IMG Grading Unveiled

[RP London]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

No disrespect, but you have never been there with your team.

i have and we won the championship while it "didnt mean anything".. i loved it!! we were champions of the level we were playing in and it was brilliant.. should we have gone up to Super League? would it have helped or hindered the club? i really dont know.. but it was brilliant to win the comp we were in..

and i like this system, i like where it may lead and i think it will help the sport as a whole. 

Edited March 10, 2023 by RP London

[David Shepherd]

46 minutes ago, Pulga said:

I wonder why that the case in England but the opposite in Australia. They're the same sports.

For reasons I’ll never fathom, soccer dominates to such a level that all sports are pretty niche here.

[Chrispmartha]

6 minutes ago, RP London said:

i have and we wont the championship while it "didnt mean anything".. i loved it!! we were champions of the level we were playing in and it was brilliant.. should we have gone up to Super League? would it have helped or hindered the club? i really dont know.. but it was brilliant to win the comp we were in..

and i like this system, i like where it may lead and i think it will help the sport as a whole. 

I just personally don’t get the ‘meaningless’ games thing

 

lets say the club you support is in SL with 5 or more games to go, you are in 10th you can’t get relegated nor can you make the playoffs, would fans suddenly just stop going?

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

53 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Neither do I Bronco, I desire both P&R, if Leigh are in a dogfight at the end of this season I won't miss, if the results did not matter I doubt I would attend, well I probably would because I have a season ticket, but if the ruling was to change I would not purchase another.

Would you rather not have some security, allowing Derek to spend his money growing the club in its widest sense, rather than having to spend overs on players just to try and stay up? It's no way to run a business. Simplistic P&R is the exception not the rule in elite team sports, outside of football. 

[Mumby Magic]

The best way is P and R under grading but via the results process if that makes sense. Grade A clubs in Championship announced prior to season and they know they are going up if they win the Grand Final. Clubs know what standards they need to improve to get to to have a chance of promotion. 

[Chrispmartha]

3 minutes ago, Mumby Magic said:

The best way is P and R under grading but via the results process if that makes sense. Grade A clubs in Championship announced prior to season and they know they are going up if they win the Grand Final. Clubs know what standards they need to improve to get to to have a chance of promotion. 

So a club can just spend all the money on the playing squad, ignoring all the other points in the grading system and get promoted?

[Toby Chopra]

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

I think it's fine for incumbents to hold an advantage - as you say, how much is open to, ahem, debate - because one the legitimate complaints about what we've had until now has been how much has been put up with on the grounds of potential or promises of improvement.

If we want it to based on what is real, rather than what might be, then we have to accept some bias towards those who are currently doing it, even if we'd like them to be doing it better. And we have to be prepared to accept also that some real hard work and obvious things really happening will be needed to take another club's place.

I think that's where I differ - I don't think Cas, Wakey or Salford for example are deserving of any incumbency bonus over, say York, Toulouse or Fev. To my mind the SL group are not working any harder or more inventively than the non-SL group. They'll just come up with a higher score on the back of their place in SL.

I think if you grant incumbency bonus to clubs like the above, you lock in mediocrity and weakness which is potentially damaging to the competition.

I'd be happy with the proposed system if the points reflected REAL strengths, not unearned ones. It's a sad fact that some of those SL clubs won't be doing any better in five years time just because they keep a SL place.

I'm supportive of the overall approach of course, welcome the work done so far and the detail that has been presented,  and am fully behind the Cat A concept. This isn't flat-cappery on my part, rather the opposite, it doesn't apply enough pressure to certain clubs.

But it's easily fixed, by fiddling with the weighting and points: award a bigger bonus for winning the Championship so you're in pole position to go up. If a team STILL can't be graded top 12 after that, then it must have some pretty serious weaknesses, and am all in favour then of holding them back.          

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

1 hour ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

 

Some of the criteria are The issue of catchment area is an obvious one, with the Leeds vs Hunslet example and Skolars v Broncos situation obvious problem areas for IMG.

 

I know what you means but In terms of time to travel Skolars is about an hour from Broncos.....they cover really different parts of the capital and are different catchment for me 

Frankly I am probably going to watch Skolars as much if not more than Broncos this year because it is so much less time to travel to 

[Chrispmartha]

8 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

I think that's where I differ - I don't think Cas, Wakey or Salford for example are deserving of any incumbency bonus over, say York, Toulouse or Fev. To my mind the SL group are not working any harder or more inventively than the non-SL group. They'll just come up with a higher score on the back of their place in SL.

I think if you grant incumbency bonus to clubs like the above, you lock in mediocrity and weakness which is potentially damaging to the competition.

