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

[phiggins]

1 hour ago, glossop saint said:

Not wanting to watch something you enjoy because that will make an infinitesimal difference to whether a particular team plays in the top division in 3 years time.

Cutting off your nose to spite your face.

I should reiterate that the post of mine that this traces back to wasn’t to be taken entirely seriously. 

However, your post would be more accurate (imo) if you replaced ‘infinitesimal’ with ‘unknown’, ‘particular team’ with ‘team you support’ and ‘in 3 years time’ with ‘the following season’

This is the system we have. Based on very fine margins, divisive, and based on what some people (myself included) believe to be flawed metrics.

[dboy]

13 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

Leeds get a lot of viewers, its not a value judgement, it’s not me as a Leeds fan being smug or anything like that it’s just pointing out facts. Big clubs attract viewers, we need more big clubs essentially.

The viewing figures are higher when Leeds are on, because everyone else wants to see them lose.

[Chrispmartha]

21 minutes ago, dboy said:

The viewing figures are higher when Leeds are on, because everyone else wants to see them lose.

Even if true, That’s irrelevant really, I don’t think why someone watches means anything they are still watching.

[dboy]

It's relevant to your assertion that more people watch because Leeds are playing - you frame it as Leeds = popular.

They're not. Everyone wants to see them fail.

Leeds losing = popular.

The further relevance is that it shows the flaw in this being a very blunt measure of "reach".

There needs to be a much better strategy for growing the TV footprint for the whole game.

[Chrispmartha]

9 minutes ago, dboy said:

It's relevant to your assertion that more people watch because Leeds are playing - you frame it as Leeds = popular.

They're not. Everyone wants to see them fail.

Leeds losing = popular.

The further relevance is that it shows the flaw in this being a very blunt measure of "reach".

There needs to be a much better strategy for growing the TV footprint for the whole game.

I haven’t framed it in anyway, I’ve just said they get big viewing figures because they are a big club.

You also have no idea why the majority of people watch games with them involved.

[dboy]

2 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

I haven’t framed it in anyway, I’ve just said they get big viewing figures because they are a big club.

You also have no idea why the majority of people watch games with them involved.

Which underlines perfectly why it's a blunt tool.

[Coastal_Geordie]

This post might be somewhat controversial and I am a Sky Sports SL fan with no club affiliation, not in the heartlands but my view on the teams:-

Leeds and Warrington home games I most enjoy tuning in to, look good on TV, St Helens home games are decent too

Hull and Wigan have pretty soulless stadiums but look great for the derbys especially, other games can appear too many empty seats

The Leeds- Bradford derby continues to be missed and a resurgent Bradford would be great for the competition

Leigh have been a good re-addition back to SL, their home games look good too

Hull KR have an interesting looking ground and also translates decent enough to TV looking to be full the majority of the time

Huddersfield and Salford home games look grim virtually all of the time with the majority of the ground empty, I wouldn’t miss either club tbh

Castlefords ground is not fit for the premier division of any sport and makes the competition feel some way below top flight, same went for Wakefield

Catalans I always seem to be out when their home games are televised

For me watching televised sport a combination of the ground/stadium looking the part then the crowd filling and making some atmosphere in a reasonable % of the totals seats is crucial.  I get the desire of many to expand out of the heartlands etc but for me getting Bradford back in Super League and the West Yorkshire derby, support they bring etc would be really positive.  Appreciate there are many challenges not least Odsal but if we are going the license route I’d try include them.

 

 

[Harry Stottle]

46 minutes ago, Coastal_Geordie said:

Appreciate there are many challenges not least Odsal but if we are going the license route I’d try include them

In that stadium whilst you are so critical of others, is any other stadium as bad anx unsightly as Odsal, have you ever been to Odsal?

Otherwise thanks for an honest t post. 

Edited November 5, 2023 by Harry Stottle

[glossop saint]

2 hours ago, phiggins said:

I should reiterate that the post of mine that this traces back to wasn’t to be taken entirely seriously. 

