Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts


7 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

MG have previously said that they will look to do a trial run of the grading ahead of 2024 as an example, before it comes in to practice for 2025
 

https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/img-set-date-for-new-super-league-grading-criteria-release
 

first google search result

They will look to do a trial run, now Chris throughout this thread you have been absolute in that people have to give a definitive description. So was that a trial run or not. Now we go on opinions and yours will be of course it was.

7 minutes ago, Gav Wilson said:

Indicative: serving as a sign or indication of something. The indication I have is that a team can finish high up the table in SL and still be demoted to the second division.

Seriously guys I hope that will be the case but as Gubrats has said now we have had this table dliverered, any adjustments can appease some clubs  but that will be to the detriment of upsetting some others, as I said they delivered it to soon they could have asked for multiple periodic submissions of the figures from the clubs and assessed and adjusted accordingly, they have after all 12 years to get this right, why trip up at the first hurdle.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Genuinely, how is it flawed? Other than "I don't like the system", its done exactly what it was supposed to - show us the strongest clubs to base the immediate future of the top flight around and show other clubs where they are lacking.

IMG have said they were surprised by the outcome so that shows they set the criteria for grade A too low. That's one example, but previous posts suggest you will say it doesn't matter anyway...

I believe you are projecting when you suggest my post is based in my like/dislike of the system.

 

 

Also, "most of you voted for it, therefore you don't get to criticize/adjust it" is a terrible argument. Is it 2016?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

They will look to do a trial run, now Chris throughout this thread you have been absolute in that people have to give a definitive description. So was that a trial run or not. Now we go on opinions and yours will be of course it was.

Indicative: serving as a sign or indication of something. The indication I have is that a team can finish high up the table in SL and still be demoted to the second division.

Seriously guys I hope that will be the case but as Gubrats has said now we have had this table dliverered, any adjustments can appease some clubs  but that will be to the detriment of upsetting some others, as I said they delivered it to soon they could have asked for multiple periodic submissions of the figures from the clubs and assessed and adjusted accordingly, they have after all 12 years to get this right, why trip up at the first hurdle.

All of what you have said was known when they voted for it

 

what type of trial run were you expecting?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Hopie said:

IMG have said they were surprised by the outcome so that shows they set the criteria for grade A too low. That's one example, but previous posts suggest you will say it doesn't matter anyway...

I believe you are projecting when you suggest my post is based in my like/dislike of the system.

 

 

Also, "most of you voted for it, therefore you don't get to criticize/adjust it" is a terrible argument. Is it 2016?

It doesn't necessarily mean that they set the bar too low at all.

You've provided an example that isn't an example and isn't even your own example, great start for showing how it is "flawed".

I'm not projecting at all, I'm just pre-empting the obvious. I don't mind people not liking it, but just be honest and say you don't like how it is replacing p/r not pretend its some critique of a nuance in the criteria.

I've never said criticism is not allowed, indeed several times I've said I expect the criteria to be refined going forwards - quite literally being critically reviewed. Seems its not me projecting...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Hopie said:

IMG have said they were surprised by the outcome so that shows they set the criteria for grade A too low. That's one example, but previous posts suggest you will say it doesn't matter anyway...

I believe you are projecting when you suggest my post is based in my like/dislike of the system.

 

 

Also, "most of you voted for it, therefore you don't get to criticize/adjust it" is a terrible argument. Is it 2016?

Img being surprised doesn’t automatically mean its too low, it could mean some of the clubs are in a better shape than they thought.

Clubs can criticise it but for it to change they will have to get the other clubs to agree to change it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

It doesn't necessarily mean that they set the bar too low at all.

You've provided an example that isn't an example and isn't even your own example, great start for showing how it is "flawed".

I'm not projecting at all, I'm just pre-empting the obvious. I don't mind people not liking it, but just be honest and say you don't like how it is replacing p/r not pretend its some critique of a nuance in the criteria.

I've never said criticism is not allowed, indeed several times I've said I expect the criteria to be refined going forwards - quite literally being critically reviewed. Seems its not me projecting...

Exactly this. There are some great posters coming up with plenty of reasons why this system doesn't work. There is some really good debate discussing why and whether it will work or not.

Then there are other that are tying themselves in knots trying to claim that circles are squares and black is white just because there isn't P and R.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

A 14 team SL like it should be in 2025 😉

I don’t know Martyn I didn’t come up with the grading system.

Im not sure how successful Lawyers would be seeing as though the clubs have voted it through and the metrics are quantifiable.

That last spot may be worth a million pounds  ( and that all depends on how the SL decide to reward each SL club - yet to be decided as I understand and entirely up to them how they do it ).

Not that much  for lawyers to make though. No High Court in sight as any disputes must be dealt with under the operational rules Part E - Arbitration. , with the last paragraph being extremely limiting as to scope.

And as Chrispmartha has pointed out , all the clubs have collectively signed up to the process with the metrics readily quantifiable. Probably watertight from the  RFL point of view unless  ( always a possibility ! ) they somehow  manage to #### up the scorecards......

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, glossop saint said:

Exactly this. There are some great posters coming up with plenty of reasons why this system doesn't work. There is some really good debate discussing why and whether it will work or not.

Then there are other that are tying themselves in knots trying to claim that circles are squares and black is white just because there isn't P and R.