I'd be happy with the proposed system if the points reflected REAL strengths, not unearned ones. It's a sad fact that some of those SL clubs won't be doing any better in five years time just because they keep a SL place.

I'm supportive of the overall approach of course, welcome the work done so far and the detail that has been presented,  and am fully behind the Cat A concept. This isn't flat-cappery on my part, rather the opposite, it doesn't apply enough pressure to certain clubs.

But it's easily fixed, by fiddling with the weighting and points: award a bigger bonus for winning the Championship so you're in pole position to go up. If a team STILL can't be graded top 12 after that, then it must have some pretty serious weaknesses, and am all in favour then of holding them back.          

I do agree with this, I don't see why some clubs in SL should automatically be above Champ sides just because they are in SL.

As I say there's no indication as to whether this is the case or not.

For example and no offence to Wakefield supporters but (and this is just an example), what is the case for them being automatically in SL above let's say York or Toulouse in a grading system?

 

[Jughead]

3 minutes ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

I know what you means but In terms of time to travel Skolars is about an hour from Broncos.....they cover really different parts of the capital and are different catchment for me 

Frankly I am probably going to watch Skolars as much if not more than Broncos this year because it is so much less time to travel to 

Isn’t it going on local boroughs, so Skolars and Broncos would not be affected in the way Wigan and Leigh are?

[GUBRATS]

4 hours ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

People need a straw man, because they struggle to argue that having current promotion criteria of "any small town that happens to have a bloke in it prepared to blow a year's profit from his chain of fried chicken shops to run a full time squad against part-timers for a couple of years" is somehow a better idea than this one.

The whole idea's nuts. 

It worked in 2006 

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, Chrispmartha said:

What were the championships and SL attendance averages?

In the closed shop Leighbwas down to just over 1,000, SL in '17 6,500 average of which I would estimate 5,500 was home fans, such was the bad attendance of the visiting SL clubs only Saints brought a very good following, 2 closer neighbours Wigan and Wire was abysmal as was if I date say Leeds Rhinos.

Edited March 10, 2023 by Harry Stottle

[Chrispmartha]

2 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

In the closed shop Leighbwas down to just over 1,000, SL in '17 6,500 average of which I would estimate 5,500 was home fans, such was the bad attendance of the visiting SL clubs only Saints brought a very good following, 2 closer neighbours Wigan and Wire was abysmal as was if I date say Leeds Rhinos.

Im not that interest in just the Leigh attendances, because it isn’t just about Leigh, im talking overall.

 

Whats 2017 got to do with it?

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, Chrispmartha said:

It’s bizarre, as I say some want a race to the bottom it seems.

No Chris, I just prefer the sporting contest to be carried on till the end of the season, in a league system there are going to be those at the top and those at the bottom some of whom as you know following your club in recent years would have had nothing to lay for halfway through the season if there wasn't a relegation contest, I can't understand those who Champion that meaningless fixtures is the way forward.

[RP London]

27 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

I think that's where I differ - I don't think Cas, Wakey or Salford for example are deserving of any incumbency bonus over, say York, Toulouse or Fev. To my mind the SL group are not working any harder or more inventively than the non-SL group. They'll just come up with a higher score on the back of their place in SL.

I think if you grant incumbency bonus to clubs like the above, you lock in mediocrity and weakness which is potentially damaging to the competition.

I'd be happy with the proposed system if the points reflected REAL strengths, not unearned ones. It's a sad fact that some of those SL clubs won't be doing any better in five years time just because they keep a SL place.

I'm supportive of the overall approach of course, welcome the work done so far and the detail that has been presented,  and am fully behind the Cat A concept. This isn't flat-cappery on my part, rather the opposite, it doesn't apply enough pressure to certain clubs.

But it's easily fixed, by fiddling with the weighting and points: award a bigger bonus for winning the Championship so you're in pole position to go up. If a team STILL can't be graded top 12 after that, then it must have some pretty serious weaknesses, and am all in favour then of holding them back.          

if they are not actively doing things and they are just being caught up in the fact they are in Super League then this should get caught up in things like the fandom where it is about how they are interacting with the audience and how they are trying to encourage more etc They would then have no ability to get to the 15 points and be safe so they will always be vulnerable to other teams coming through and doing better. 

The key is going to be to get to be top end B so that you get the chance to get to A by getting into Super League. You have to look at it as being in competition with yourself not with others. You need to get to be the best well run best interactive club you can be, that will get you right up to the top end of Bs then you can push for the A.

[gingerjon]

30 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

I think that's where I differ - I don't think Cas, Wakey or Salford for example are deserving of any incumbency bonus over, say York, Toulouse or Fev. To my mind the SL group are not working any harder or more inventively than the non-SL group.