However, your post would be more accurate (imo) if you replaced ‘infinitesimal’ with ‘unknown’, ‘particular team’ with ‘team you support’ and ‘in 3 years time’ with ‘the following season’

This is the system we have. Based on very fine margins, divisive, and based on what some people (myself included) believe to be flawed metrics.

Imo that would not make it more accurate. What are the actual chances of a single viewer being the difference between the average viewership on TV changing from one score to another. And that one score being the difference between position 12 and 13 in the rankings. Especially when you then consider that there's only really 3 or 4 clubs that that applies to. 

It's not only you, others have made the point that they would now not visit a rival clubs website or not go as an away fan to a certain match so as to not benefit the other club. I'm sorry but there is no doubt in my mind that that is pathetic. There is enough wrong with the system (as I myself have posted on this thread) to be arguing than to be making up ridiculous points about playing the system in such a way when there is negligible effect. Go and enjoy your rugby, be it in person, on TV, on social media and don't come up with daft reasons why this system will stop you from doing it.

[Tommygilf]

3 hours ago, dboy said:

Which underlines perfectly why it's a blunt tool.

Its not, advertisers just care how many people are watching and who they are (A,B,C1,C2,D,E).

[dboy]

16 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Its not, advertisers just care how many people are watching and who they are (A,B,C1,C2,D,E).

But it's reach is credited to particular clubs, regardless of who they are, why they are watching, where their allegiances lay, what day of the week it's on, when it is in the season, what it's up against, frequency...

It's a blunt tool when the reach generated is attributed to individual clubs.

[Coastal_Geordie]

3 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

In that stadium whilst you are so critical of others, is any other stadium as bad anx unsightly as Odsal, have you ever been to Odsal?

Otherwise thanks for an honest t post. 

I havnt no, and memories are from TV years ago.  

[phiggins]

6 hours ago, glossop saint said:

Imo that would not make it more accurate. What are the actual chances of a single viewer being the difference between the average viewership on TV changing from one score to another. And that one score being the difference between position 12 and 13 in the rankings. Especially when you then consider that there's only really 3 or 4 clubs that that applies to. 

It's not only you, others have made the point that they would now not visit a rival clubs website or not go as an away fan to a certain match so as to not benefit the other club. I'm sorry but there is no doubt in my mind that that is pathetic. There is enough wrong with the system (as I myself have posted on this thread) to be arguing than to be making up ridiculous points about playing the system in such a way when there is negligible effect. Go and enjoy your rugby, be it in person, on TV, on social media and don't come up with daft reasons why this system will stop you from doing it.

You say it’s pathetic, but your frustrations shouldn’t be with the fans that react that way, it should be with the system that has triggered it. Otherwise you would just be like a comedian that blames the audience for not finding their jokes funny.

The viewership was obviously an extreme example, but it would be interesting to know whether Leigh would be keen on taking a good away following to castleford next season, given they are currently sat 12th and 13th, and Cas are possibly the only club in SL with any sort of chance of increasing their attendance score 

[Jill Halfpenny fan]

A question, two teams. team A and team B.

Team A averages 1,000 spectators more a game than team B, (team A averages 6,500)

Both teams are pretty savvy about the digital side and score maximum points.

Neither team breaks the 150,000 viewer mark but team A's viewing figures are 25,000 better on average.

Team A finishes one place above team B in the league table.

Both teams max out on both the non centralised turnover catergories though team A does have a higher turnover.

Neither team is profitable and though neither team loses more than £1 million a year ,team As losses are substantially less.

Both teams have a generous owner who pumps in £100,000 a year.

Both teams have net liabilities.

Both teams play in relatively modern stadiums, they both max out on facilities, tenure, LED and big screen.  Team A's  capacity is 7,000 greater than team B's at 19,000.

Both teams receive 1 point for catchment  and 0.5 points for foundation.

