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

[binosh]

6 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

That Salford can be 8th shows how weak the layer of genuinely big clubs at the top of the sport actually is.

That’s one way to look at it.

[Damien]

32 minutes ago, binosh said:

IMG have ballsed up what could have been a great process for the game by not allowing a Grade B to be relegated and replaced by another Grade B club, especially with all the talk of the Super 8’s potentially making a return.

It would have atleast given Grade B clubs something to target other than a spreadsheet and it would have given London a better shot.

I'm not convinced but even if something like this happened then it would need changes.

For that and the system to have any credibility then the scoring for what it takes to be a B grade club would need to be much higher. Clubs with 8 points getting into SL defeats the whole purpose.

[Archie Gordon]

20 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

That Salford can be 8th shows how weak the layer of genuinely big clubs at the top of the sport actually is.

Agreed but IMG reckons otherwise. Bizarrely, they've measured 24 clubs up to SL standard.

[The Phantom Horseman]

20 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

That Salford can be 8th shows how weak the layer of genuinely big clubs at the top of the sport actually is.

They're just 1.2 points short of being one of the gold-standard A-graded clubs. I think that says a lot more.

[binosh]

6 minutes ago, Damien said:

I'm not convinced but even if something like this happened then it would need changes.

For that and the system to have any credibility then the scoring for what it takes to be a B grade club would need to be much higher. Clubs with 8 points getting into SL defeats the whole purpose.

I agree completely.

[bobbruce]

2 minutes ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

They're just 1.2 points short of being one of the gold-standard A-graded clubs. I think that says a lot more.

Is anyone suggesting that the A grade is  gold standard. I think it’s set at a level of the bare minimum that should be expected from professional clubs. The fact that so few can actually achieve it is more telling. I’m sure IMG would love to have 12/14 clubs reaching this so they can start cranking up the standards. 

[The Phantom Horseman]

3 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

Is anyone suggesting that the A grade is  gold standard.

The fact that they're giving immunity from relegation for 15+ points is a very, very large clue that, yes, that's what they see as the holy grail to aim for.

[Tommygilf]

1 hour ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

They're just 1.2 points short of being one of the gold-standard A-graded clubs. I think that says a lot more.

But for them, those 1.2 points are relatively massive steps.

They can't get a magic money tree to increase finances, their average crowds aren't hitting the top tier any time soon, their form on the field is as good as it is probably ever going to get without the previous 2 factors increasing.

What this shows is that its relatively easy to get a decent grade B for an average sized RL Club. However kicking on from that to an A requires that club to go beyond that level of effort significantly.

[The Blues Ox]

Its going to be interesting to see how well some of the scores hold up once they are properly investigated which I am sure the RFL will do in a lot more detail and I had been comparing scores on RLFans between Fax, Fev and Bradford just to get more of an idea on the breakdown of each teams scoring and it did leave a lot of questions especially related to the finance side of things so Beaumont coming out and saying what he said makes you wonder how many more will change.

 

I mentioned before that I think Bradford are at the upper limit on their scoring and struggle to see where they could improve to get the points needed to see them make the top 12 and their finances score was one of the reasons I said that. They scored 2.75pts in the finance section and because of the the scoring in section 2. Non-Centralised Turnover % we know they scored the full 0.75 points for this so scored 2 more points from the rest and I have no idea how they managed this. We have to presume they score 0.5 points for Non centralised Turnover between 500k-1.25m which then means they score top marks on the rest of the criteria. I just get the feeling that some teams may have stretched the truth as much as possible to give their fans a better impression where as some teams have been deliberatley coy about the numbers they put through.

I think this might still live up to the excitment of promotion and relegation once the final scores come out and the fallout begins. Its a shame it won't be on a pitch but theres certainly going to be some drama.

[DemonUK]

Has anything seen anything about the IMG grading criteria being tweaked for the first set of 'Official' gradings to be announced at the end of the 2024 season.  Also it would be possible to announce the majority of gradings just before the playoffs commence.  But will they?  Clubs around the cut off points are going to be in limbo again.

In other words can anyone explain what is happening with the IMG gradings now they have had a 'trial' run.

Edited February 5 by DemonUK

[The Blues Ox]

I guess the short answer is no. No doubt once teams start filing their documents we may see some slight adjustments in the gradings but again that's just me been an old cynic.

[The 4 of Us]

Looking forward to the next 168 pages.

[Jill Halfpenny fan]

On 04/02/2024 at 12:31, The Blues Ox said:

I think this might still live up to the excitment of promotion and relegation once the final scores come out and the fallout begins. Its a shame it won't be on a pitch but theres certainly going to be some drama.

Yep, the season ends and the fun begins.

