IMG Grading Unveiled

[Jughead]

10 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.

 

There’s literally nothing on the page of the document that you are citing that suggests that is the case. 

[The Phantom Horseman]

7 minutes ago, RP London said:

No that's P&R with minimum standards

 

Wrong, it's promotion and relegation through minimum standards. Promotion and relegation with minimum standards, as you point out later, is what we have now (in theory). Massive difference.

On-fiield performance is going to change from being the sole arbiter (based on your own admission that minimum standards have been playing no actual role in the process) to being a bit-part player in the overall grading process.

[RP London]

22 minutes ago, Jughead said:

It literally doesn’t say anything of the sort. 

to be fair i think there is a little bit of a muddle going on.. 

Page 15 shows how the league will look after the first grading.. and yes those teams that get into Super League for 2025 could theoretically come from League one... highly unlikely but if they got enough points as it will be the 12 with the highest points. 

Post that is still to be fully confirmed but they have said that teams will replace teams on the points and you get extra points for winning comps.. so you win the champ your points will bounce which could put you above the bottom super league team and in.. But P&R is not over, teams will replace teams, but they are going to stick to minimum standard and enforce them.

[RP London]

12 minutes ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

Wrong, it's promotion and relegation through minimum standards. Promotion and relegation with minimum standards, as you point out later, is what we have now (in theory). Massive difference.

On-fiield performance is going to change from being the sole arbiter (based on your own admission that minimum standards have been playing no actual role in the process) to being a bit-part player in the overall grading process.

I dont agree.. You must have the minimum standards for your onfield performance to be able to get you into the super league.. but its not even that.. your "minimum standards" just actually have to be higher than the worst in super league.. Once your standards are high enough your onfield performance is what will put you over the edge..

simply if everything else is equal you get the same points all around the gradings.. bottom of super league gets 0.1111 points more than you for where they finish in the table but you get 0.25 extra shiney points for winning the Champ therefore you have 0.1389 (ish) points more and you go up (frankly you may end up beating 2 Super league teams!)... if everything else isnt equal then you dont meet the minimum standards and therefore you dont go up.

Minimum standards are enforced everywhere else.. its only RL its been bent for so long and it is very very wrong and part of why we are here now. This is a technical difference in that you are being compared so while getting the minimum standards raised you are rewarded for having higher standards than those you are competing against. If you are, or at the same level, and win the champ then you are going to get promoted. 

The minimum standards are being set as cat A.. but they understand that that is a high bar and we'd have a 4-5 team league so while they get everyone there then Cat B is a moving minimum standard of "be better than the worst incumbent and you meet the minimum standard".

That is promotion WITH minimum standards. 

Edited March 30, 2023 by RP London

[RP London]

DP

Edited March 30, 2023 by RP London

[The Phantom Horseman]

4 minutes ago, RP London said:

 

simply if everything else is equal you get the same points all around the gradings.. bottom of super league gets 0.1111 points more than you for where they finish in the table but you get 0.25 extra shiney points for winning the Champ therefore you have 0.1389 (ish) points more and you go up... if everything else isnt equal then you dont meet the minimum standards and therefore you dont go up.

 

This again comes back to whether it's weighted or not. We still don't really know that for sure do we, and it will have a massive impact

[RP London]

1 minute ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

This again comes back to whether it's weighted or not. We still don't really know that for sure do we, and it will have a massive impact

This has been recognised, and generally agreed, and mentioned on pretty much every page too.. and the general consensus seems to be that most would be amazed if it isnt when you look at the document they have put out that you have linked to and what has been said around all of this in the past. 

 

[The Phantom Horseman]

5 minutes ago, RP London said:

This has been recognised, and generally agreed, and mentioned on pretty much every page too.. and the general consensus seems to be that most would be amazed if it isnt when you look at the document they have put out that you have linked to and what has been said around all of this in the past. 

