IMG Grading System (Many Merged Threads)

[Dave T]

I don't think it's been answered, but it has been quoted a couple of times, what is it that all 35 clubs get?

And I don't mean things that are in error that can be fixed like the website visits, or TV viewers.

Everything has variances I thought?

[RP London]

19 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

No. The tool for that is minimum standards.

This is mixing those 2 tools together, that was discussed on page about 20 of this thread! Hence why we keep saying, understanding what this is meant to do. 

Edited October 30 by RP London

[Archie Gordon]

2 minutes ago, RP London said:

This is mixing those 2 tools together, that was discussed on page about 20 of this thread!

And it will likely return on page 2020!

[Hopie]

6 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I don't think it's been answered, but it has been quoted a couple of times, what is it that all 35 clubs get?

And I don't mean things that are in error that can be fixed like the website visits, or TV viewers.

Everything has variances I thought?

You can't get zero on a number of the scoring criteria. That these criteria have different scores above zero doesn't fix the failure of opportunity to use measurement to differentiate.

 

6 minutes ago, RP London said:

This is mixing those 2 tools together, that was discussed on page about 20 of this thread!

There are named "minimum standards" in the grading handbook, but if teams don't meet them then they can still play in Super League, so they aren't minimum standards, and they are not very numerous. 

[RP London]

1 hour ago, Archie Gordon said:

And it will likely return on page 2020!

One can only hope!  

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Hopie said:

You can't get zero on a number of the scoring criteria. That these criteria have different scores above zero doesn't fix the failure of opportunity to use measurement to differentiate.

I'm not a massive fan of some of the way they have presented that, however it is just a presentation element really. 

Points that are given as a minimum are 2.61 across 5 categories, meaning that in reality the final score is out of 17.39 rather than 20. However, I expect they have done this to try and make it easier for people to understand the final rankings - the maximum score is 20, and 15 is foe Grade A.

But across the 5 categories, where clubs get a minimum of 2.61 - the maximum is 10.5 - meaning there are almost 8 points available for these, so measurement will absolutely differentiate. 

[Hopie]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

I'm not a massive fan of some of the way they have presented that, however it is just a presentation element really. 

Points that are given as a minimum are 2.61 across 5 categories, meaning that in reality the final score is out of 17.39 rather than 20. However, I expect they have done this to try and make it easier for people to understand the final rankings - the maximum score is 20, and 15 is foe Grade A.

But across the 5 categories, where clubs get a minimum of 2.61 - the maximum is 10.5 - meaning there are almost 8 points available for these, so measurement will absolutely differentiate. 

Your justification are speculative and are coming across as rather hand wavy, but I'm not criticising you individually for that, it is a common approach to this discussion.

Some measurements will differentiate, some don't. There are others, but attendance is the classic example, no attendance scores the same as an average attendance of 1200, doubling an attendance of 3000 makes no difference, 8000 scores the same as 18000 etc etc This fails to meet the "ultimate objective of grading".

 

[RP London]

2 minutes ago, Hopie said:

Your justification are speculative and are coming across as rather hand wavy, but I'm not criticising you individually for that, it is a common approach to this discussion.

Some measurements will differentiate, some don't. There are others, but attendance is the classic example, no attendance scores the same as an average attendance of 1200, doubling an attendance of 3000 makes no difference, 8000 scores the same as 18000 etc etc This fails to meet the "ultimate objective of grading".

 

What's the "ultimate objective of grading" for IMG? genuine question not your opinion what is the stated objective?

[Hopie]

Just now, RP London said:

What's the "ultimate objective of grading" for IMG? genuine question not your opinion what is the stated objective?

https://www.rugby-league.com/uploads/docs/240326_FINAL_Rugby League Grading Handbook_26Mar2024_FINAL.pdf

Page 4, amazing how many times I've posted this link in this thread.

If you only read one thing this year...

[RP London]

26 minutes ago, Hopie said:

https://www.rugby-league.com/uploads/docs/240326_FINAL_Rugby League Grading Handbook_26Mar2024_FINAL.pdf

Page 4, amazing how many times I've posted this link in this thread.

If you only read one thing this year...

This is my point, I have read it a number of times before and none of what you have stated is specifically in there, which is why I asked.. its to incentivise a number of things none of which are as specific as the examples mentioned.. the document as a whole leads the clubs in the right direction, it also seems to accept that in the real world there are a number of ways to get there and clubs may move at different speeds for different reasons.. therefore it is a rounded document. Its quite a woolly, and i dont see how the rest of the grading document does do this.. all the things people want to see measured and why doesnt seem to fit this IMHO

 

Edited October 30 by RP London

[Archie Gordon]

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

...