[theswanmcr]

It will soon be Grimethorpe arguing with fans of Brighouse & Rastrick over who has the shinest eupohoiums for an extra 0.5 points next... https://www.4barsrest.com/articles/2023/2043.asp 

[Chris22]

11 hours ago, DemonUK said:

Has anything seen anything about the IMG grading criteria being tweaked for the first set of 'Official' gradings to be announced at the end of the 2024 season.  Also it would be possible to announce the majority of gradings just before the playoffs commence.  But will they?  Clubs around the cut off points are going to be in limbo again.

In other words can anyone explain what is happening with the IMG gradings now they have had a 'trial' run.

I believe the gradings will only be announced after the season ends. So we will know the make up of Super League and the Championship later than we do now.

With the grades being reviewed annually, this process will repeat year-on-year, making it very difficult (in my view) for many grade b clubs to plan, with them not knowing whether they will be in Super League even later than now.

This seems like a recipe to widen the gap between the top of Super League and the rest, in my view.

[Hopie]

18 hours ago, DemonUK said:

Has anything seen anything about the IMG grading criteria being tweaked for the first set of 'Official' gradings to be announced at the end of the 2024 season.  Also it would be possible to announce the majority of gradings just before the playoffs commence.  But will they?  Clubs around the cut off points are going to be in limbo again.

In other words can anyone explain what is happening with the IMG gradings now they have had a 'trial' run.

I think they should be changed, but I don't think they will be. I think speculation about them being changed was a useful way for some to avoid the discussion about the grading system being flawed, "but the criteria can be changed" etc. Those running SL and IMG must think their "trial run" was a great success and they should continue in exactly the same way for real this time? I think that confirms things about what grading is for, or rather who it is for.

[Barley Mow]

5 hours ago, Hopie said:

I think they should be changed, but I don't think they will be. I think speculation about them being changed was a useful way for some to avoid the discussion about the grading system being flawed, "but the criteria can be changed" etc. Those running SL and IMG must think their "trial run" was a great success and they should continue in exactly the same way for real this time? I think that confirms things about what grading is for, or rather who it is for.

Beyond which, if they did change them there would be accusations of doing so to favour certain clubs at the expense of others.

[Archie Gordon]

The TV viewers criterion is materially different for 2024. If they leave it unchanged, I would think that odd.

[The Blues Ox]

They certainly need to be thinking about how they do the announcement, I think they could make a huge event of it. Imagine the interviews straight after the decisions, I think it would make for great TV. Maybe get Ant and Dec to do it ala Im Celeb. 

[Dave T]

On 02/02/2024 at 17:54, Taffy Tiger said:

Hi Dave T

 

That would be the case for 2024/25 as 2023 gradings were indicative only , so 2025 SL participants , will be dependent soley on Oct 2024 gradings ie top 12 . However , from then on you couldn't be relegated the year after directly gaining a Cat A . In the case of Hull KR , if you are Cat A in Oct 2024 , you can't be relegated at the end of 2025 , irrespective of your score or position in gradings in Oct 2025 . However , you wouldn't then be exempt the following season ie if you weren't in Top 12 (and were Cat B or below) in Oct 2026 , you would then be relegated . 

Thanks - do you have a link that confirms this, as I can't find a single thing that describes it as you do? Not saying its wrong, but there is nothing written. 

The packs say that the gradings are released at the end of each year and the makeup of SL based on that. SL will be made up of 12 (minus the A grade clubs, plus the highest ranked B clubs). 

But let's say, when the rankings are released at the end of 2025 for 2026, and say, Hull have dropped to a Grade B, behind 13 clubs, why would they be given a place in SL? I can't find any mention of a 12m buffer. 

Edited February 6 by Dave T

[dboy]

On 02/02/2024 at 17:54, Taffy Tiger said:

Hi Dave T

 

That would be the case for 2024/25 as 2023 gradings were indicative only , so 2025 SL participants , will be dependent soley on Oct 2024 gradings ie top 12 . However , from then on you couldn't be relegated the year after directly gaining a Cat A . In the case of Hull KR , if you are Cat A in Oct 2024 , you can't be relegated at the end of 2025 , irrespective of your score or position in gradings in Oct 2025 . However , you wouldn't then be exempt the following season ie if you weren't in Top 12 (and were Cat B or below) in Oct 2026 , you would then be relegated . 

That's not correct.

The Oct gradings determine the places for the following season.

There is no lag.

[dboy]

[Dave T]

16 minutes ago, dboy said:

Yes, this is the only point that I can find on this. Also, if the principle is to always have the best ranked teams, it makes no sense to offer protection for a team even if their ranking plummets.

[Gooleboy]

4 hours ago, The Blues Ox said:

They certainly need to be thinking about how they do the announcement, I think they could make a huge event of it. Imagine the interviews straight after the decisions, I think it would make for great TV. Maybe get Ant and Dec to do it ala Im Celeb. 

Headingley it is then.

[Archie Gordon]

29 minutes ago, dboy said:

No need for the last line and a half then!