IMG Grading Unveiled

[RP London]

6 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Obviously there are a lot who don't get it Micheal, being those who can't see the wood for the trees those telling us that the "opportunity" is there for clubs to traverse the leagues, it will only be such if the bar is set low enough and the intention is to move to a bigger populated SL division say 14 teams, as you say no SL team should be beaten by a Championship club on the criteria count.

If anyone believes they can please give examples of which Clubs can swop places please, after season 2025.

IN THE DOCUMENT they say they want to increase the size of super league to 14 when there are enough teams of a high enough quality.... its is there in black and white (well red, blue, bits of orange etc and white)

[RP London]

1 hour ago, Archie Gordon said:

Bluntly, three things:

There is a risk with using poorly or unweighted data that progressive and well performing clubs get stuck in the Championship because (a) they can't get on Sky/C4/BBC, (b) they receive £1m+ less in TV income, (c) the Championship attracts lower scores across other fandom and financial measures than SL (*which are inherent to the division and not the club*). 

There is a risk that removing P&R on the field leads to *some* fans stopping attending. This will further impact risk 1.

Pointing this out isn't being shouty, getting hot-and-bothered, doom mongering, or calling IMG baddies.

I would say pretty much everyone on this board has said that they would be surprised if there was not some form of weighting. Statistically it really isnt that difficult, the hardest work will be getting the multiplier but you just go through history, look at other sports, look at how one reflects the other and you will get an algorithim. That can then be tested historically and I am sure will be tested "live" with this first set of indicative grades going into the first grades (how does the promoted team from this season perform in 2024 against the graded prediction and then tweak it from there). I've done this sort of thing loads in process work trying to model things out so that you dont spend hours going down a blind alley when you start looking for the best changes to make etc. 

There is a risk of losing fans, but if you look at what IMG are asking you to concentrate on it is ALL about growing fans and commercial interactions so its not like they dont get this.. Oh and they arent removing P&R so thats ok.

[Tommygilf]

28 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Oh he does Gubby, don't underestimate @Tommygilfit just doesn't suit his agenda. Someone who has gone through the education system as he has knows full well there are many rungs of the ladder to step on to reach the top, unless he left primary school on Friday and presented his dissertation on the Monday that is.

Indeed, I also know that at every level people drop out from progressing. There are strict barriers to progression too to stop people being delusional about what their academic potential is. Its equality of opportunity, but if you don't meet the bar then sorry, its not for you right now. Now what does that sound like?

Its arguable that for many the few steps in the middle are, academically, a bit pointless but that is another story...

[Tommygilf]

5 minutes ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

I may just add it to my signature in big, bold, red letters

You don't see them on mobile!

[RP London]

6 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Yes on field  P&R is for this year, but beyond that?

yes but with minimum requirements.. and in a different format to now but if you perform on the pitch you can get promoted, as long as you also up your game off it (Minimum standards).. if you dont you wont and might get relegated. 

Its just a bit different but P&R is staying and your access to the Super League is open, and actually potentially more accessible.

I mean its all in the documents that have been sent out, I'm not an insider or anything. Anyone would think some people haven't actually read the documents

[Tommygilf]

3 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

Following Stockport I'd suggest he's dreaming ( hoping ) of getting into the next tier up from where they are now , that's how this works , you obviously just don't understand that 

I think this has been rather comprehensively debunked. Everyone likes their team being successful, but being in the lower reaches of a sport makes a lot of people more philosophical about why they go.

[gingerjon]

STOP PRESS STOP PRESS STOP PRESS

Gledhill announcing that the proposal is being revised following consultations.

This means two things:

(1) Anyone who said it was a fix has just been proved spectacularly wrong

(2) We're going to have to start all this again

[RP London]

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

STOP PRESS STOP PRESS STOP PRESS

Gledhill announcing that the proposal is being revised following consultations.

This means two things:

(1) Anyone who said it was a fix has just been proved spectacularly wrong

(2) We're going to have to start all this again

Hold on, Hold on!!!

its Gledhill... most likely nothing to see here.. 

[Jughead]

There’s a meeting been planned for some time for 5th April, it’s literally at the bottom of the PDF that The RFL/IMG released. It’s hardly the shocking news story that Gledhill believes it to be. 

[gingerjon]

4 minutes ago, Jughead said:

There’s a meeting been planned for some time for 5th April, it’s literally at the bottom of the PDF that The RFL/IMG released. It’s hardly the shocking news story that Gledhill believes it to be. 

So you're saying that this is brand new information from one of the foremost talents in rugby league?

[The Phantom Horseman]

44 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

There is nothing in the plan that envisages on-field P&R being removed for the foreseeable future though?

This is a bit like saying "there's nothing in the plan that envisages big-screen and LED-board P & R being removed for the forseeable future".

Look at page 15 of IMG's own document
https://www.rugby-league.com/uploads/docs/IMG & Rugby League Grading Criteria[81].pdf

If in, say, 2025, team M, with a score of 11.5 points, has just won the Championship, and team L, with 12 points, has finished bottom of SL - or indeed, say, fourth in the Championship - which team is going to be in SL the following year?

If your answer is team L, it's time to stop saying that onfield promotion is not being removed.

 

[Wolford6]

In the real world, how many clubs actually want to get into Superleague?

Obviously, my club Bradford does.

But I, and many other fans, wouldn't want to get there with our current owners.

Edited March 30, 2023 by Wolford6

[steve oates]

11 hours ago, RP London said:

There is no evidence to show (big picture) is right.............. Big Picture is wrong because even his assertion of big city leagues is rubbish.. It's just utter codswallop and he is being told it by people who actually live here, who have been involved in this sport.................. simply wrong. To explain it means going into deep socio economic issues........... 

