The IMG Gradings Thread - Post all your IMG Gradings related questions or comments here

[UBranger]

So what's the point of this and how much did it cost. Lots of confusion and nobody happy.  

[Chrispmartha]

Just now, UBranger said:

So what's the point of this and how much did it cost. Lots of confusion and nobody happy.  

Nobody happy? Most of the clubs seem fine with it, they voted for it after all.

and not all supporters are unhappy either

[UBranger]

Happy to be confused and not know what the outcome will be.  How much did it cost.

 

[Bulls2487]

3 hours ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

Leaving aside that you've not rounded correctly why would they be rounded up to 1 decimal place when published in the handbook to 4 and even Bradford quote to 2?

Plus even rounded to 2 dps (2.22, 1.78 and 2.33) they still give an average of 2.11 not 2.17 or to 1 dp (2.2, 1.8, 2.3) 2.1.

Maybe they used their attendance calculator?

If you take Bulls scores as 2.3 1.8 and 2.4 you get 6.5. If IMG have done a random rounding up. You get 2.1666666667 so if rounded up again you get 2.17.

Edited October 26, 2023 by Bulls2487

[paul hicks]

1 hour ago, UBranger said:

So what's the point of this and how much did it cost. Lots of confusion and nobody happy.  

oh i can think of at least 7 A rated clubs that are happy

Edited October 26, 2023 by paul hicks

[The Blues Ox]

1 minute ago, Bulls2487 said:

If you take Bulls scores as 2.3 1.8 and 2.4 you get 6.5. You get 2.1666666667 so if rounded up again you get 2.17.

I can't wait for the fall out when someone gets 2.205 rounded up to 2.3 in that way for the final gradings.

[binosh]

I really hope these scores are sanity checked independently before anyone loses a SL spot, there are already some doubts surrounding it now.

A few questions in mind, how does having 12/14/16 Grade A clubs translate into more money? Is Sky going to suddenly double the TV deal? Is that the hope?

What happens if a team is found to have incorrectly reported figures when the season has already started? There is already question marks around Bradford and Castleford.

 

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, binosh said:

A few questions in mind, how does having 12/14/16 Grade A clubs translate into more money? Is Sky going to suddenly double the TV deal? Is that the hope?

 

Still not been explained - sure better facilities might put a few thousand a week on Salford, Wakey and Cas.

But its 90% the same comp as before - and that's being generous.

Hopefully IMG are able to leverage some connections where others couldn't?

[dboy]

14 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

I can't wait for the fall out when someone gets 2.205 rounded up to 2.3 in that way for the final gradings.

2.205 is 2.2 when rounded.

[binosh]

I wonder if the recent reporting of the RFL trying to sell Odsal is a reaction to them getting an early look at Bradfords scoring?

[Jill Halfpenny fan]

5 minutes ago, dboy said:

2.205 is 2.2 when rounded.

That's his point.

[dboy]

2 minutes ago, Jill Halfpenny fan said:

That's his point.

Oh.

[Chrispmartha]

27 minutes ago, binosh said:

I really hope these scores are sanity checked independently before anyone loses a SL spot, there are already some doubts surrounding it now.

A few questions in mind, how does having 12/14/16 Grade A clubs translate into more money? Is Sky going to suddenly double the TV deal? Is that the hope?

What happens if a team is found to have incorrectly reported figures when the season has already started? There is already question marks around Bradford and Castleford.

 

Having more Grade A clubs means we have more clubs that are run well, this isn’t the only way the sport can generate more money, people seem to think the structure is the only part of IMG’s remit. It’s the first part of a 12 year commitment 

Edited October 26, 2023 by Chrispmartha

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

31 minutes ago, Bulls2487 said:

If you take Bulls scores as 2.3 1.8 and 2.4 you get 6.5. If IMG have done a random rounding up. You get 2.1666666667 so if rounded up again you get 2.17.

If you take the Bulls' scores as 2.3, 1.8 and 2.4 you've fiddled the numbers.....

[TrueBull]

28 minutes ago, binosh said:

I really hope these scores are sanity checked independently before anyone loses a SL spot, there are already some doubts surrounding it now.

A few questions in mind, how does having 12/14/16 Grade A clubs translate into more money? Is Sky going to suddenly double the TV deal? Is that the hope?

What happens if a team is found to have incorrectly reported figures when the season has already started? There is already question marks around Bradford and Castleford.

 

A few posters on here and then Fev having a tantrum whilst trying very hard not to point at Bradford doesn’t constitute question marks unfortunately 

[Taffy Tiger]

11 minutes ago, Jill Halfpenny fan said:

That's his point.

Now , I'm really confused , I thought his point was inbetween the two 2's (sorry , couldn't resist)

[binosh]

10 minutes ago, TrueBull said:

A few posters on here and then Fev having a tantrum whilst trying very hard not to point at Bradford doesn’t constitute question marks unfortunately 

I think it’s pretty relevant considering there are multiple posts about Bradfords scores and the Castleford already reporting incorrectly.

[Bulls2487]

29 minutes ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

If you take the Bulls' scores as 2.3, 1.8 and 2.4 you've fiddled the numbers.....

My figures maybe wrong but has anyone else come up with how to get to 2.17 another way?

 

[UBranger]

BBC comments section says it all.

[Big Picture]

48 minutes ago, Leonard said:

Still not been explained - sure better facilities might put a few thousand a week on Salford, Wakey and Cas.

But its 90% the same comp as before - and that's being generous.

Hopefully IMG are able to leverage some connections where others couldn't?

With a league full of teams based in smallish, unfashionable, economically disadvantaged towns just what do they have to leverage though?  Not much to be honest.

[Damien]

2 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

With a league full of teams based in smallish, unfashionable, economically disadvantaged towns just what do they have to leverage though?  Not much to be honest.

You must have a shortcut setup for this post

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

With a league full of teams based in smallish, unfashionable, economically disadvantaged towns just what do they have to leverage though?  Not much to be honest.

More than likely true unfortunately.

That will be when the fun begins.

[Barley Mow]

5 minutes ago, Bulls2487 said:

My figures maybe wrong but has anyone else come up with how to get to 2.17 another way?

 

It is impossible to get a score of 2.17 for performance. If you are the 17th graded team over the three years you get 2.2222 points, if you are ranked 18th you get 2.1111.

There must be a mistake in the figure being quoted.

[Jill Halfpenny fan]

I have just had a look at Hunslet's performance score which to the best of my knowledge is the only other figure out there. 

Hunslet are reporting a performance figure of 0.46.

In 2021 Hunslet finished 6th in League 1 (32nd overall). They then lost in the elimination play off thus giving them 6th place (32nd) for 0.5556 points.

In 2022 Hunslet finished 7th in League 1 (33rd overall) for 0.4444 points.

In 2023 Hunslet finished 2nd in League 1 however they then lost in the preliminary final thus giving them 4th place (30th) for 0.7778 points.

0.5556 + 0.4444 + 0.7778 = 1.7778 points

1.7778/3 = 0.5926 or 0.59 points.

Somethings not adding up here.

[Big Picture]

6 minutes ago, Leonard said:

More than likely true unfortunately.

That will be when the fun begins.

During discussions Sky reportedly said that the audience is stagnant, that's why they offered so much less than before.  Without reaching a bigger audience the game can't increase its income, but the teams in those smallish unfashionable towns can't reach further afield than they do now.

That's something IMG won't be able to solve.