 

Well when I outlined this in some details a few pages ago (P68) and about how loaded things would be in favour of existing SL clubs your first reaction was "it's not perfect but neither was P & R", though to be fair you did later state that you'd be shocked if it wasn't a factor. I hope you're right, I'm not one of the ones who wants to stick to the status quo because as things stand I just think it's much too hard for any promoted team without a sugar daddy to build a team that can stay up.

[Jughead]

1 hour ago, steve oates said:

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....

Choosing expansion is a weird hill to choose to die on. IMG from the beginning have said they aren’t interested in new clubs, chief. 

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, Wolford6 said:

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.

You are very correct Wolly, I wouldn't want to get there with your current owners.

[RP London]

11 minutes ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

Well when I outlined this in some details a few pages ago (P68) and about how loaded things would be in favour of existing SL clubs your first reaction was "it's not perfect but neither was P & R", though to be fair you did later state that you'd be shocked if it wasn't a factor. I hope you're right, I'm not one of the ones who wants to stick to the status quo because as things stand I just think it's much too hard for any promoted team without a sugar daddy to build a team that can stay up.

the comment about "its not perfect but neither was P&R" was because it seems to have become shorthand on here that what we have now is called P&R and what is coming is "grading" or IMG world or some such silliness... but what is coming still has P&R and its been said from the start as its in the document and I've been consistent in saying that along with the fact that I would be amazed if it didn't have weighting. 

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, RP London said:

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. 

As long as Cas are in SL the minimum standards for quality of stadium is pretty low.

[RP London]

@Harry Stottle you asked earlier about timeframes.. Just in case you hadnt looked and were still interested.. I had the document open anyway so here is slide 18

almost all the information being asked on this thread is in the document of press releases, IMG have done a good job of this IMHO (whether or not you agree with their reasoning or ways of getting to their goal).. 

The only bits missing really are the intricacies of the weighting (or not) but it says on a previous slide (already posted on here) that this information was going out in a separate document and I am sure they felt it was probably just a bit too much information that could lose the general "news" that they wanted people to concentrate. But I think we can all agree that was an error but possibly their only one on communication. 

Including the fact there are 3 online sessions planned to ask any questions and get them answered... I do wonder if any of the likes of KC have done these.. if not why not?? I assume we would have heard if they had and got unsatisfactory answers as they have shouted quite loud you would think they would shout loud about "and we did ask, and this is what they said!!".. 

Edited March 30, 2023 by RP London

[RP London]

3 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

As long as Cas are in SL the minimum standards for quality of stadium is pretty low.

as is yes... and holding anyone back on "minimum standards" while they are there was rife with problems and hence the bending/ignoring of the rules.. 

now, although there are more things to be measured, we will be able to see where teams/clubs are and see why cas are in above a shiny new stadium (due to all the other criteria) and that does make it clearer... and if everyone is the same on everything else then its bye bye cas (until my mate builds their new one.. and it does look nice, i saw the plans at our daughters' sports day last year! .. they just need to get moving on it)

[RP London]

1 hour ago, Wolford6 said:

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.

i'm similar.. if Eagles some how managed to win the Champ (unlikely i know) then the last thing we would want as a "prize" would be Super League.. it would kill us! We have a long way to go before going in would be a good idea for the long term future. 

[Archie Gordon]

"Grading will then come into full effect from 2025, with the top tier league comprising of 12 clubs including all "Category A" clubs and the highest-ranking "Category B" clubs. All gradings will be reassessed annually, meaning it is envisaged that promotion and relegation between the tiers would continue, but no longer wholly determined by on-field performance."

"Promotion and relegation will continue on the field of play between the second and third tiers with tier two increasingly filled with strong Category B Clubs."

Hope that helps.

 

[gingerjon]

Just now, Archie Gordon said:

"Grading will then come into full effect from 2025, with the top tier league comprising of 12 clubs including all "Category A" clubs and the highest-ranking "Category B" clubs. All gradings will be reassessed annually, meaning it is envisaged that promotion and relegation between the tiers would continue, but no longer wholly determined by on-field performance."

