IMG Grading Unveiled

[GUBRATS]

9 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

I'm not a fan of the grading system to designate league places at all myself.

But if they're having it and are including a score for catchment area, then there has to be a better way to demonstrate it than dividing the population of the local authority by the number of clubs there.

Why are they including catchment at all ? 

[Tommygilf]

16 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Why are they including catchment at all ? 

Because a basic rule of X people to support 1 business is used by companies around the world to assess the likely viability and success of a business in an area. Its not a hard set rule, and it is fairly rudimental, but it is used as a good indicator of how easy or difficult reaching the desired results are going to be in a given area.

Its just an indicator of what clubs are working with. Not perfect, but its rarely going to be that far off.

[GUBRATS]

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

Because a basic rule of X people to support 1 business is used by companies around the world to assess the likely viability and success of a business in an area. Its not a hard set rule, and it is fairly rudimental, but it is used as a good indicator of how easy or difficult reaching the desired results are going to be in a given area.

Its just an indicator of what clubs are working with. Not perfect, but its rarely going to be that far off.

It works if you are setting up a new competition with completely new teams , or are bringing together teams from different countries a la the EuroBasketball , but essentially existing clubs in an existing competition with no other options to replace them except clubs from the same area , it is pointless 

[Tommygilf]

10 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

It works if you are setting up a new competition with completely new teams , or are bringing together teams from different countries a la the EuroBasketball , but essentially existing clubs in an existing competition with no other options to replace them except clubs from the same area , it is pointless 

Its not pointless, its just not as effective as it is in other examples - which is why it has a relatively small number of points attached to it. Remember, this isn't just about what is good for the clubs, but about what is good for the game and the League. 

I also think a lot of the IMG grading process is about laying bare the realities of the sport so everyone is clear on certain issues. 

Edited July 15, 2023 by Tommygilf

[GUBRATS]

2 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Its not pointless, its just not as effective as it is in other examples - which is why it has a relatively small number of points attached to it. Remember, this isn't just about what is good for the clubs, but about what is good for the game and the League. 

I also think a lot of the IMG grading process is about laying bare the realities of the sport so everyone is clear on certain issues. 

Is it ? , I thought it was about IMG making money ? , The stronger the clubs become ( all of them ) the stronger the game and the league will be 

You think the owners at Haven,Keighley,Skolars,Hurricanes,West Wales,CAS,Wakey don't understand the realities ? 

[Tommygilf]

Just now, GUBRATS said:

Is it ? , I thought it was about IMG making money ? , The stronger the clubs become ( all of them ) the stronger the game and the league will be 

You think the owners at Haven,Keighley,Skolars,Hurricanes,West Wales,CAS,Wakey don't understand the realities ? 

It doesn't have to be all the clubs, just enough to make the money. All would be ideal, more would be awesome, but not everyone is also possible. Indeed, some of the limitations for growth are there partly because of the "catchment areas".

Some are delusional, some are more realistic, as with any scenario. Likewise for the fans, many of whom will be getting a reality check.

[GUBRATS]

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

It doesn't have to be all the clubs, just enough to make the money. All would be ideal, more would be awesome, but not everyone is also possible. Indeed, some of the limitations for growth are there partly because of the "catchment areas".

Some are delusional, some are more realistic, as with any scenario. Likewise for the fans, many of whom will be getting a reality check.

I thought a rising tide and all that ? 

[Tommygilf]

2 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

I thought a rising tide and all that ? 

Of course, but the rising tide can mean that the top flight still becomes essentially unachievable for some clubs, even if they did improve on what they are currently. For example, Midlands could treble their attendances, a massive improvement, and still be a relatively small Rugby League club.

[GUBRATS]

Just now, Tommygilf said:

Of course, but the rising tide can mean that the top flight still becomes essentially unachievable for some clubs, even if they did improve on what they are currently. For example, Midlands could treble their attendances, a massive improvement, and still be a relatively small Rugby League club.