Points that are given as a minimum are 2.61 across 5 categories, meaning that in reality the final score is out of 17.39 rather than 20. However, I expect they have done this to try and make it easier for people to understand the final rankings - the maximum score is 20, and 15 is foe Grade A.

...

I am convinced that these free points are handed out because these guys don't really understand what they're doing.

Your explanation - that they have done this to make things easier - makes no sense as it actually just complicates matters and distorts weightings. Most obviously, if TV viewership is supposed to be 5% of the overall grading (1/20), awarding free points actually sets it at 1.397% of the overall grading (.25/17.89)? This is absolutely not by design - these guys just aren't very experienced. It's pretty much staring us in the face.

[Dave T]

53 minutes ago, Hopie said:

Your justification are speculative and are coming across as rather hand wavy, but I'm not criticising you individually for that, it is a common approach to this discussion.

Some measurements will differentiate, some don't. There are others, but attendance is the classic example, no attendance scores the same as an average attendance of 1200, doubling an attendance of 3000 makes no difference, 8000 scores the same as 18000 etc etc This fails to meet the "ultimate objective of grading".

 

It's all speculative, but there is little other reason to round up the scores as they have. To maintain the same weighting you'd have to have scores that aren't user friendly. They have clearly tried to have simple numbers.

On the attendance point, it's not quite true, as you get points for your attendance under utilisation too. But I've thought a fair bit about the crowds piece and ai simply don't agree it's not fit for purpose. When setting your threshold, you want a decent distribution across the bands, and out of the 35 clubs that are assessed, it's only c25% that get the max score. I don't think that suggests the score is too low at this stage. That's not to say that we couldn't have had a 10k tier for example, but again, there is nothing definitive that says 10k is the right decision and 7.5k is the wrong decision.

It is all just preference/opinions on detail like that.

But I do go back to the fact that despite Wigan, Leeds, Saints not getting rewards for 10k+, they are sitting in the top 3 places. It suggests the outcomes are correct.

[Dave T]

8 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

I am convinced that these free points are handed out because these guys don't really understand what they're doing.

Your explanation - that they have done this to make things easier - makes no sense as it actually just complicates matters and distorts weightings. Most obviously, if TV viewership is supposed to be 5% of the overall grading (1/20), awarding free points actually sets it at 1.397% of the overall grading (.25/17.89)? This is absolutely not by design - these guys just aren't very experienced. It's pretty much staring us in the face.

People don't accidentally award points in the bottom tier, of course that has been done intentionally!

Does it claim in the handbook that tv viewership is worth 5% of available points?

[Hopie]

16 minutes ago, RP London said:

This is my point, I have read it a number of times before and none of what you have stated is specifically in there, which is why I asked.. its to incentivise a number of things none of which are as specific as the examples mentioned.. the document as a whole leads the clubs in the right direction, it also seems to accept that in the real world there are a number of ways to get there and clubs may move at different speeds for different reasons.. therefore it is a rounded document. Its quite a woolly, and i dont see how the rest of the grading document does do this.. all the things people want to see measured and why doesnt seem to fit this IMHO

 

The "ultimate objective" is to "grow their fanbase". Examples I've given are increases in fanbase that don't attract an increase in grading, so therefore there are better ways to use grading to meet the objective. Do you disagree?

[Archie Gordon]

9 minutes ago, Dave T said:

People don't accidentally award points in the bottom tier, of course that has been done intentionally!

Does it claim in the handbook that tv viewership is worth 5% of available points?

Oh, they do! Especially, if they're new to this. They just didn't understand that it would cause an unintended distortion. Textbook novice.

It definitely claims TV viewership is worth 1 point out of 20. That is surely not up for debate.

Edited October 30 by Archie Gordon

[RP London]

36 minutes ago, Hopie said:

The "ultimate objective" is to "grow their fanbase". Examples I've given are increases in fanbase that don't attract an increase in grading, so therefore there are better ways to use grading to meet the objective. Do you disagree?

I think this strikes a good balance across all the levels of "growing their fanbase" covered by a number of different areas all of which are fanbase directed not simply bums on seats. 

I have said many times on this thread that I think things could be done better in certain areas but that it depends on what exactly they are trying to get to, when and how. There are other things at play in this than what we would like to see. Therefore I am prepared to accept that while I personally would have done it slightly differently that they may have a different plan and that is ok.

[Archie Gordon]

Not sure whether to post this here or on the David Hughes thread or somewhere else.

https://www.londonbroncosrl.com/sponsorship-packages includes a link to a PDF that contains almost all London's SM and TV data.

