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

[dboy]

3 hours ago, Click said:

It's almost like % compared to local population means absolutely nothing.

Let me fix that for you...

Comparing local population means absolutely nothing.

[The Blues Ox]

Is there any reason they couldnt simply use average attendance but have more tiers and just scrap catchment altogether? It would obviously have to be tightly to avoid teams putting in fake numbers like on the scale that Bradford have been doing but really only needs a few photos during each game then load it in to facial recognition software and you will be somewhere near to within a 100 or so, its certainly not going to be thousands out. I don't see the sense of penalising teams like cas who have done notoriously well with the population they have while rewarding teams like London who have failed miserabely year on year.

[dboy]

3 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

Is there any reason they couldnt simply use average attendance but have more tiers and just scrap catchment altogether? It would obviously have to be tightly to avoid teams putting in fake numbers like on the scale that Bradford have been doing but really only needs a few photos during each game then load it in to facial recognition software and you will be somewhere near to within a 100 or so, its certainly not going to be thousands out. I don't see the sense of penalising teams like cas who have done notoriously well with the population they have while rewarding teams like London who have failed miserabely year on year.

Re-read what you've written...

"I don't see the sense in penalising teams like Cas" / "Need to be tighter on teams like Bradford inflating their figures".

Now ask yourself if those two things could in any way be linked...

The catchment score is designed solely for the purpose of getting Bulls back in SL.

[sweaty craiq]

11 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

It pays far more than 7k out of 40k does...

It is pretty poop though you must admit

[Click]

1 hour ago, The Blues Ox said:

Is there any reason they couldnt simply use average attendance but have more tiers and just scrap catchment altogether? It would obviously have to be tightly to avoid teams putting in fake numbers like on the scale that Bradford have been doing but really only needs a few photos during each game then load it in to facial recognition software and you will be somewhere near to within a 100 or so, its certainly not going to be thousands out. I don't see the sense of penalising teams like cas who have done notoriously well with the population they have while rewarding teams like London who have failed miserabely year on year.

I am sorry, but I must have missed all the posts and news articles a few weeks back where this whole system means London will be relegated for next season before this season has began.

Remind me again how this system rewards teams like London that have failed miserably year on year? Rather than the current system of seeing London promoted to SL even though we have failed, as you say, failed miserably year on year.

[Click]

50 minutes ago, sweaty craiq said:

It is pretty poop though you must admit

In comparison to the rest of the teams in the league? No, not particularly at all.

[The Blues Ox]

9 hours ago, Click said:

I am sorry, but I must have missed all the posts and news articles a few weeks back where this whole system means London will be relegated for next season before this season has began.

Remind me again how this system rewards teams like London that have failed miserably year on year? Rather than the current system of seeing London promoted to SL even though we have failed, as you say, failed miserably year on year.

Im clearly discussing attendances and catchment area and nothing else. London are better rewarded catchment area wise than say Fev who are penalised on catchment area but still manage to achieve much bigger crowds with that smaller area. In my head that all seems a bit backwards and the only way I think it should be included is for new teams rather than established teams. It all seems a bit strange that we suddenly get the IMG scoring system and we can forget decades of under performance in those areas by London(not only them obviously but that was my original discussion) and they will start looking to increase crowds.

[phiggins]

15 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Well they aren't poorly thought out, they're just not the most important thing.

Of course, whether it is poorly thought out is a matter of opinion. My opinion is that using the population figures from the last census, within local authority boundaries, isn't a particularly well thought out measure of how strong a club is, or even how strong they may be. The only way I could say it is not poorly thought out, is if it wasnt thought out at all.

[Dovster]

12 hours ago, The Blues Ox said:

Is there any reason they couldnt simply use average attendance but have more tiers and just scrap catchment altogether? It would obviously have to be tightly to avoid teams putting in fake numbers like on the scale that Bradford have been doing but really only needs a few photos during each game then load it in to facial recognition software and you will be somewhere near to within a 100 or so, its certainly not going to be thousands out. I don't see the sense of penalising teams like cas who have done notoriously well with the population they have while rewarding teams like London who have failed miserabely year on year.

