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

[GUBRATS]

2 hours ago, phiggins said:

Not sure what you want them to say. They won't have been surprised by their own score, but the scores of Toulouse and Wakefield will have come as a surprise.

The club should know where they need to improve. I imagine they will want to increase the utilisation score by having a higher average attendance for the season, increase the turnover and do more with the web and social scores. From what I can see, the club don't have an active foundation, which is a big gap. Even just starting one up would make up the 0.25 points lost if the cup isn't retained.

The club has had an active ' foundation ' since 2003 , it is not directly funded through the club , as a previous chair/CEO wanted to set up something different , it was originally the clubs community dept ( as it was termed at most other clubs 20 years ago before the word ' foundation ' became popular ) and now operates under the Leigh Youth and Community Trust 

[Jill Halfpenny fan]

18 minutes ago, Bulls2487 said:

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

 

The Department of Guesswork or the rugby union calculator, take your pick.

[Spidey]

1 minute ago, Jill Halfpenny fan said:

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.

I tried averaging the position first then looking up to a score- that doesn’t work either. The more this gets analysed the more it falls apart

[Chrispmartha]

15 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.

Might aswell not bother trying then eh

[Barley Mow]

13 minutes ago, Jill Halfpenny fan said:

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.

Castleford have released theirs as well.

They give a figure of 3.09.

This also doesn't compute:

Method 1 - we take the average of their score over 3 years - 7th (3.33333), 7th (3.33333), 11th (2.88889) = 3.185185

Method 2 - 9th place overall gives 3.1111 or 10th overall gives 3.0000

 

Something odd going on with the performance scores based on released info.

Edited October 26, 2023 by Barley Mow

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Big Picture said:

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.

Yup. Head's will no doubt wobble when they walk because they won't be making anything for their time.

[GUBRATS]

2 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

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.

Correct , although there isn't much they can solve IMO 

[Chrispmartha]

16 minutes ago, UBranger said:

BBC comments section says it all.

It really doesn’t.

just like the daily mail comments on any story doesn’t ‘say it all’.

[Spidey]

Just now, Barley Mow said:

Something odd going on with the performance scores based on release info.

That should be the easiest to work out as well given all info is in the public domain. 

[Barley Mow]

1 minute ago, Spidey said:

That should be the easiest to work out as well given all info is in the public domain. 

Yes, that's the only one we can check easily.

Edited October 26, 2023 by Barley Mow

[Spidey]

Just now, Barley Mow said:

Yes, that's the only one we can check easily.

I’m sure there’s journos out there quizzing clubs and the RFL as we speak to get clarification 

[Taffy Tiger]

11 minutes ago, Jill Halfpenny fan said:

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.

Must be an anomoly with scoring . Is it definitely 0.111 points per place as Cas have announced their grading breakdown and have been given 3.09 points , but with a 7th , 7th an 11th place that would work out at 3.18 with 0.111 deduction per place , so not sure now how it's done

[Derwent Parker]

4 hours ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

Part of my agrees with this, it would certainly be simpler to have a load of A clubs who had guarantees, and B clubs who knew they were at risk and/or had the opportunity to get promoted.

But I guess they've gone down this route as the 'fear' of relegation might make B clubs act faster to improve in some areas. Ultimately once all clubs get the basics right (and the scoring system shows you what those are) then they'll be A grade clubs with security. IMG/RFL want clubs to focus more effort on that than the squad on the field, for now. I'm fine with that. 

Ultimately we need to remember that what IMG really wanted was a closed Super League with new entrants only coming in when they could demonstrably add value (expanding the league to do so). That's the goal. This is just a transitional model, partly to assuage some clubs so they'd vote for it, partly to create a window of time to incentivise some improvement. 

I may have misread but i think you got the last paragraph wrong.

You said "with new entrants only coming in when they could demonstrably add value (expanding the league to do so).

IMG said that SL will extend whenever a team achieves an "A" automatically.

