IMG Grading System (Many Merged Threads)

[Fevrover]

1 hour ago, MattSantos said:

Ultimately, we like RL because of what happens on the pitch.

I'm so very confused and i'm trying to work out my motivation to follow my club next year.

If Fev beat Bradford in the Grand Final and we somehow end up with 0.1 fewer points than the 12th team in SL or indeed Bradford, we won't be promoted. Also, and perhaps more importantly, when will we know what we need to do to be promoted? Will it before the season? After? It feels like a horrible drawn out version of VAR... can i celebrate or what?

 

Ask Gav Wilson of York he seems to know everything. 

[RP London]

7 minutes ago, LeytherRob said:

Leigh's score will undoubtedly go up next year, it's just a case of whether or not(and how much by) the others do. It's not just a 12th place finish dropping out the stats, it's a commercially disastrous year of poor performance on and off the field vs a season with what will likely be an increase on 2023's strong crowds/revenue. Things like turnover, stadium utilization(which is essentially just a duplicate measure of average crowds), fandom will all be boosted quite considerably. 

It really is a shame that there is such a lack of transparency, because these gradings as presented are actually pretty useless in some respect of predicting where everyone is for next year when these things fully count. It would be interesting to see a year by year scoring for each club and more importantly, the scores based only on the 2-year data that will count for next year(2022-2023 minus any trophy bonuses). Only then could you see what each club needed from 2024, as it stands it's all a bit of a mystery

i like that idea if they were able to do it.. 

The transparency issue is one that the clubs need to address, but I would guess some wont like their warts being shown too publicly as its a nice stick to beat you with (can i mix anymore metaphors??)

[Tommygilf]

2 minutes ago, phiggins said:

Yes, Leigh do look pretty vulnerable. It does seem strange that when it comes to next season's grades, Leigh's challenge cup win will count for nothing, but the attendances and league positions from previous years do count, and will hold them back. For example, I think it's impossible for Leigh to gain any extra points on attendances next year, while 2022 figures remain on record. Yet the bonus scores achieved in 2022 are long gone, as with the challenge cup win this year.

This whole thing seems a mess, and will lead to clubs scratching around for 0.1 point here and 0.2 there, instead of implementing an overall strategy across the club. Leigh will try to find a way to manufacture extra website visits and social media engagements, which as standalone metrics are absolutely meaningless when it comes to measuring the effectiveness of those channels.

In fairness, 1 cup win is nice, but it doesn't mean anything, its literally the "anti-average" way of measuring on field success.

Leigh etc will need to broaden their social media activities and there's only so much traffic you can "manufacture". 

[Fevrover]

1 hour ago, MattSantos said:

Ultimately, we like RL because of what happens on the pitch.

I'm so very confused and i'm trying to work out my motivation to follow my club next year.

If Fev beat Bradford in the Grand Final and we somehow end up with 0.1 fewer points than the 12th team in SL or indeed Bradford, we won't be promoted. Also, and perhaps more importantly, when will we know what we need to do to be promoted? Will it before the season? After? It feels like a horrible drawn out version of VAR... can i celebrate or 

 

Edited October 25, 2023 by Fevrover

[Fevrover]

1 hour ago, MattSantos said:

Ultimately, we like RL because of what happens on the pitch.

I'm so very confused and i'm trying to work out my motivation to follow my club next year.

If Fev beat Bradford in the Grand Final and we somehow end up with 0.1 fewer points than the 12th team in SL or indeed Bradford, we won't be promoted. Also, and perhaps more importantly, when will we know what we need to do to be promoted? Will it before the season? After? It feels like a horrible drawn out version of VAR... can i celebrate or what?

 

Ask Gav Wilson of York he seems to know everything. 

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, Fevrover said:

Ask Gav Wilson of York he seems to know everything. 

You can say that again!

[Barley Mow]

5 minutes ago, LeytherRob said:

Leigh's score will undoubtedly go up next year, it's just a case of whether or not(and how much by) the others do. It's not just a 12th place finish dropping out the stats, it's a commercially disastrous year of poor performance on and off the field vs a season with what will likely be an increase on 2023's strong crowds/revenue. Things like turnover, stadium utilization(which is essentially just a duplicate measure of average crowds), fandom will all be boosted quite considerably. 

It really is a shame that there is such a lack of transparency, because these gradings as presented are actually pretty useless in some respect of predicting where everyone is for next year when these things fully count. It would be interesting to see a year by year scoring for each club and more importantly, the scores based only on the 2-year data that will count for next year(2022-2023 minus any trophy bonuses). Only then could you see what each club needed from 2024, as it stands it's all a bit of a mystery

I agree with the gist of your point, but there is a possibility of stadium utilisation being wildly different to the crowd figure:

If York, Warrington and Bradford all averaged 8,500 crowds they would all get the same score for crowd levels.