This is so obvious. Attendances should be the only measure and Catchment Areas dropped. Otherwise a poor expansion club benefits over a good club in an area with more competition. The fact that an expansion team doesn't have as much competition should be benefit enough and attendances should show this.

[gingerjon]

56 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

we suddenly get the IMG scoring system and we can forget decades of under performance in those areas by London

London are ranked 24th.

The whole picture is the important bit.

[sweaty craiq]

10 hours ago, Click said:

In comparison to the rest of the teams in the league? No, not particularly at all.

Its a huge failure, RL needs Headingly sold out every week for SL games as it should be with that catchment area. 

[Tommygilf]

4 minutes ago, sweaty craiq said:

Its a huge failure, RL needs Headingly sold out every week for SL games as it should be with that catchment area. 

I totally agree, yet everyone else's attendances are so pitiful the Rhinos still get the best numbers and full marks on that metric too...

[phiggins]

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

London are ranked 24th.

The whole picture is the important bit.

London do show the issue with the catchment area metric. In theory, their catchment could spread well beyond the boundaries of Merton borough and earn top points. In reality, they probably don't have enough of a captive audience (or people engaged, or however you might term it) to justify the catchment score that they did have.

Surely it's better to scrap the poor metric, than hope that two wrongs make a right, or that the poor metric is negated by other areas of the system

[gingerjon]

3 minutes ago, phiggins said:

London do show the issue with the catchment area metric. In theory, their catchment could spread well beyond the boundaries of Merton borough and earn top points. In reality, they probably don't have enough of a captive audience (or people engaged, or however you might term it) to justify the catchment score that they did have.

Surely it's better to scrap the poor metric, than hope that two wrongs make a right, or that the poor metric is negated by other areas of the system

I always said the metric should include a thorough assessment of which areas clubs are reaching and how. I suspect it was the requirement to open up private data for analysis that led to this clunky measure.

[north yorks trinity]

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

I always said the metric should include a thorough assessment of which areas clubs are reaching and how. I suspect it was the requirement to open up private data for analysis that led to this clunky measure.

Could they have used anonymised data? Maybe not as it may be too reliant on honesty, which is never a good thing! Or they could have looked at engagement with schools and clubs no matter how geographically distant,  an example being Wakefield's involvement with a club in Immingham.

That said, my own opinion (and that's all it is based on no more than gut feel and possibly flawed intuition) is that the clunky measure arose from a combination of laziness and incompetence.

[Harry Stottle]

2 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

I totally agree, yet everyone else's attendances are so pitiful the Rhinos still get the best numbers and full marks on that metric too...

I think that shows the realisation of where the game is at Tommy and why the bar is set so low to achieve an A grade, to quote yourself "If you stand still you are in effect going backwards". 

I have been dubious from the introduction of IMG in how their methods will increase spectators both live in the grounds and eyes on the broadcasts.

Some will say it is already working at your club, I will counter that with an emphatic NO, success on the field and quality player's at the club along with games of more interest and the opportunity to see better players visiting in the SL is the sole reason and main contributor to the greatly increased attendances, and controversially to some I doubt the ENTERTAINMENT is bringing more in.

If Leeds increase their attendances from last season it will be on the back of the new signings and performing better on the field not that they are the No1 rated club on IMG's spreadsheet. We could go through the SL clubs at the end of next season and look at why they have improved/dropped attendances and I will predict it is how the club is performing on the field, not how many are in the catchment area, LED advertising, big screen scoreboards, padded directors seats or any other peripherals that are nessacary to gain IMG points.

Edited December 7, 2023 by Harry Stottle

[Chrispmartha]

28 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

LED advertising, big screen scoreboards, padded directors seats or any other peripherals that are nessacary to gain IMG points.

Those things are nor designed to increase attendances, not sure why you've mentioned them.

The metrics are designed to enable the clubs to increase revenue with sponsorship and corporate.

Leeds have just signed another sponsorship deal which will see Smmmile dentists advertising during the games, this is why even though people like yourself mock things like LED advertising, they do increase revenue.

[Harry Stottle]

27 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Those things are nor designed to increase attendances, not sure why you've mentioned them.