And you think we need some lunatic catchment grading system to tell us that ? , Seriously ? 

No club , and I mean no club should ever stop striving to be in the top tier , that's what will push our sport forward 

[GUBRATS]

The only genuine point of a catchment grading system would be to actually close clubs down , to work out that there are too many in any given area and just tell the lower one to stop playing RL ( ok , ' merging ' is the politically correct term ) but that is the top and the bottom of it , is that going to happen ? , Will the RFL tell clubs they are going to be ' deregistered ' for the sake of the sport ? 

No point doing a catchment grading then is it ? 

[RP London]

14 hours ago, SUPERSTUD said:

I still do not think that any club will be relegated from Super League at the end of this season. I can already envisage a threat of a legal challenge being put forward by the wooden spoonists along the lines of the goalposts were moved partway through the season. IMG proposals were not in place at the commencement of SL 2023. Get ready people.

But it's relegation by on pitch performance this year.. always was so no goal post has moved. 

[gingerjon]

1 hour ago, GUBRATS said:

The only genuine point of a catchment grading system would be to actually close clubs down , to work out that there are too many in any given area and just tell the lower one to stop playing RL ( ok , ' merging ' is the politically correct term ) but that is the top and the bottom of it , is that going to happen ? , Will the RFL tell clubs they are going to be ' deregistered ' for the sake of the sport ? 

No point doing a catchment grading then is it ? 

Are you labouring under the mistaken belief that catchment is the sole criterion?

[GUBRATS]

2 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Are you labouring under the mistaken belief that catchment is the sole criterion?

No , why ? 

[gingerjon]

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

I also think a lot of the IMG grading process is about laying bare the realities of the sport so everyone is clear on certain issues. 

What's notable is that even the draft/guess versions of the grade scores are being met with, "THIS DOESN'T TELL US ANYTHING WE DIDN'T ALREADY KNOW" by a few people.

Which is true. I think they're right. I think, broadly, the criteria are reasonable so the scoring, as we are following it now, fits with what I think most people would see as fairly self-evident placings of the clubs from top to bottom in terms of strength.

So the question to those howling about how this is teaching us nothing new is to ask: well, if we knew all this, how come we have failed to respond to it? How come rugby league's footprint has shrunk? How come, unlike other sports that are also hidden behind paywalls, we are unable to access sponsors, grow a diverse audience, or, even, pay most players a decent wage for the demands we put on them?

Maybe this doesn't tell us anything new. But maybe it's the reality check the sport needs to get off its posterior and do something.

[gingerjon]

3 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

No , why ? 

You seem rather hysterically hung up on it as a defining aspect of the grading.

[GUBRATS]

Just now, gingerjon said:

You seem rather hysterically hung up on it as a defining aspect of the grading.

Hysterical ? , Or you mean I was having a discussion with Tommy about it , only in fact because it's raining and I don't want to go outside in the garden 

Do you think a catchment grading system is really any use ? , Or is it there just to boost certain clubs score due to location ? , When I'm fairly sure they weren't overly bothered about location 

[GUBRATS]

8 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

What's notable is that even the draft/guess versions of the grade scores are being met with, "THIS DOESN'T TELL US ANYTHING WE DIDN'T ALREADY KNOW" by a few people.

Which is true. I think they're right. I think, broadly, the criteria are reasonable so the scoring, as we are following it now, fits with what I think most people would see as fairly self-evident placings of the clubs from top to bottom in terms of strength.

So the question to those howling about how this is teaching us nothing new is to ask: well, if we knew all this, how come we have failed to respond to it? How come rugby league's footprint has shrunk? How come, unlike other sports that are also hidden behind paywalls, we are unable to access sponsors, grow a diverse audience, or, even, pay most players a decent wage for the demands we put on them?

Maybe this doesn't tell us anything new. But maybe it's the reality check the sport needs to get off its posterior and do something.

What ? 

And Who ?

Edited July 15, 2023 by GUBRATS

[Tommygilf]

1 hour ago, GUBRATS said:

And you think we need some lunatic catchment grading system to tell us that ? , Seriously ? 