It's simpler than that, the northern working class clubs and the southern upper class clubs in Union before the split did not get on.  So we broke away effectively making the game  a regional one. Both codes then suffered an enormous blow with the rise of Soccer that has dwarfed Rugby more than ever. 

Of course our game has worked hard and taken chances to try to expand over the years, but there isn't the interest in businessmen bankrolling League, or sportsmen playing league professionally outside the M62. Yet we continue to get excited when someone for the umpteenth time  jumps in with an "expansion" project like Cornwall

1895–96 Northern Rugby Football Union season - Wikipedia  Not much has changed in 128 years.

I think we have a wonderful game that is loved and respected throughout the country, a game that can attract TV deals for people to watch it across the country. I think we stuff union because they can't modernise their game without such modernisation effectively turning it into league. Our game works, but major pie in the sky changes like Big Picture and Perez pedal will kill it....

[RigbyLuger]

6 minutes ago, Jughead said:

There’s a meeting been planned for some time for 5th April, it’s literally at the bottom of the PDF that The RFL/IMG released. It’s hardly the shocking news story that Gledhill believes it to be. 

Did he release this news through his radio station that only exists as him?

[Jughead]

2 minutes ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

This is a bit like saying "there's nothing in the plan that envisages big-screen and LED-board P & R being removed for the forseeable future".

Look at page 15 of IMG's own document
https://www.rugby-league.com/uploads/docs/IMG & Rugby League Grading Criteria[81].pdf

If in, say, 2025, team M, with a score of 11.5 points, has just won the Championship, and team L, with 12 points, has finished bottom of SL - or indeed, say, fourth in the Championship - which team is going to be in SL the following year?

If your answer is team L, it's time to stop saying that onfield promotion is not being removed.

 

It literally doesn’t say anything of the sort. 

[The Phantom Horseman]

1 minute ago, Jughead said:

It literally doesn’t say anything of the sort. 

What doesn't say anything of the sort?

[Jughead]

Just now, The Phantom Horseman said:

What doesn't say anything of the sort?

It literally doesn’t mention anything about any side not winning the championship being denied promotion by being out scored by a team who finished beneath them in the table. 

[The Phantom Horseman]

Just now, Jughead said:

It literally doesn’t mention anything about any side not winning the championship being denied promotion by being out scored by a team who finished beneath them in the table. 

Any side not winning the championship? Your sentence doesn't seem to make sense.

[Jughead]

Just now, The Phantom Horseman said:

Any side not winning the championship? Your sentence doesn't seem to make sense.

As did your assumption. 

[Griff]

3 minutes ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

Any side not winning the championship? Your sentence doesn't seem to make sense.

 

2 minutes ago, Jughead said:

As did your assumption. 

I've no idea what you two are on about.

[The Phantom Horseman]

Just now, Griff said:

 

I've no idea what you two are on about.

I've certainly no idea what he's on about.
I'm just making the point that based on IMG's own document, saying "on-field promotion isn't being removed" is disingenuous. On-field performance is going to change from being the sole factor to being a relatively small factor in the overall decision-making process.

 

[RP London]

13 minutes ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

This is a bit like saying "there's nothing in the plan that envisages big-screen and LED-board P & R being removed for the forseeable future".

Look at page 15 of IMG's own document
https://www.rugby-league.com/uploads/docs/IMG & Rugby League Grading Criteria[81].pdf

If in, say, 2025, team M, with a score of 11.5 points, has just won the Championship, and team L, with 12 points, has finished bottom of SL - or indeed, say, fourth in the Championship - which team is going to be in SL the following year?

If your answer is team L, it's time to stop saying that onfield promotion is not being removed.

 

No that's P&R with minimum standards which is the same as pretty much every sport with P&R (and the same as loads of people, ironically against the system, on here want).. RU has 0 teams in the championship that can get promoted this year IIRC because none meet the minimum standards. Football has minimum standards based P&R its just that most teams now meet that, they didn't used to and I remember Wycombe and Colchester (again IIRC) that were held back in the conference in the past because they didn't make the grade. 

But this is page 74ish so its been said at least 74 times. 

[Oxford]

13 minutes ago, steve oates said:

I think we have a wonderful game that is loved and respected throughout the country, a game that can attract TV deals for people to watch it across the country. I think we stuff union because they can't modernise their game without such modernisation effectively turning it into league.

Great bit of the post there and spot on the money.

The bit after that not so much but in the words of the great Joe E Brown "Nobody's prefect!"

[RP London]

2 minutes ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

I've certainly no idea what he's on about.
I'm just making the point that based on IMG's own document, saying "on-field promotion isn't being removed" is disingenuous. On-field performance is going to change from being the sole factor to being a relatively small factor in the overall decision-making process.

 

it literally has never been the sole factor.. there have always been minimum standards.. ground capacity etc they just have never been rigidly enforced or have been bent... look at when London got promoted and the whether they would be allowed to play at Ealing etc.. There have also been years when teams were not promoted in the past due to this type of thing.

the fact they are just putting much more worthwhile and important minimum standards in place is what is changing. oh and its a good thing and should have happened years ago. 

Just because you, and many others because its never applied properly, are aware of the Minimum standards (and dont ask for what they are as I think they have been lost in the midst of time and are hidden away so no one can call the RFL out on them anymore) doesn't mean they don't exist.

[Harry Stottle]

38 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Indeed, I also know that at every level people drop out from progressing. There are strict barriers to progression too to stop people being delusional about what their academic potential is. Its equality of opportunity, but if you don't meet the bar then sorry, its not for you right now. Now what does that sound like?

Its arguable that for many the few steps in the middle are, academically, a bit pointless but that is another story...

Good answer young Sir, albeit you don't fool me, you Charaltan you