IMG Grading System (Many Merged Threads)

[gingerjon]

Honestly, some of these meltdowns are going to keep me warm for months. Octopus are going to owe me money for powering the grid.

[Barley Mow]

20 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Is there scheduled to be a further consultation period on this, because it does look like it throws up a few problems here. 

The Leigh one is a good point to 'break' the system. 

London too. 

It'll be interesting to hear exactly how these would be treated. 

There can't be further consultation. The clubs voted for this system, they were all fully aware of how it would work.

All of the downsides and potential anomalies and pitfalls were extensively discussed. They knew some of these results would be possible.

This is what they agreed to.

[DoubleD]

14 minutes ago, Spidey said:

Better or worse than the state of Cas

 

What an unprofessional rant

[redjonn]

1 minute ago, Leonard said:

All probably fair.

But below Doncaster and Barrow and a team that has folded?

I mean - wow.

so where would you put them... they have a cat B, so are yous saying they should be above say... widnes or York...

The criteria has been applied and they know what area's need improving. Plus having been promoted to SL and having won the championship GF and hence by virtue of being in SL they will have higher scores in some categories without any effort for the next years classification.

Personally I don't mind the IMG grading approach if its just used as a guide for where clubs need to improve, but not for promotion or relegation.

[Toby Chopra]

28 minutes ago, Damien said:

I don't want to knock any club but Salford the 8th strongest club? Really?

Then if you look at say Leigh they seem to be stronger on practically every measure yet are 12th,

It all seems terribly flawed to me once you get outside those A clubs.

It's the three year average issue (or two years if this one has excluded 2020, I don't know)  It'll look better this time next year once the transitional year is over...hopefully! 

[mozzauk]

The Eagles seem to have bowed to the RFL 

 

https://www.sheffieldeagles.com/Eagles-News/article/sheffield-eagles-board-react-to-rfl-indicative-grading/ 
 

 

[Just Browny]

Scores seem OK to me.

A year ago, Leigh's track record was of being a basket case who had had a couple of yo-yo trips to Super League and whose owner regularly pulled funding and made players jobless on a whim. They did a re-launch that many people thought tacky and demeaning.

A year ago, London finished 11th in the Championship and propped the squad up with a few Skolars players in their weird, near-empty ground.

Both sides have done great things on the field this year through good squad recruitment; neither has yet proven that they won't sink like a stone again in future.

Salford look a bit high but then every club from Salford downwards has its vulnerabilities.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, redjonn said:

so where would you put them... they have a cat B, so are yous saying they should be above say... widnes or York...

The criteria has been applied and they know what area's need improving. Plus having been promoted to SL and having won the championship GF and hence by virtue of being in SL they will have higher scores in some categories without any effort for the next years classification.

Personally I don't mind the IMG grading approach if its just used as a guide for where clubs need to improve, but not for promotion or relegation.

Cat B is clearly fine and probably below a few - for reasons well said.

I find it odd though that a SL side is the worst Cat B side.

So not the fact it is a Cat B side or not even the top Cat B - but the worst.

And at the same time I am told Toulouse is in the top 12 because of catchment area and a season finishing rank last in SL.

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, Leonard said:

Of course the idea that a season in SL getting relegated - and quite easily - rates the same as a season in the Playoffs and winning the CC is bonkers in itself.

Do they weight success in seasons or is finishing 11th every year the same as finishing third every season?

Performance is based on a rolling three years, and you get a certain number of points based on where you finish. 

Leigh will have probably finished 10th overall,although will have a bonus for the cup. So maybe their performance ranking wasn't too bad actually. 

[Barley Mow]

Looking at the positions of clubs in the list, this is pretty much as expected (if Castleford's figure with the correct data is 0.5 points higher).

I maybe expected Toulouse and Bradford to be a place or two lower and Halifax and London to be a few higher, but no huge surprises.

Leigh should jump a few places for the 2025 'going live' grades and London should move up too (especially if they can get better crowds), just nowhere near enough to get a SL place.

Edited October 25, 2023 by Barley Mow

[LeytherRob]

Bit surprised Leigh aren't higher but I'd expect we will be once 2024 data replaces 2021 for us. I do hope IMG actually release the full score breakdowns of the clubs though if they are serious about transparency, it shouldn't be left to individual clubs to do so. 

[Toby Chopra]

31 minutes ago, Leonard said:

Seriously - how is Sheffield above London on any metric?

Just wow.

Bigger crowds, primary stadium tenant, not loss making, same catchment score...it's not impossible over the three year horizon   

[Spidey]

4 minutes ago, DoubleD said:

What an unprofessional rant

And unprofessional handling of the process it seems

[Dave T]

5 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

There can't be further consultation. The clubs voted for this system, they were all fully aware of how it would work.

All of the downsides and potential anomalies and pitfalls were extensively discussed. They knew some of these results would be possible.

This is what they agreed to.

That isn't how things work in reality though. Playing things out sees changes to things all the time. 

[redjonn]

2 minutes ago, DoubleD said:

What an unprofessional rant

yep, it was squarely their own information that the scoring was based.

It does raise a critical question though... They could have put incorrect information that benefited them and for which I would guess they wouldn't have done any complaining in public.

The key point being that info provided has to be audited and harsh punishment/penalty if incorrectly filed info provided. 

[Guest]

Well - no point watching London next year - which will of course hurt grading even more.

And no Skolars to watch. Looking grim.

Might have to find an amateur side to watch.

[Trinity1873]

3 minutes ago, Leonard said:

Cat B is clearly fine and probably below a few - for reasons well said.

I find it odd though that a SL side is the worst Cat B side.

So not the fact it is a Cat B side or not even the top Cat B - but the worst.

And at the same time I am told Toulouse is in the top 12 because of catchment area and a season finishing rank last in SL.

Toulouse are actually 10th!

[Damien]

12 minutes ago, Leonard said:

I could put a team in Mumbai for catchment points. But I wouldn't rate it above Cornwall.

Sorry that makes zero sense to what you asked and what I posted

[Dave T]

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. 

[Ragingbull]

46 minutes ago, Damien said:

I don't want to knock any club but Salford the 8th strongest club? Really?

Then if you look at say Leigh they seem to be stronger on practically every measure yet are 12th,

It all seems terribly flawed to me once you get outside those A clubs.

If they were stronger in practically every measure they would be above Salford but they arent

 

Edited October 25, 2023 by Ragingbull

[Toby Chopra]

33 minutes ago, Leonard said:

They have no choice really do they. So 20 odd thrashings and the product a joke.

Well done IMG. You have made a mockery of the top tier of the game next season.

It's nothing to do with IMG that London aren't fit for SL next season, that's just looking to shift the blame. Even if we had P&R next year London would be in the same boat. All credit to what they achieved in the playoffs this year, but they're a million miles off being Superleague ready, just like the last time, and the time before...

[gingerjon]

Just now, Toby Chopra said:

It's nothing to do with IMG that London aren't fit for SL next season, that's just looking to shift the blame.

Bingo.

[Guest]

Just now, Trinity1873 said:

Toulouse are actually 10th!

Yup. Catchment area and a season in SL I am told.

And multiple rumours of cash issues this season.

I want TO in SL - but to have them above Leigh, Cas and Wakey is clearly bonkers.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Damien said:

Sorry that makes zero sense to what you asked and what I posted

It does.

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, Leonard said:

Well - no point watching London next year - which will of course hurt grading even more.

And no Skolars to watch. Looking grim.

Might have to find an amateur side to watch.

Can I ask mate, where did you expect London to be in that list?