IMG Grading Unveiled

[Archie Gordon]

2 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Turns out if you can go up without addressing those things though then they don't get addressed.

As, to be blunt, the present state of the London Broncos pretty much attests.

Indeed. But not progress. The Broncos are also Exhibit A here.

[Taffy Tiger]

19 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

that's nit picking grand final is currently what counts.

I personally dont agree with that.

The old way was better you win the league that's the biggee - used to be over 30 matches.

winning 3 games for GF is not as good. Premiership trophy fair enough.

Theoretically 

saints could go unbeaten and have a chaotic injury crisis at season end and lose GF - that's just wrong.

Hi DP , replied earlier to a similar point by Oxford , and on reflection I can accept your 4 winners argument as opposed to 8 , but do also agree with your points regarding full season and the hazards that play-offs can sometimes bring.

[Derwent Parker]

2 hours ago, NW10LDN said:

IMG couldn't do anything about West Wales folding. They aren't responsible for your 9 home games per season. The NFL is a closed shop and the most popular sport in a country of 300+ million plus a huge international following. They can afford to give lower ranked teams a lot of help. All if their teams are based in densely populated urban areas. Green Bay are the exception but they act as the team for Wisconsin.

Giving them a little bit more than 20k might have helped? - But No it wasn't IMG fault - but the RFL are responsible- they do the fixtures . When SL said 12 teams 22 games was'nt enough they were given loop fixtures to generate more matches.

RFL did not give L1 the same respect and do the same for them, as we all know only SL matters?

You are picking up on all the wrong things re: NFL - its nothing to do with how big USA is or how rich they are or whether they are a closed shop - I said they help the lower teams to close the gap as much as they can . WE do the opposite?

I said on my initial answer RFL/IMG as they are now in partnership and hopefully will now do better.

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, Chrispmartha said:

Because not all category B teams will have the same grading points.

 

 

That to me is why there should be far more grading catagories than just the 3 for if nothing else transparency, simplicity and understanding, I cant help but think it is designed this way with just 3 categories for ease of manipulation - if that is required that is.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

Giving them a little bit more than 20k might have helped? - But No it wasn't IMG fault - but the RFL are responsible- they do the fixtures . When SL said 12 teams 22 games was'nt enough they were given loop fixtures to generate more matches.

RFL did not give L1 the same respect and do the same for them, as we all know only SL matters?

You are picking up on all the wrong things re: NFL - its nothing to do with how big USA is or how rich they are or whether they are a closed shop - I said they help the lower teams to close the gap as much as they can . WE do the opposite?

I said on my initial answer RFL/IMG as they are now in partnership and hopefully will now do better.

The size and wealth of the US has everything to do with it. It's why the sport is so wealthy. That and every school in the country plays it. Rugby League would be in rude health if it enjoyed the same popularity and reach in the UK. IMG wouldn't be necessary and there would be plenty of money to go around.

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

3 hours ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

 I fully understand the principle of diminishing marginal returns. I just don't think it backs up your two-teams-good, three-teams bad suggestion. If an average SL game is a 7/10 game for creating interest, having one derby that creates a 9/10 interest level and another that "only" creates 8/10 interest is still a double positive.

 

Cool, let's agree to disagree, all good

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

2 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

How about 4 teams, Wigan, Saints, Wire and Leigh.

Not much hope for Leigh then Bronco, if we draw a line between the towns where the lines cross 7.0 miles would be the distance separating the farthest two, I think someone from IMG should do the honourable thing and tell Mr Beaumont of their intentions so he can save a few pennies.

Indeed. But this is why a nuanced approach is being brought in. Location in relation to other clubs is less than 10% of the criteria, I'm not worried about it. Nothing in this plan screams "they want to do another PSG or Toronto", it's all very gentle tweaks.  

[Derwent Parker]

1 hour ago, Chrispmartha said:

Because not all category B teams will have the same grading points.

 

 

BUT THEY SHOULD

You are a A or a B or a C  the inter gradings should be just to show you where you need to improve

[Derwent Parker]

1 hour ago, The Blues Ox said:

A few of those teams simple won't be able to afford any drop in CF and thats why there is so much self interest from the teams and their fans. Most Championship teams have got used to having very little money, I know Fax were planning on zero CF back in 2021 and put things in place that would allow them to continue without any CF. Now you take 250k off some SL teams and they could fall apart.

But that's wrong - Why should they be treat better than you?

You work with limited finances - they should "cut their cloth accordingly" i think that's an old saying.

Or just buy one less player?

[Harry Stottle]

1 minute ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

Indeed. But this is why a nuanced approach is being brought in. Location in relation to other clubs is less than 10% of the criteria, I'm not worried about it. Nothing in this plan screams "they want to do another PSG or Toronto", it's all very gentle tweaks.  

Depends if all the gentle tweaks are designed or engineered in a particular direction, above is a post re Toulouse aiming (hoping - more like) for a Garde A, as it stands at the moment they are nowhere near deserving that accolade.

[GeordieSaint]

6 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

BUT THEY SHOULD

You are a A or a B or a C  the inter gradings should be just to show you where you need to improve

No they really shouldn’t.

