Club Grading Predictions

[Jughead]

3 minutes ago, David Shepherd said:

On field performance is only a maximum of 5 of the 20 available points. There's still more detail to come, but it's been hinted that winning a competition (league, cup, sundeck cup) gets you bonus points. 

I'd imagine that to score the maximum of 5, you'd need to at a minimum get to the SL playoffs and/or win the cup. If there's a bonus point for winning the championship, it's not inconceivable that the team that does could score more than the bottom team in SL.

I can only see Saints getting 5/5 on performance. We’ve finished the regular season in the top two in the past three or four years and won both the Challenge Cup (0.25) and Grand Final (0.75). 

Think most Super League clubs will also be a 4. 

[gingerjon]

20 minutes ago, David Shepherd said:

On field performance is only a maximum of 5 of the 20 available points. There's still more detail to come, but it's been hinted that winning a competition (league, cup, sundeck cup) gets you bonus points. 

I'd imagine that to score the maximum of 5, you'd need to at a minimum get to the SL playoffs and/or win the cup. If there's a bonus point for winning the championship, it's not inconceivable that the team that does could score more than the bottom team in SL.

The link to the document (apologies on phone so can’t do it but it is on here) has the bonus points. It’s fractions but they are there.

[Agbrigg]

Sorry for asking again, but I am not on about ranking scores are obtained. I am on about the actual league table itself.

looking at the example it's based on total ranking points overall and nothing whatsoever to do with the position you finished in the games themselves.  So for the purpose of relegation it will be the team in SL with the lowest ranking points which may not be the team that has won the least games.

Likewise the top team of the championship will have the highest ranking points but may have not won the most games. 

THEN !  if the championship side has less ranking points than the bottom SL it doesn't get promoted anyway. that's how I read it. I am just asking for clarification

Edited March 10, 2023 by Agbrigg

[Archie Gordon]

32 minutes ago, Agbrigg said:

Having read the stuff on RL site it states clubs will get their grading confirmed by the end of July. Then their grades will dictate who gets promotion/relegated for the following season, so that's next season 2024.

However on their imaginary league chart, it seems to suggest promotion is based solely on the grade achieved and not on games won or lost. Am I reading this correct, if so I can't really see any championship club getting a sufficient score to push a SL club out.  

Can anyone help clarify or confirm this please.

It's not clear at all. 

There's also a section in the process called 'custom weights' which looks as if it has the power to correct the advantage of being a current SL incumbent. That would be a lot of power handed to an algorithm (maker). But who knows, maybe we should just ask ChatGPT.

[The Blues Ox]

15 minutes ago, Agbrigg said:

Sorry for asking again, but I am not on about ranking scores are obtained. I am on about the actual league table itself.

looking at the example it's based on total ranking points overall and nothing whatsoever to do with the position you finished in the games themselves.  So for the purpose of relegation it will be the team in SL with the lowest ranking points which may not be the team that has won the least games.

Likewise the top team of the championship will have the highest ranking points but may have not won the most games. 

THEN !  if the championship side has less ranking points than the bottom SL it doesn't get promoted anyway. that's how I read it. I am just asking for clarification

My understanding is that you could have a SL team that performed poorly for a couple of years that then had a fluke season and finished top and won the final ala Leicester and then could be relegated because a Championship team outscored them. Obviously its very unlikely to happen but its a possibility.

It does make the Championship pretty worthless as teams could in effect keep their money in their pockets rather than spend it on the team knowing that performance for Championship clubs makes up so little of the criteria and then that in turn lowers the quality of a product which at the moment I think is pretty good.

[David Shepherd]

6 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

 

It does make the Championship pretty worthless as teams could in effect keep their money in their pockets rather than spend it on the team knowing that performance for Championship clubs makes up so little of the criteria and then that in turn lowers the quality of a product which at the moment I think is pretty good.