There are also some sat in a Monty Python sketch saying no it isn't to every genuine concern raised. Removing P+R is a genuine position I can understand that I don't agree with

I have stated alternatives/adjustments as have others, but just denying facts to argue that this grading system should go ahead as is, is no better than what you are suggesting is happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hopie said:

There are also some sat in a Monty Python sketch saying no it isn't to every genuine concern raised. Removing P+R is a genuine position I can understand that I don't agree with

I have stated alternatives/adjustments as have others, but just denying facts to argue that this grading system should go ahead as is, is no better than what you are suggesting is happening.

Why shouldn’t it go ahead? It is the exact system the clubs voted for. 

What facts are being denied?
 

Now if it turns out that the majority of clubs want it revisited and amended then that will happen just as it did with the catchment criteria.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After 111 pages it seems that a system which is supposed to encourage long term & forward thinking has garnered support from fans of clubs who fall into that bracket and has upset some fans of clubs who either started the journey yesterday (ie the last season or so) and those who haven’t either got to the station. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GUBRATS said:

Which will result in claims of them ' tweaking ' it to get their desired results , do you really think that will solve the issues of it ? , or just compound them even further ? 

Yes, there will be accusations and conspiracy theories, but not sure I'd agree with them. I'm not sure the RFL even have a desired result any more, hence the whole IMG partnership.

Whether any tweaks help or hinder, it really depends on what they are. They have to figure out a way to avoid the debacle with the Cas score. We can't be here in 12 months time, waiting on the result of an appeal to tell us who is in 12th place and who misses out by a tenth or two of a point.

If that results in a significant change in how the data is submitted and assessed, they'll probably need another trial run. If the result is a change in the way the scores are calculated and the criteria, then I would've thought that would need consultation with the clubs and another vote. The most likely change would be to get rid of the catchment area metric. Which would actually be bad news for Leigh, but it is a terrible metric to use. 

Although, Leigh are frustrating me as well. There is a good opportunity to get some decent comms out, which would get people engaged, from all clubs' fanbase, about the breakdown of the score and what's needed. Given it's an area I've worked in for the last 15 years, it's an area that piques my interest and frustrates in equal measure!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, LeeF said:

After 111 pages it seems that a system which is supposed to encourage long term & forward thinking has garnered support from fans of clubs who fall into that bracket and has upset some fans of clubs who either started the journey yesterday (ie the last season or so) and those who haven’t either got to the station. 

So how did we start the journey ? , given we don't have a station ? 😉

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, LeeF said:

After 111 pages it seems that a system which is supposed to encourage long term & forward thinking has garnered support from fans of clubs who fall into that bracket and has upset some fans of clubs who either started the journey yesterday (ie the last season or so) and those who haven’t either got to the station. 

Or aren’t even *near* a station (apologies)

Edit: Oof, Gubrats beat me to it…

 

Edited by Veridical
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, phiggins said:

Yes, there will be accusations and conspiracy theories, but not sure I'd agree with them. I'm not sure the RFL even have a desired result any more, hence the whole IMG partnership.

Whether any tweaks help or hinder, it really depends on what they are. They have to figure out a way to avoid the debacle with the Cas score. We can't be here in 12 months time, waiting on the result of an appeal to tell us who is in 12th place and who misses out by a tenth or two of a point.

If that results in a significant change in how the data is submitted and assessed, they'll probably need another trial run. If the result is a change in the way the scores are calculated and the criteria, then I would've thought that would need consultation with the clubs and another vote. The most likely change would be to get rid of the catchment area metric. Which would actually be bad news for Leigh, but it is a terrible metric to use. 

Although, Leigh are frustrating me as well. There is a good opportunity to get some decent comms out, which would get people engaged, from all clubs' fanbase, about the breakdown of the score and what's needed. Given it's an area I've worked in for the last 15 years, it's an area that piques my interest and frustrates in equal measure!

They have already changed the catchment area at the club’s request.

I don’t think we’ll see any huge changes because that would require the majority of clubs to want to change it. The only clubs Ive seen criticise it are the ones that voted against it anyway.

Leigh might not want some details revealing, i.e finances ?

Edited by Chrispmartha
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

They have already changed the catchment area at the club’s request.

I don’t think we’ll see any huge changes because that would require the majority of clubs to want to change it. The only clubs Ive seen criticise it are the ones that voted against it anyway.

I don't think we'll see huge changes either. But the point of a trial is to test it out, and I'd say there's a few 'bugs'.

The fact that IMG are saying they are surprised by the number of A grades, and scores in general, are higher than expected means either the game is healthier than they thought and we're trying to solve the wrong problem, or they've been too generous with the scoring and need to rethink it.

But on a more practical level. It seems that there have been problem with the process of actually collecting the data and producing the scores. It seems there have been two clubs challenge their score, and another see their score reduced. And unless I've missed an official announcement, we still don't know which order clubs 12 and 13 sit in. All that stuff needs to be sorted out. If it involves much change, they'll need to retest it out. It might be something that they can do in the background, it might not be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

Genuinely, how is it flawed? Other than "I don't like the system", its done exactly what it was supposed to - show us the strongest clubs to base the immediate future of the top flight around and show other clubs where they are lacking.

I guess it shows strongest against the img grading criteria.   Yet a 0.1 mark difference between two clubs would seem to me odd to base a p/r decision on as currently that would be the plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, redjonn said:

I guess it shows strongest against the img grading criteria.   Yet a 0.1 mark difference between two clubs would seem to me odd to base a p/r decision on as currently that would be the plan.

Is it any better than a drop goal in golden point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Tommygilf said:

Is it any better than a drop goal in golden point?

Golden point would be preferable given that is how the champions/GF could be decided.

I think your comment takes us off on tangent and doesn't address the impact of a minor difference in marks and the serious consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.