The likes of 2 x Hull clubs will likely have a B grade. But are substantially bigger and stronger clubs than anything in the Championship. Or Castleford or Wakefield. They should absolutely not be graded the same. That’s why there is a scoring system with grade boundaries.

Edited March 23, 2023 by GeordieSaint

[Derwent Parker]

1 hour ago, The Blues Ox said:

Again its self interest from individual clubs though. No club has really said anything thats not expected, I mean if I were chairman of a club that is about to get relegated then I would favor gradings rather than P&R. 

Self interest is understandable but not good for the game

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said:

Depends if all the gentle tweaks are designed or engineered in a particular direction, above is a post re Toulouse aiming (hoping - more like) for a Garde A, as it stands at the moment they are nowhere near deserving that accolade.

Aiming is fine. I've seen nothing to suggest that Toulouse aren't serious about doing the work that would be required to get A grade. They haven't asked to just award it to them.

[Chrispmartha]

7 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

BUT THEY SHOULD

You are a A or a B or a C  the inter gradings should be just to show you where you need to improve

No need to shout.

Im not even sure what it is you want to happen to be honest, what would be your preferred system moving forward?

[Tommygilf]

5 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

BUT THEY SHOULD

You are a A or a B or a C  the inter gradings should be just to show you where you need to improve

This would be nice, but clearly there will be not enough As to fill the top tier right now so the system is built with recognition of that in mind.

Much like A Level exams, you get 2 marks. Your Grade (ie A, B, C) and your score (usually out of 200). For highly competitive courses at the top unis, the second "UMS" score is sometimes used to differentiate between candidates. To apply this in an RL context, there is a significant difference between a Hull KR grade B, and a Bradford Grade B, for example. Its important to be able to differentiate between those for the purposes of getting the most A (and close to A) clubs in Super League.

[Taffy Tiger]

7 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

BUT THEY SHOULD

You are a A or a B or a C  the inter gradings should be just to show you where you need to improve

I think the A,B and C idea is just for simplicity and to make it easier to understand . IMG could have gone down the A-Z route if they had wanted to , but that makes it too complicated . I think the premise of A,B and C was to give you an instant evaluation ie Guaranteed no relegation (A), Qualifying for Super League (B)and Not reached SL standard yet (C) . IMG have always said that there will be different gradings within each category , hence the introduction of a points system to determine this . I am not sure that given a 'B' grading you would know where you had to improve if everyone was classed the same within that 'B' grade , whereas under this system you have an actual score and can see your strengths and weaknesses , and it gives real clarity as to what you need to do (score wise) to reach the higher B grading and ultimately SL status . It seems to me like a very good starting point and a good foundation to build upon  for the future, to achieve an all 'A' graded SL.

[Derwent Parker]

49 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Im FOR a more competitive SL, that’s exactly what I’ve been saying.

If I wanted a less competitive SL id agree with you wanting to give A teams more of the money.

You want a competitive SL but you dont want the Champ teams anywhere near you

[Tommygilf]

One thing IMG can do, with regards to Sky, is say that sticking us on what is effectively Sky Sports 7/8 in old terms isn't going to help tv numbers grow. 

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, Derwent Parker said:

You want a competitive SL but you dont want the Champ teams anywhere near you

There isn't enough money in the game to make 90% of the Champ teams anywhere near - that is the point that is being highlighted.

[Derwent Parker]

14 minutes ago, GeordieSaint said:

No they really shouldn’t.

The likes of 2 x Hull clubs will likely have a B grade. But are substantially bigger and stronger clubs than anything in the Championship. Or Castleford or Wakefield. They should absolutely not be graded the same. That’s why there is a scoring system with grade boundaries.

No  

[Chrispmartha]

5 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

You want a competitive SL but you dont want the Champ teams anywhere near you

Theres a few Championship teams Id love to have in SL.

Ive never said I don’t want championship teams to be able to get into SL, quite the opposite.

Why would i be wary of them?

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

20 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Depends if all the gentle tweaks are designed or engineered in a particular direction, above is a post re Toulouse aiming (hoping - more like) for a Garde A, as it stands at the moment they are nowhere near deserving that accolade.

Of course they're not, neither are the mighty Rervers. But now we know what counts towards it we can start doing stuff to get there, and I like that more stuff than "blow your owner's cash on a load of Aussies" is the stuff we're now incentivised to do eh.

[GeordieSaint]

4 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

No  

Clearly the experts at IMG disagree. It’s also pretty clear the self interest you accuse SL clubs and their supporters of having is ironically rampant in your own views. 

[GUBRATS]

2 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

Wakefield are a good example to pick.

Why do you think they are investing in off field stuff?

Id suggest that’s because of the gradings, if the only criteria to get back into SL is on field they wouldn’t need to it. I heir outgoing owner has said we should be taking their recommendations on board because the current system isnt working

They are investing because the money is now available , no other reason , and you know it 

[Tommygilf]

5 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

They are investing because the money is now available , no other reason , and you know it 

Why do you suppose the money has suddenly become available?