I see it the opposite way. There's a real incentive to invest in the championship and improve the quality and appeal of the competition.  It's the only way you're going to score on the majority of the proposed metrics.

[Barley Mow]

24 minutes ago, Agbrigg said:

Sorry for asking again, but I am not on about ranking scores are obtained. I am on about the actual league table itself.

looking at the example it's based on total ranking points overall and nothing whatsoever to do with the position you finished in the games themselves.  So for the purpose of relegation it will be the team in SL with the lowest ranking points which may not be the team that has won the least games.

Likewise the top team of the championship will have the highest ranking points but may have not won the most games. 

THEN !  if the championship side has less ranking points than the bottom SL it doesn't get promoted anyway. that's how I read it. I am just asking for clarification

Yes, that's right.

Although saying it would have nothing whatsoever to do with the league position isn't 100% accurate - 25% of the overall score would be based on on field performance over a three year period.

[Jughead]

7 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

 

It does make the Championship pretty worthless as teams could in effect keep their money in their pockets rather than spend it on the team knowing that performance for Championship clubs makes up so little of the criteria and then that in turn lowers the quality of a product which at the moment I think is pretty good.

I don’t know about that. I think it’s a very extreme hypothetical that doesn’t really work. 

If York, for example, dropped their spending on the playing squad then you would expect results to suffer and in turn attendances drop, the broadcasters appetite to show a beaten team drops, league performance drops and finances are all likely to be somewhat effected by this decision, which in turn is going to mark down their overall score. 

[Jughead]

Just now, ShropshireBull said:

No one is going to be broadcasting the champ or sponsoring it when what happens on the field is as good as worthless .

 

The sky is falling in, isn’t it?

[The Blues Ox]

13 minutes ago, David Shepherd said:

I see it the opposite way. There's a real incentive to invest in the championship and improve the quality and appeal of the competition.  It's the only way you're going to score on the majority of the proposed metrics.

I agree for the overall good of the game but for that to happen to help Championship teams raise there level there has to be some money come in to the game at that level and I just do not see that happening which massively handcuffs any team in the Championship without a big backer which is probably all but London and at the moment he just soaks up debts.

[The Blues Ox]

11 minutes ago, Jughead said:

I don’t know about that. I think it’s a very extreme hypothetical that doesn’t really work. 

If York, for example, dropped their spending on the playing squad then you would expect results to suffer and in turn attendances drop, the broadcasters appetite to show a beaten team drops, league performance drops and finances are all likely to be somewhat effected by this decision, which in turn is going to mark down their overall score. 

I get where you are coming from and it was an extreme example. I do think we may see attendances dropping anyway though as I suspect most fans would rather see success on the field so I do think we should still have that in some form or another outside of getting x amount of points for winning the comp. I'd still be happy for only the top Championship team to be eligable for promotion even though the new rankings do mean that any team could earn promotion.

[ELBOWSEYE]

1 hour ago, Jughead said:

I can only see Saints getting 5/5 on performance. We’ve finished the regular season in the top two in the past three or four years and won both the Challenge Cup (0.25) and Grand Final (0.75). 

Think most Super League clubs will also be a 4. 

I don't think they give out a trophy for finishing top of the grading. And saints are one of the guaranteed A grades, the interesting grades are the B section. 

[Fevrover]

13 hours ago, ShropshireBull said:

Only Toulouse to be above the current SL clubs based on geography historical performance and cash. 

Fev have to get promoted this year or its over but I think every club bar Toulouse outside SL are going to vote against the highest points . And now Wakey know that the stadium counts for very little I don’t see them in favour either. 

Bulls with the awful ground fail, someone at council might see that even a basic non hole of a ground and they jump Salford. 

Keighley and Batley not happy.

[David Shepherd]

11 minutes ago, Fevrover said:

Keighley and Batley not happy.

Really surprised at that. With them owning their own facilities, I'd have hoped they'd see the potential revenues (and scores) they could generate by sweating that asset.