So in summary Team A betters Team B on attendance, league position, finances and even television viewing figures and in regards of facilities they are equal.

So which team finishes higher under the IMG metrics?

[phiggins]

5 minutes ago, Jill Halfpenny fan said:

A question, two teams. team A and team B.

Team A averages 1,000 spectators more a game than team B, (team A averages 6,500)

Both teams are pretty savvy about the digital side and score maximum points.

Neither team breaks the 150,000 viewer mark but team A's viewing figures are 25,000 better on average.

Team A finishes one place above team B in the league table.

Both teams max out on both the non centralised turnover catergories though team A does have a higher turnover.

Neither team is profitable and though neither team loses more than £1 million a year ,team As losses are substantially less.

Both teams have a generous owner who pumps in £100,000 a year.

Both teams have net liabilities.

Both teams play in relatively modern stadiums, they both max out on facilities, tenure, LED and big screen.  Team A's  capacity is 7,000 greater than team B's at 19,000.

Both teams receive 1 point for catchment  and 0.5 points for foundation.

So in summary Team A betters Team B on attendance, league position, finances and even television viewing figures and in regards of facilities they are equal.

So which team finishes higher under the IMG metrics?

I'm guessing team A's marginally higher performance score is wiped out and then some by team B's stadium utilisation score?

[Jill Halfpenny fan]

5 minutes ago, phiggins said:

I'm guessing team A's marginally higher performance score is wiped out and then some by team B's stadium utilisation score?

Most of the gains A makes count for nothing.

[Snowys Backside]

2 hours ago, Jill Halfpenny fan said:

Most of the gains A makes count for nothing.

I'm going for Team C, because they play from outer Mongolia !! 

[Jill Halfpenny fan]

1 hour ago, Snowys Backside said:

I'm going for Team C, because they play from outer Mongolia !! 

Strangely enough I have calculated a Team C

[JonM]

3 hours ago, Jill Halfpenny fan said:

Most of the gains A makes count for nothing.

This could never happen though. Club A will simply get a couple of their stands declared as unsafe, shouldn't be too difficult to block up a few emergency exits or something. They could pay some local criminals to start small fires or something if really necessary. This is the kind of behaviour we're trying to incentivise, after all.

[Jill Halfpenny fan]

1 minute ago, JonM said:

This could never happen though. Club A will simply get a couple of their stands declared as unsafe, shouldn't be too difficult to block up a few emergency exits or something. They could pay some local criminals to start small fires or something if really necessary. This is the kind of behaviour we're trying to incentivise, after all.

It gets better, I think I could actually relegate them.

[Snowys Backside]

20 minutes ago, Jill Halfpenny fan said:

Strangely enough I have calculated a Team C

I would gladly promote Bradford Fev and Widnes, make it 15 teams and crack on.

Might be a tough couple of years on the pitch, but if the interest of the supporters can assist the growth of the game, then that will do for me.

Cant help but think Wakey will replace London next season 

[phiggins]

3 minutes ago, Snowys Backside said:

I would gladly promote Bradford Fev and Widnes, make it 15 teams and crack on.

Might be a tough couple of years on the pitch, but if the interest of the supporters can assist the growth of the game, then that will do for me.

Cant help but think Wakey will replace London next season 

That's virtually a given. And Toulouse are likely going to replace Leigh (or maybe Cas)

[Snowys Backside]

5 minutes ago, phiggins said:

That's virtually a given. And Toulouse are likely going to replace Leigh (or maybe Cas)

I can see Toulouse doing what Toulouse do !!

Probably disappear when Wakey give them a few kickings.

[Griff]

39 minutes ago, Jill Halfpenny fan said:

Strangely enough I have calculated a Team C

They should pick up a few catchment points in Mongolia.

[Jill Halfpenny fan]

5 minutes ago, Griff said:

They should pick up a few catchment points in Mongolia.

Never underestimate the value of catchment points.