But the in built bias (assuming it exists) will be smaller for those than others and be more easily overcome by the harder working sides outside.

I will say again: we've been complaining for a long time about acceptance of potential and nice ideas  versus reality. And so whilst - FOR EXAMPLE ONLY - Salford may not be doing a superb job as a Super League club, they are an actual, existing SL club with experience of running a full-time Super League club. And that has to count for *something* even if that something is not much.

[Chrispmartha]

1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said:

No Chris, I just prefer the sporting contest to be carried on till the end of the season, in a league system there are going to be those at the top and those at the bottom some of whom as you know following your club in recent years would have had nothing to lay for halfway through the season if there wasn't a relegation contest, I can't understand those who Champion that meaningless fixtures is the way forward.

And Id be fine with my club having nothing to play for in a season because I enjoy going to the rugby.

Its still a sporting contest and not ‘meaningless’.

Im not championing meaningless fixtures Im championing getting to a point where all the clubs in the top flight are well run clubs with a realistic chance of making the playoffs rather than scrapping to stay up with no long term plan.

[RP London]

3 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

No Chris, I just prefer the sporting contest to be carried on till the end of the season, in a league system there are going to be those at the top and those at the bottom some of whom as you know following your club in recent years would have had nothing to lay for halfway through the season if there wasn't a relegation contest, I can't understand those who Champion that meaningless fixtures is the way forward.

to be fair when was the last time we had a meaningful more than 2 way relegation fight? (outside the middle 8s)... i dont really remember one, but i may be mistake.. so normally you have 2-3 clubs without anything to play for anyway.. this is always the way and always will be. we often manufacture a relegation battle when in reality its over with games to go (maybe not mathematically) and as has been said the way it is "marketed" when its "people's livelihoods at stake" is hardly what a professional sport should look like. 

[Gav Wilson]

YORK RLFC chairman Clint Goodchild believes that the grading criteria that was outlined publicly by IMG yesterday was reassuring.

[Chrispmartha]

Just now, Gav Wilson said:

YORK RLFC chairman Clint Goodchild believes that the grading criteria that was outlined publicly by IMG yesterday was reassuring.

I’m a really big fan of what York are doing I think they’d be a real asset in the too tier in a few years, I really hope they make it, I think theres huge potential.

[Chrispmartha]

4 minutes ago, RP London said:

to be fair when was the last time we had a meaningful more than 2 way relegation fight? (outside the middle 8s)... i dont really remember one, but i may be mistake.. so normally you have 2-3 clubs without anything to play for anyway.. this is always the way and always will be. we often manufacture a relegation battle when in reality its over with games to go (maybe not mathematically) and as has been said the way it is "marketed" when its "people's livelihoods at stake" is hardly what a professional sport should look like. 

I absolutely hated the middle 8s it was an overly convoluted mess.

[redjonn]

7 minutes ago, RP London said:

if they are not actively doing things and they are just being caught up in the fact they are in Super League then this should get caught up in things like the fandom where it is about how they are interacting with the audience and how they are trying to encourage more etc They would then have no ability to get to the 15 points and be safe so they will always be vulnerable to other teams coming through and doing better. 

The key is going to be to get to be top end B so that you get the chance to get to A by getting into Super League. You have to look at it as being in competition with yourself not with others. You need to get to be the best well run best interactive club you can be, that will get you right up to the top end of Bs then you can push for the A.

Shouldn't it be possible to be what you say "You need to get to be the best well run best interactive club you can be" ... given within the potential limiting factors of the league your in and hence be a Cat A in whichever league. 

That is for example a Cat A run club in the championship.  The limited view of the criteria seems to have a bias to existing SL clubs or once in SL.

 

[Jughead]

3 minutes ago, Gav Wilson said:

YORK RLFC chairman Clint Goodchild believes that the grading criteria that was outlined publicly by IMG yesterday was reassuring.

He’s talking quite sensibly for a Rugby League chairman. Off with his head. 

[RP London]

2 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

I absolutely hated the middle 8s it was an overly convoluted mess.

yet that was a "successful" way of making the games more meaningful throughout the season, "every minute matters"... but loads of people on here hated it... its a problem we just cannot fix and keep everyone happy.. 

 

[Chrispmartha]

1 minute ago, RP London said:

yet that was a "successful" way of making the games more meaningful throughout the season, "every minute matters"... but loads of people on here hated it... its a problem we just cannot fix and keep everyone happy.. 

 

It was an ill thought out solution to a problem that didn’t exist.

I can remember trying to explain it to people even ones that sporadically watched RL - i just got blank expressions.