[The Blues Ox]

9 minutes ago, Fevrover said:

Keighley and Batley not happy.

I bet Big Nige isn't either.

[David Shepherd]

26 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

But seeing as how being in Champ means you will 100% have a lower score than any SL club, it is meaningless.

Still not convinced you've read and understood the proposal.

[David Shepherd]

4 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

I bet Big Nige isn't either.

They'll buy him off with a season pass at Toby Carvery.

[David Shepherd]

12 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

I think Batley and Keighley have read the proposals too and they can also count. Your stadium means nothing when 75% of the criteria are heavily weighted to which division you start in. 

Keighley can run all the events in the world and the income will be dwarfed by what Cas get by being in SL and being able to market games on tv against bigger teams. You keep asking whether I can read but you don’t seem able to count 

All over the place with your percentages. We've had 50%, 100% and now 75% weighting against. Which is it?

[Chrispmartha]

21 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

I think Batley and Keighley have read the proposals too and they can also count. Your stadium means nothing when 75% of the criteria are heavily weighted to which division you start in. 

Keighley can run all the events in the world and the income will be dwarfed by what Cas get by being in SL and being able to market games on tv against bigger teams. You keep asking whether I can read but you don’t seem able to count 

Again, where does it say that the current league the team plays in isn’t taken into account when grading them?

[Archie Gordon]

1 hour ago, ShropshireBull said:

But seeing as how being in Champ means you will 100% have a lower score than any SL club, it is meaningless.

This is potentially a major drawback. The unspecified 'custom weights' may or may not fix this but, as you say and as the document reads, SL incumbency will be a massive advantage.

[The storm]

4 hours ago, Sammo said:

Is there a timeline for when we will find out the final gradings?

My 14 team super league prediction in no particular order

 

St helens.... Nailed on

 

Warrington. Nailed on

Wigan... Nailed on

Catalan dragons.... Nailed on

London broncos

Newcastle thunder

York

Toulouse

Hull

Hull kr

Bradford bulls

Huddersfield giants

Leigh leopards

Salford red devils

Castleford tigers..... Who are totally at risk

[Chrispmartha]

5 minutes ago, The storm said:

My 14 team super league prediction in no particular order

 

St helens.... Nailed on

 

Warrington. Nailed on

Wigan... Nailed on

Catalan dragons.... Nailed on

London broncos

Newcastle thunder

York

Toulouse

Hull

Hull kr

Bradford bulls

Huddersfield giants

Leigh leopards

Salford red devils

Castleford tigers..... Who are totally at risk

I know you don’t like Rohan Smith but thinking they won’t be in the top 14 is madness

[AB Knight]

14 minutes ago, The storm said:

My 14 team super league prediction in no particular order

 

St helens.... Nailed on

 

Warrington. Nailed on

Wigan... Nailed on

Catalan dragons.... Nailed on

London broncos

Newcastle thunder

York

Toulouse

Hull

Hull kr

Bradford bulls

Huddersfield giants

Leigh leopards

Salford red devils

Castleford tigers..... Who are totally at risk

Interesting 14 team league that actually has 15 teams in.

[Agbrigg]

well 24hrs gone by, loads of discussion and yet no one has a clue how all this will pan out. We don't even know for sure how many teams will be in the top league.

Soccer is by far the most successful team sport, followed by cricket and Rugby Union. I bet their supporters would not accept all this garbage. 

Can you imagine newbies, or fringe supporters being bemused when the league year ends and trying to work out who goes up and down. 

Dad takes his lad to introduce him to rugby League and he asks " why are we getting relegated because we have finished above that other team"

Dad repliers "Because they have LED floodlights son, we don't"

[Archie Gordon]

2 minutes ago, Agbrigg said:

...

Dad repliers "Because they have LED floodlights son, we don't"

Haha. But even that bit is unclear. I thought the LED reference was to perimeter advertising boards!