I must say that I am impressed but particularly by the 112k Sky Sports average. Assuming London are average (lots of reasons not to), that would mean 672k watched SL on Sky each round. A pretty big number.

[Hopie]

22 minutes ago, RP London said:

I think this strikes a good balance across all the levels of "growing their fanbase" covered by a number of different areas all of which are fanbase directed not simply bums on seats. 

I have said many times on this thread that I think things could be done better in certain areas but that it depends on what exactly they are trying to get to, when and how. There are other things at play in this than what we would like to see. Therefore I am prepared to accept that while I personally would have done it slightly differently that they may have a different plan and that is ok.

Lol, those 60k website visits will totally balance out the lack of attendance growth.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Archie Gordon said:

Oh, they do! Especially, if they're new to this. They just didn't understand that it would cause an unintended distortion. Textbook novice.

It definitely claims TV viewership is worth 1 point out of 20. That is surely not up for debate.

It gives the max score for each metrics on the summary page and then it gives the full banding with scores on each detail page. It's presented accurately.

So the max score on viewership is 1 out of a total of 20. 

There is zero indication that a novice just accidentally awarded points for nothing in five metrics and nobody ever noticed apart from us lot here.

[Dave T]

40 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

Not sure whether to post this here or on the David Hughes thread or somewhere else.

https://www.londonbroncosrl.com/sponsorship-packages includes a link to a PDF that contains almost all London's SM and TV data.

I must say that I am impressed but particularly by the 112k Sky Sports average. Assuming London are average (lots of reasons not to), that would mean 672k watched SL on Sky each round. A pretty big number.

It's an interesting number. I wonder if that's a blended viewing figures across the piece, which would seem more realistic. It would suggest though that we've increased eyeballs on the sports by 6 to 8 million over the season.

[LeeF]

20 hours ago, RP London said:

perhaps they are not looking at this as a pure measurement opportunity but also to use it as a target related opportunity. 

Those at the top end are seeing the benefit in other areas (and therefore this will be picked up in other areas of the grading). Those that were doing naff all are given a major incentive to get that up, by a huge percentage for them, to show them what these benefits are and to get them to a point where the next building block impacts on other grading levels. (SM and Fans etc can be monetised) but IMG maybe have worked out that if everyone gets to level x then they have something they can really work with, but if they dont get enough to x then "whats the point", after that you tweak it for future years to see growth or you expect that people will see how it benefits in other areas and just get on with it. 

My main gripe with this argument is that you dont know what this process' full aim was. Its not just to measure the clubs, thats clear, if you then dont know what it was you cannot judge it the way you are. There are multiple things they wanted, its clear to see that, because they have said the next steps in this phase (which people have laid out before) and this is just the starting point of being in a position to do that. 

you are being very pure in your terms of "measurement" but its not as simple as that IMHO.

Your first paragraph is key and it is what some clubs have already done and others are starting to do from the top of SL all the way to League 1

[binosh]

On 30/10/2024 at 06:39, dkw said:

Better to just laugh at him, he does it every time someone mentions his cult leader, piles in with a load of already discussed nonsense.

Point proven thankyou, and isn’t this thread 300+ pages of already discussed nonsense? 

[gingerjon]

"Dwyer also corrected inaccurate reports stating that IMG had received £1.3million so far for their work in the sport. They have received £450,000 to date for their work across three years, much less than had been reported."

"Matt Dwyer admits Super League could expand beyond 12 teams in the coming years: but not before the competition signs its next broadcast deal at the end of 2026."

Link: https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/img-make-super-league-expansion-admission-after-breaking-silence-on-criticism

[Worzel]

45 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

"Dwyer also corrected inaccurate reports stating that IMG had received £1.3million so far for their work in the sport. They have received £450,000 to date for their work across three years, much less than had been reported."

"Matt Dwyer admits Super League could expand beyond 12 teams in the coming years: but not before the competition signs its next broadcast deal at the end of 2026."

Link: https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/img-make-super-league-expansion-admission-after-breaking-silence-on-criticism

Well I think that 100% puts to bed any argument that they're not losing money on the day-to-day costs of operating this partnership. They absolutely are, and it's all about the back end for IMG. They only win if the sport wins.  

[JohnM]

54 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

"Dwyer also corrected inaccurate reports stating that IMG had received £1.3million so far for their work in the sport. They have received £450,000 to date for their work across three years, much less than had been reported."

"Matt Dwyer admits Super League could expand beyond 12 teams in the coming years: but not before the competition signs its next broadcast deal at the end of 2026."

Link: https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/img-make-super-league-expansion-admission-after-breaking-silence-on-criticism

They are not inaccurate reports, though. They are lies, nothing more, nothing less.