"Promotion and relegation will continue on the field of play between the second and third tiers with tier two increasingly filled with strong Category B Clubs."

Hope that helps.

 

So it'll be the same as promotion and relegation between every single tier in the football pyramid then?

[Archie Gordon]

2 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

So it'll be the same as promotion and relegation between every single tier in the football pyramid then?

Clearly not.

[RP London]

3 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

So it'll be the same as promotion and relegation between every single tier in the football pyramid then?

and other sports with P&R and  how many on the "anti" side of this would want P&R with standards (just this is not the standards that suit them) and how it supposedly is already (if the RFL had a backbone).

Edited March 30, 2023 by RP London

[gingerjon]

Just now, Archie Gordon said:

Clearly not.

Are you perhaps under the rather sweet impression that promotion in football is dependent on on-field performance only?

Because it's really, really not.

Plenty of examples every year of clubs being saved from relegation because the team in the promotion spot that would replace them hasn't met the required off field criteria.

So fitting the words "no longer wholly determined by on-field performance" perfectly.

[Archie Gordon]

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

Are you perhaps under the rather sweet impression that promotion in football is dependent on on-field performance only?

Of course not.

[Oxford]

18 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

As long as Cas are in SL the minimum standards for quality of stadium is pretty low.

Well that's an interesting point and Wakey and Cas are both subject to the same jibe over the past few seasons.

If the criteria are good stadia and good facilities they're unlikely to score any or many points, which would prove interesting.  Though I  think that, although denied by strident supporters, IMG grading will be questioned if that's not the case, about how stringent or fixed the criteria really are.

Of course if it's a "Good RL Stadium" then Cas would get max points for that bit.

 

5 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

"Grading will then come into full effect from 2025, with the top tier league comprising of 12 clubs including all "Category A" clubs and the highest-ranking "Category B" clubs. All gradings will be reassessed annually, meaning it is envisaged that promotion and relegation between the tiers would continue, but no longer wholly determined by on-field performance."

"Promotion and relegation will continue on the field of play between the second and third tiers with tier two increasingly filled with strong Category B Clubs."

Then I don't see the point. It reminds me of when they kept the sails on steamships neither one thing nor the other.

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, Archie Gordon said:

Of course not.

So it is not "wholly determined by on-field performance" then.

And given that we've been told that clubs will move up and down the tiers then there's no reason at all to assume that that won't look something like the rigidly enforced standards-based P&R that they have in football.

[redjonn]

2 hours ago, RP London said:

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.

we would be surprised yea, but until they say so it not unjustified for people to be concerned. Thats what I am reading on this thread.

Plus if there isn't any weighting it disadvantages clubs trying to be graded above a SL. Some are concerned that if a promoted club without any weighting has a lower grade score than the bottom club they will be deemed not to be promoted because they have a lower grade score. So yes we can see their is P&R but without the weighting confirmation and without any other wording to say not its not surprising some are concerned as in that case P&R is unlikely.

and yes they are not removing P&R... but as per note above... its a catch 22 if it isn't as you note we would be surprised if.....

Your confident it will be as you suggest... many are not so trusting and hence raise the queries. 

[Archie Gordon]

6 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

So it is not "wholly determined by on-field performance" then.

And given that we've been told that clubs will move up and down the tiers then there's no reason at all to assume that that won't look something like the rigidly enforced standards-based P&R that they have in football.

If you don't see the difference between P&R entirely *through* standards and P&R *with* min standards (attaining an on-field promotion/relegation place as a necessary but not sufficient condition) then we're stuck at an impasse.

I'm also surprised that you think P&R *through* standards rather than *with* standards is what happens throughout the football pyramid.

Edited March 30, 2023 by Archie Gordon