiggins]

2 minutes ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

It's a least-bad option, as we transition from an open model to a semi-closed one. Whilst B-grade sides can get relegated, so have jeopardy, they also know the other scoring factors they can influence in order to return to the elite league. Those involve clubs making long-term investments which benefit the game, rather than the current model of short-term excess spending on wages in order to bounce back up, which don't benefit the sport. 

In which case, why not just have strict minimum standards, rather than a grading system?

Long term investments become difficult to make, if you might be relegated that year. I thought that was the whole point of removing P&R?

[The Phantom Horseman]

9 minutes ago, RP London said:

I love the fact that people who have been talking directly to IMG, have been shown the information, have been asking them questions and been given answers etc are the ones that are wrong and not random people on an internet forum!

Sure, I agree completely with you on that. So do you share Hetherington's view that the chances of the Championship Grand Final winners not making SL are "very remote"? Should current play-off contenders such as Batley or Sheffield confidently expect to be in SL in 2025 if they win the Championship Grand Final in 2024? If so, can you outline the areas in the IMG scoring system where they will have outscored existing SL clubs?

[Chrispmartha]

2 hours ago, Archie Gordon said:

Not really. If you're Club #12, you can't control Clubs #10, 11, 13, 14, 15 - the other rats in your sack (see MjM).

We seem to be setting up a system where you can actually improve your rating and then get demoted, putting at risk any multi-year plan you might have started. It's no more investment-friendly than now.

If the Club that is #12 has improved in every area but 13,14&15 have improved even more the system is working.

[gingerjon]

26 minutes ago, redjonn said:

Don't you need to be invited.... that is you will not be invited unless your performance on the golf course is good enough or you have a life time legends membership based on your life time achievement winning the big tournaments... you don't get points for using certain type of golf clubs or bag and what digital profile you have.

Although I get your point but maybe not the best example.

I chose it because Sky were doing wall to wall promotion of it a few weeks back and they obviously do that very differently to how they promote soccer.

Just because some people focus on relegation battles in football doesn’t mean that you need relegation to get people’s attention.

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

5 minutes ago, phiggins said:

In which case, why not just have strict minimum standards, rather than a grading system?

Long term investments become difficult to make, if you might be relegated that year. I thought that was the whole point of removing P&R?

No, the point is to tell owners what long-term investments to make, as they'll be rewarded with protection or promotion. 

At present, the only way to defend your position or be confident of promotion is to blow money you don't have on an out-sized playing budget. Look at what is happening with Wakey this season, now their budget is more to their means. Look how Leigh guaranteed promotion last year. 

Much better owners spend money on facilities, pathways and audience generation. 

[gingerjon]

11 minutes ago, HawkMan said:

In the NFL there's no relegation,  never has been, never will be, so everyone knows where they stand.

But under IMG proposals , there might be or might not. Bottom team might go down or might not. 11th might or might not.

Fans going to games ;

" we've just seen out team save themselves from the drop, or might not have."

" got my tickets for the big relegation 4 pointer, or it may not be, dunno "

Tell me you’ve never watched non league football without telling me you’ve never watched non league football …

(Or indeed, Super League c.2001)

[Archie Gordon]

7 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

If the Club that is #12 has improved in every area but 13,14&15 have improved even more the system is working.

Demoting an improving club is part of the plan? Really?

[RP London]

12 minutes ago, phiggins said:

I'm on board with that, however, my point is, if the lowest place B graded team is still likely to be relegated (i don't know if this is the case, as read conflicting reports on this), and if P&R is seen as a factor that stops teams improving off the field, then what will change? Teams will still be fighting to avoid being lowest ranked B team, and invest more on first team than off the field.

Feels to me like the danger with these plans is it is neither one thing nor the other. 

I suppose that depends on where your "quick win" is.. it may be that you can get more points by sorting out off the field rather than the risk of doing it on the field with injuries/poor form etc that could leave you bottom. 

[RigbyLuger]

22 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

Gledhill is currently spouting that the reason the Sky TV deal was lowered was categorically because the Super8s were dropped, basically he's a muppet.

I realise I'm doing it myself here, but if people ignored him, he wouldn't get the attention he wants. What media organisation employs him? Not the trade press, not the BBC, not any other actual radio or TV station, so why does he have any voice above the level of us all?

[RP London]

20 minutes ago, HawkMan said:

In the NFL there's no relegation,  never has been, never will be, so everyone knows where they stand.

But under IMG proposals , there might be or might not. Bottom team might go down or might not. 11th might or might not.

Fans going to games ;

" we've just seen out team save themselves from the drop, or might not have."

" got my tickets for the big relegation 4 pointer, or it may not be, dunno "

That should be short term though.. once we get those strong 12 this goes away. At the moment there is more certainty in the relegation fight but it comes with the cost of teams not moving forward off the field etc and the real argument here is "is that a price worth paying" when it affects so badly the commercial worth of the sport and therefore the money coming in that can solve many of the problems of the game. 

[Chrispmartha]

10 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

Demoting an improving club is part of the plan? Really?

No, having the top tier full of the best run clubs is the plan.

You’re looking at it totally the wrong way round. (As are those concentrating on relegation battles)

Your scenario paints a picture of 16 very well run RL clubs, that might be the time SL expands to 14 or more.

[RP London]

22 minutes ago, phiggins said:

In which case, why not just have strict minimum standards, rather than a grading system?

Long term investments become difficult to make, if you might be relegated that year. I thought that was the whole point of removing P&R?

we tried that before and you either have minimum standards that not enough clubs can make to form a league (we'll call that Cat A now) therefore you need to bring in teams to make the numbers up, but what if a team below then gets above the minimum standards but not "on the field"...

we have to view this as a moving minimum standard.. the minimum standard really is Cat A.. but as we are in transition the minimum standard is the 12th best team across the board. Its just a different way of looking at the same argument I suppose. 

[RP London]

22 minutes ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

Sure, I agree completely with you on that. So do you share Hetherington's view that the chances of the Championship Grand Final winners not making SL are "very remote"? Should current play-off contenders such as Batley or Sheffield confidently expect to be in SL in 2025 if they win the Championship Grand Final in 2024? If so, can you outline the areas in the IMG scoring system where they will have outscored existing SL clubs?

its funny if you hadn't selectively quoted my post the answer was right there.. Sheffield wouldn't and shouldn't go up because of the ground. I cannot specifically comment on Batley as I have never been there and don't have access to the data that IMG have requested.

I would say though in terms of the Hetherington quote that I agree with him.. simply because he has had the in-depth conversations with IMG, asked questions and got answers and, I would expect (as its how i would do it working on change management etc) he has been shown modelling to prove the point.  

[Harry Stottle]

13 hours ago, Monkeymagic22 said:

Obviously I’m no fan of Cas, but that was the past, and people need to move on. Realistically Cas won’t be demoted under this format.

So where do you expect Toulouse to be then?