However, York would have 100% utilisation, Warrington 56% utilisation and Bradford 33% utilisation.

[Agbrigg]

The Rugby Union have been trying to kill our sport for well over a hundred years without success. The nerds at IMG have managed in a few months.

[OdsalBull]

5 minutes ago, Damien said:

Just on this general point, and not you or Bradford specifically. For stuff like finance and league placings its a 3 year average and I think people forget this.

With points already accounted for in these provisional rankings there is only so much improvement a team can do in 1 year to try and improve their scores. It's not going to be a case of huge jumps.

Appreciate that, I just feel we are not far off so it doesn't need to be huge jumps. Again, I am not saying we will make it but hope the club are prepared to have a proper bash because to be this close without the advantage of at least one year in SL is great and speaks volumes about the potential if we can get it right, much to the dismay of many 

 

[redjonn]

3 hours ago, Toby Chopra said:

We don't have promotion and relegation any more, I think a lot of people are still stuck in that mindset. 

We have what I'd call "dynamic licensing" which is a rolling process of licensing with longer licenses the better you score. 

This is what the clubs voted for. 

yep, I understand. I was just making my opinion that IMG grading should have a part in improving clubs but that it shouldn't be used for promotion/relegation differentiation.  That is if your a grade B you are eligible for promotion no matter what difference their may be within the actual grade points between another grade B.

Anyway as you say clubs have voted for what they have. Although throughout all discussion on the IMG grading approach its never been clear whether an individual or half point difference would prevent a promotion/relegation against another club with same overall grade B.

Edited October 25, 2023 by redjonn

[Fevrover]

22 minutes ago, Dovster said:

OK I guess I'll bite.

Are Keighley not entitled to have an opinion without being slagged off by your good self?

My advice to you would be not to read any future Keighley statements as it seems to make you very angry.

Well it gives Fev a break lol . 

[Tommygilf]

5 minutes ago, Agbrigg said:

The Rugby Union have been trying to kill our sport for well over a hundred years without success. The nerds at IMG have managed in a few months.

What a silly comment

[RP London]

I find the comments about businessmen walking away interesting. I understand many of ours are in it for the love of the sport and this may damage that but often you hear its for the love of their hometown club so why does this then make them walk away?

They are literally being shown where to improve the club and where there are guarantees that if they get xyz done they get some points, rather than just "wouldnt it be nice if...". In terms of improvements this is more ROI obvious and businessmen do tend to like that. There is also then the element of "on the pitch" that is also worth points so they can have some fun along the way. This just stops someone buying a club shoving loads onto the pitch then having nothing off it when they have a bad year/unlucky result or they just decide to withdraw their cash.. London, Sheffield etc are examples of this, one good year on the pitch could actually have some massive ramifications, whereas clubs that have built quite nicely off the pitch then get damaged in the opposite way (arguably tolouse and fev fall into this category) the risk of this happening is tough for people to invest in (and the more it happens the worse that gets)

 

 

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

23 minutes ago, Zilla Budgie said:

So you don't have to finish bottom of SL to be relegated ? Or the relegated club could stay in the division, while 11th place Leigh (for example) are relegated. Is this correct? It's just a cousin of licensing, in my opinion if this is the case.

Yep and although (extremely) unlikely, it's possible under this system for a team to win the SL GF and the CC but be replaced by a team finishing bottom of L1......

[Tommygilf]

2 minutes ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

Yep and although (extremely) unlikely, it's possible under this system for a team to win the SL GF and the CC but be replaced by a team finishing bottom of L1......

Its also theoretically possible for me to marry Taylor Swift tomorrow

[GeordieSaint]

4 hours ago, Dave T said:

The Cas situation is odd. 

First the RFL made an error on a finance line. And when they fixed it, Cas realised that they had also made an error on that same line. 

Hmm. 

To be honest, we expect the RFL to balls things up - hence the task to IMG. But for a club, who quite frankly probably knew they could be at risk, that’s truly appalling and a sad inditement of their professionalism. 

[MattSantos]

16 minutes ago, phiggins said:

Yes, Leigh do look pretty vulnerable. It does seem strange that when it comes to next season's grades, Leigh's challenge cup win will count for nothing, but the attendances and league positions from previous years do count, and will hold them back. For example, I think it's impossible for Leigh to gain any extra points on attendances next year, while 2022 figures remain on record. Yet the bonus scores achieved in 2022 are long gone, as with the challenge cup win this year.