No club , and I mean no club should ever stop striving to be in the top tier , that's what will push our sport forward 

Well no, that is why its worth max 1.5 out of 20. 

Inevitably however, some clubs will strive and not succeed, the majority in fact. Its therefore important to strive towards the things that are good for the whole game and hopefully have lasting impact.

[Tommygilf]

12 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Or you mean I was having a discussion with Tommy about it , only in fact because it's raining and I don't want to go outside in the garden 

Well now I'm offended!

[GUBRATS]

2 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Well no, that is why its worth max 1.5 out of 20. 

Inevitably however, some clubs will strive and not succeed, the majority in fact. Its therefore important to strive towards the things that are good for the whole game and hopefully have lasting impact.

Like what ? , What is best for the whole game ? , Saturating certain area's ( essentially making them hotbeds of the sport ) so that it makes it easier to fight off other codes ? , Or having wafer thin involvement spread out over huge area's? , Or both ? 

Is having clubs around for a century + a ' lasting impact ' , or having new clubs spring up and disappearing a few years later ? 

[GUBRATS]

8 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Well now I'm offended!

Not much new about that 

[Tommygilf]

11 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Like what ? , What is best for the whole game ? , Saturating certain area's ( essentially making them hotbeds of the sport ) so that it makes it easier to fight off other codes ? , Or having wafer thin involvement spread out over huge area's? , Or both ? 

Is having clubs around for a century + a ' lasting impact ' , or having new clubs spring up and disappearing a few years later ? 

Evidently, having lots of small clubs fighting over a small audience in a small area isn't great for the whole game.

Of course you want strength in depth, who wouldn't. But in a world where essentially we are deciding to prioritise limited resources, its prudent to see where they go furthest for the benefit of the most for the sport.

Again, this is worth a max of 1.5 points out of 20, and will indicate the clubs with a good baseline to work with. Obviously, its not the only factor, which is why there are 18.5 points available for everything else.

[redjonn]

24 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Well no, that is why its worth max 1.5 out of 20. 

Inevitably however, some clubs will strive and not succeed, the majority in fact. Its therefore important to strive towards the things that are good for the whole game and hopefully have lasting impact.

mind you it is not an inconsequential percentage... i.e. 7.5%, which is not to be sneezed at...

Although I guess I'm bias as given our geographical footprint, history etc and that isn't going to change in the mid term I don't see how it drives clubs with regard to that metric.  As is often said on this thread the criteria may or can change over the course, so given that have it when its meaningful, i.e. if and if ever when we are looking to new geographical horizons. and their are multiple candidates.

[GUBRATS]

3 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Evidently, having lots of small clubs fighting over a small audience in a small area isn't great for the whole game.

Of course you want strength in depth, who wouldn't. But in a world where essentially we are deciding to prioritise limited resources, its prudent to see where they go furthest for the benefit of the most for the sport.

Again, this is worth a max of 1.5 points out of 20, and will indicate the clubs with a good baseline to work with. Obviously, its not the only factor, which is why there are 18.5 points available for everything else.

Essentially so minor , it wasn't even worth bothering with , and yet already we've seen people thinking of ways to cheat the system 

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, redjonn said:

mind you it is not an inconsequential percentage... i.e. 7.5%, which is not to be sneezed at...

Although I guess I'm bias as given our geographical footprint, history etc and that isn't going to change in the mid term I don't see how it drives clubs with regard to that metric.  As is often said on this thread the criteria may or can change over the course, so given that have it when its meaningful, i.e. if and if ever when we are looking to new geographical horizons. and their are multiple candidates.

For me its the only pure "outside influence" based category to the grading. Clubs can't control it as you say, but its there as an indicator that may perhaps tip 1 club into the A Grade or highlight a good area for investment for example. 

FWIW I think they would have had more of this, in fact didn't they originally before they revised it? And likewise going forward it will be more refined and prominent.