Because ALL "A"s are guaranteed SL

It wont happen but hypothetically if 11 teams go crazy this year and achieve "A"s then next year is an 18team SL

[Barley Mow]

1 minute ago, Taffy Tiger said:

Must be an anomoly with scoring . Is it definitely 0.111 points per place as Cas have announced their grading breakdown and have been given 3.09 points , but with a 7th , 7th an 11th place that would work out at 3.18 with 0.111 deduction per place , so not sure now how it's done

HOLD THE PRESS - I'VE WORKED IT OUT

The points initially intended to be awarded and set out on page 17 of the grading document was based on us having 36 clubs (including London Skolars).

Skolars withdrawing means the increments between position 1 and last place have changed. There are now larger increments and different scores to those shown in the document.

[Jill Halfpenny fan]

4 minutes ago, Taffy Tiger said:

Must be an anomoly with scoring . Is it definitely 0.111 points per place as Cas have announced their grading breakdown and have been given 3.09 points , but with a 7th , 7th an 11th place that would work out at 3.18 with 0.111 deduction per place , so not sure now how it's done

The points per place are all listed in the document.

[Archie Gordon]

Is it possible that if 2 teams finish equal after 3 years that they share the scores for the 2 places they occupy and divide by 2? For example, Bradford and another team couldn't be separated and so shared 2.2222 and 2.1111, each taking 2.17?

[bobbruce]

4 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

I may have misread but i think you got the last paragraph wrong.

You said "with new entrants only coming in when they could demonstrably add value (expanding the league to do so).

IMG said that SL will extend whenever a team achieves an "A" automatically.

Because ALL "A"s are guaranteed SL

It wont happen but hypothetically if 11 teams go crazy this year and achieve "A"s then next year is an 18team SL

Great

[Barley Mow]

Just now, Jill Halfpenny fan said:

The points per place are all listed in the document.

They will have changed - see my post above.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Barley Mow said:

HOLD THE PRESS - I'VE WORKED IT OUT

The points initially intended to be awarded and set out on page 17 of the grading document was based on us having 36 clubs (including London Skolars).

Skolars withdrawing means the increments between position 1 and last place have changed. There are now larger increments and different scores to those shown in the document.

Imagine Newcastle going bust results in the 0.01 of a point that leads to demotion from SL.

[Spidey]

6 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

HOLD THE PRESS - I'VE WORKED IT OUT

The points initially intended to be awarded and set out on page 17 of the grading document was based on us having 36 clubs (including London Skolars).

Skolars withdrawing means the increments between position 1 and last place have changed. There are now larger increments and different scores to those shown in the document.

So if Newcastle (or others) drop out the increments will change again?

[GUBRATS]

5 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

HOLD THE PRESS - I'VE WORKED IT OUT

The points initially intended to be awarded and set out on page 17 of the grading document was based on us having 36 clubs (including London Skolars).

Skolars withdrawing means the increments between position 1 and last place have changed. There are now larger increments and different scores to those shown in the document.

So if we lose more clubs somebody could gain an A grading while not really deserving it , cracking system Grommit 

[Barley Mow]

5 minutes ago, Spidey said:

So if Newcastle (or others) drop out the increments will change again?

 

5 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

So if we lose more clubs somebody could gain an A grading while not really deserving it , cracking system Grommit 

Who knows. But that seems to be what they've done for now.

[RP London]

Lets also remember certian things can see you losing points as per the document..

[Derwent Parker]

2 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Well it is the clubs property isn't it.

I am hopeful that @Martyn Sadler who seems as mystified as anyone can gather the grading criteria from all the clubs and publish it in a comparative form.

Hi Harry - he probably will and all the snipers will be there to shoot holes in it just like - when he comes up with ideas to fix the league structures. Plenty of people to shoot it down with absolutely no positive thoughts of their own/.

[UBranger]

19 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

It really doesn’t.

just like the daily mail comments on any story doesn’t ‘say it all’.

All media is biased. Comments sections are the people, granted not a full representation but a good indicator.