This whole thing seems a mess, and will lead to clubs scratching around for 0.1 point here and 0.2 there, instead of implementing an overall strategy across the club. Leigh will try to find a way to manufacture extra website visits and social media engagements, which as standalone metrics are absolutely meaningless when it comes to measuring the effectiveness of those channels.

The CC win will count towards their 3 year performance grade. 

 

[RP London]

6 minutes ago, redjonn said:

yep, I understand. I was just making my opinion that IMG grading should have a part in improving clubs but that it shouldn't be used for promotion/relegation differentiation.  That is if your a grade B you are eligible for promotion no matter what difference their may be within the actual grade points between another grade B.

Anyway as you say clubs have voted for what they have. Although throughout all discussion on the IMG grading approach its never been clear whether an individual or half point difference would prevent a promotion/relegation against another club with same overall grade B.

I agree.. I think they could have put another band in to split the B's in half (call it B1 and B2) and the B1s are able to get promoted but the B2s arent.. a 7 point difference between top and bottom of the grade does seem a big difference when it could be 1 game which could be the difference between staying up and going down and that could be 1 team playing saints before and 1 team playing saints after saints have secured the League leaders shield for example.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Its also theoretically possible for me to marry Taylor Swift tomorrow

Not unless you improve your off the field performance for 3 years.

[RP London]

2 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Its also theoretically possible for me to marry Taylor Swift tomorrow

depends on how much money you have....... ooooh i see the analogy works on many levels 

[THE RED ROOSTER]

Amid the sound and fury on here, I would point out these are provisional gradings and not the final outcome and they do represent a challenge to clubs to improve.

It's also fair to say that unlike the previous incarnation of licensing this is more weighted towards traditional clubs and appears to ensure the game will remain in the M62.

I did not think London Broncos would fare well in the gradings, but I am surprised at 24th and finishing below Newcastle, who as it stands are not in the league next year.

Gutterfax has already appeared on this thread with his anaysis of London Broncos and it's current owner and there is not much else to add save this;

If London is as strategically important as IMG tell us it is, and not just as a fig leaf to cover the nakedness of a sport confined to the M62, then IMG efforts need to be focused on finding the club a new owner be it a bloodnut exiled Northerner or an Aussie / Kiwi wiuth a love of league to fund the club and take the game forward enabling it to finally leave its self-imposed confines of the M62

And it's always better to leave and expand than remain and stagnate..

[phiggins]

11 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

In fairness, 1 cup win is nice, but it doesn't mean anything, its literally the "anti-average" way of measuring on field success.

Leigh etc will need to broaden their social media activities and there's only so much traffic you can "manufacture". 

Winning a major trophy during the period should mean something though. I'd say it's at least of equal relevance to the crowds a club was getting three years ago. Discounting some factors during the three year period but not others doesn't seem right to me.

On the digital metrics, yes, they can broaden the social media activities, but ultimately, the metrics IMG are using are numbers without context. Visits to the website is meaningless without the added context of size of audience you are targeting, what do you want them to do (conversion for ticket / merchandise sales? Time spent on page to consume content? Bounce rate?) Various metrics that need to be pulled together along with initial objectives to determine how effective your activities are. Similarly, social media engagement is worthless without some sort of sentiment analysis. The metrics IMG are using are primitive at best.

[Agbrigg]

4 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

What a silly comment

Tommy, my club comes out of this OK and with the recent takeover should have far more improvement in this crazy system. But I can see how many other clubs feel hard done by and quite frankly question the point of continuing.

[redjonn]

7 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

I agree with the gist of your point, but there is a possibility of stadium utilisation being wildly different to the crowd figure:

If York, Warrington and Bradford all averaged 8,500 crowds they would all get the same score for crowd levels.

However, York would have 100% utilisation, Warrington 56% utilisation and Bradford 33% utilisation.

I guess we can take it to the nth degree as per your example or... in mine if attendance is up because of attracting more away fans because say SL matches are more likely to attract clubs which have a bigger away following fan base.   That is maybe Leigh get bigger crowds than championship because of the attraction of a)more away fans and b)the attraction of watching them play another SL club, e.g. a Wigan or Saints, etc.

That is their is an unfair aspect to the grading based upon things for which you may get a better grading point through nothing you have materially done within that specific grade context.

You have to draw the line somewhere and not go down to the nth degree. A problem with any top level grading approach... 

[glossop saint]

32 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Leigh could finish 6th next year and they will still get fewer than the 3.25 performance points on the current table. 

If they have a poor season, they are at risk. 

In terms of performance yes, however another season of SL central funding, SL away fans boosting attendance etc. Unless of course they were in SL 3 years ago and so will be losing that from this years score (I've lost track of which year is which!).