The metrics are designed to enable the clubs to increase revenue with sponsorship and corporate.

Leeds have just signed another sponsorship deal which will see Smmmile dentists advertising during the games, this is why even though people like yourself mock things like LED advertising, they do increase revenue.

Christopher, they are all part of the spreadsheet just ones that I could think of whilst writing the post, so pray please tell me what in the IMG criteria is going to make the game as such that apart from individual clubs on field performances  will sell more season tickets, buy Sky subscriptions, purchase streaming passes, I don't know please educate me.

[Click]

5 hours ago, The Blues Ox said:

Im clearly discussing attendances and catchment area and nothing else. London are better rewarded catchment area wise than say Fev who are penalised on catchment area but still manage to achieve much bigger crowds with that smaller area. In my head that all seems a bit backwards and the only way I think it should be included is for new teams rather than established teams. It all seems a bit strange that we suddenly get the IMG scoring system and we can forget decades of under performance in those areas by London(not only them obviously but that was my original discussion) and they will start looking to increase crowds.

You're the one that is ignoring every other metric. London get decent points for catchment, not full. Even with that, we are the 24th highest club because of the decades of under performance. There is no way that London are being rewarded in these gradings. 

We've been relegated from SL before the season has even begun.

 

[Chrispmartha]

51 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Christopher, they are all part of the spreadsheet just ones that I could think of whilst writing the post, so pray please tell me what in the IMG criteria is going to make the game as such that apart from individual clubs on field performances  will sell more season tickets, buy Sky subscriptions, purchase streaming passes, I don't know please educate me.

Making the clubs and in deed SL itself more active with marketing, especially digital can increase attendances.

Performances are not the only metric that gets people interested in watching sport.

You have admitted before that you are not really up on the world of modern marketing techniques so Im not sure those metrics are aimed at people like yourself.

Digital marketing, especially on Social Media is now a very important part of any sport or sports club strategy to increase revenues and exposure and yes attendances.

[Taffy Tiger]

Cas appeal result to be announced this evening

[The Blues Ox]

4 hours ago, gingerjon said:

London are ranked 24th.

The whole picture is the important bit.

 

27 minutes ago, Click said:

You're the one that is ignoring every other metric. London get decent points for catchment, not full. Even with that, we are the 24th highest club because of the decades of under performance. There is no way that London are being rewarded in these gradings. 

We've been relegated from SL before the season has even begun.

 

I totally agree that the whole picture is important but I also don't think teams should be artificially propped up on the scoring because of the some random catchment area metrics where it is not possible for teams to improve their scoring. London maybe ranked 24th but the reality is they probably should be even lower. Good on London doing the near impossible to gain promotion on the pitch but the reality was they were the least prepared of any club in the playoffs for that scenario and would have likely been coming straight back down anyway. It's sport and it happens and they deserve this season because they earnt it but unfortunatley from next season we go away from been a sport where on the field is the main importance.

[Click]

33 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

 

I totally agree that the whole picture is important but I also don't think teams should be artificially propped up on the scoring because of the some random catchment area metrics where it is not possible for teams to improve their scoring. London maybe ranked 24th but the reality is they probably should be even lower. Good on London doing the near impossible to gain promotion on the pitch but the reality was they were the least prepared of any club in the playoffs for that scenario and would have likely been coming straight back down anyway. It's sport and it happens and they deserve this season because they earnt it but unfortunatley from next season we go away from been a sport where on the field is the main importance.

Artificially propped up to 24th..

If we get to a point where all these clubs have completed and achieved all possible points that they can get, RE: finances/stadium and the only thing left that seperates the top 15 odd clubs is their catchment figures then fine. But the majority of them have been around for 100 years and haven't grown and are run like £$"! just like LB is

You don't seem to want to reward failing clubs but the last system did exactly that when LB was promoted.

[Taffy Tiger]

Cas appeal rejected . However it has been agreed that our score would rise to 12.91 , even though the gradings won't be changed at this point. Link to Cas announcement below

 

https://castlefordtigers.com/article.php?id=8831

Edited December 7, 2023 by Taffy Tiger

[gingerjon]

Check your work before submitting.