IMG Grading System (Many Merged Threads)

[Damien]

5 minutes ago, Leonard said:

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.

You were told it was because of other things too so no need to paint a false picture.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, 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. 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...

I agree - but not sure that is the point being made. They might not be fit for SL (and sure as hell won't be now) - but a hair above Swinton seems a bit harsh.

[Damien]

1 minute ago, Leonard said:

It does.

Well it doesn't because catchment is just one part of it. You were told that already.

Edited October 25, 2023 by Damien

[Barley Mow]

4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

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

What is there in the reality of the grades that wasn't predicted? What has playing it out shown us that wasn't foreseen?

[Dave T]

Just now, Damien said:

You were told it was because of other things too so no need to paint a false picture.

Indeed, as we've seen, it's clear that one or two things can't artificially inflate things significantly. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

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

Mid table of Championship sides probably. I think that is fair.

Clearly massive issues with the club - but 24th of 35 seems a bit off.

Newcastle for starters.

[Dave T]

Just now, Barley Mow said:

What is there in the reality of the grades that wasn't predicted? What has playing it out shown us that wasn't foreseen?

It's the transition tbh. I don't have an issue with the rankings. 

Let's be honest, the shock to the system is London winning the Grand Final. 

I suppose we will see whether they stick to their guns, because this is about 12 strongest clubs in SL and not a heroic underdog performance from a poor club. 

In reality, this is an anomaly, so should be ignored, but it will rather overshadow the whole season. 

[Toby Chopra]

32 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Are London just better off giving their spot back to Wakey now? I assume they wouldn't be able to step up to make the top 12 in 12m?

This is basically relegating them now isn't it? 

In a word, yes!

This is a transitional year - moving from P&R to grading mainly using 3-year average - London's unexpected promotion has thrown up this quirk, and they will almost certainly go down. But truth is they aren't fit for SL.

People on here losing their **** about it, but was entirely predictable and even justified, given what the new system is meant to promote.  

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, Leonard said:

Mid table of Championship sides probably. I think that is fair.

Clearly massive issues with the club - but 24th of 35 seems a bit off.

Newcastle for starters.

So if they were there, they would be getting relegated at the end of 2024. I don't disagree it appears low, but if its data base, that's what it is, but the outcome of London not being an SL. Club in 2025 was expected? 

[Toby Chopra]

35 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

The London score seems perfectly in line with the state of the club.

yep

[M j M]

The whole thing just confirms what we always knew - whilst we have a handful of six or seven clubs who are obviously very good and valuable to the top flight after that there are a whole bunch of clubs who are all about the same size or have offsetting plusses and minuses.

Most of the Bs would make serviceable but not outstanding Super League clubs - and most have in the past or are now in there. The idea that the best way to find out which ones get into the top flight was through this contrived (and within the narrow band of border-line Bs) manipulable, spreadsheet exercise remains utterly ridiculous.

[OdsalBull]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

It's the transition tbh. I don't have an issue with the rankings. 

Let's be honest, the shock to the system is London winning the Grand Final. 

I suppose we will see whether they stick to their guns, because this is about 12 strongest clubs in SL and not a heroic underdog performance from a poor club. 

In reality, this is an anomaly, so should be ignored, but it will rather overshadow the whole season. 

I agree. The bigger shock is them winning the final, the grading is down to the data they provided

[JonNgog]

1 minute ago, Toby Chopra said:

In a word, yes!

This is a transitional year - moving from P&R to grading mainly using 3-year average - London's unexpected promotion has thrown up this quirk, and they will almost certainly go down. But truth is they aren't fit for SL.

People on here losing their **** about it, but was entirely predictable and even justified, given what the new system is meant to promote.  

It’s almost like sport doesn’t always play out the way the algorithms expect it to. If they get promoted then finish higher than 12th next season, why would they not be fit for SL? Because the men in suits said so?

[Northern Eel]

28 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I suppose this is always a risk during a transition from one system to another, and this wouldn't really be a problem moving forwards as movements would be gradual, but surely they considered this impact? 

I’m putting my optimistic hat on. The criteria are presumably decided to ensure long term growth and stability of each club and the structures they use to produce new talent (both on and off the pitch). So, there are likely to be some casualties/anomalies to the current status quo as previously clubs have been measured solely on one metric; league position. 

If these criteria are the correct ones to use, we can assume the following:

1. Those higher ranking clubs are in the best overall position to sustain and grow at the top level of the game.

2. Those clubs who are not, now know what they need to do to improve. For some, this will take many years. For those who don’t wish to, or can’t improve, they will suffer.

3. The overall standard of club management, commerce, media footprint and player development will improve, but it isn’t going to be over night. 

[gingerjon]

Just now, M j M said:

The whole thing just confirms what we always knew

To confirm though, once they said what the gradings were based on, that was always going to be the case.

I think it is useful to have it laid out so clearly. Whether it is used usefully is now the million dollar question.

[Dave T]

5 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

What is there in the reality of the grades that wasn't predicted? What has playing it out shown us that wasn't foreseen?

Both the RFL and Cas making an error on the same line, completely independently

But yes, you're right, the Lo Don point is an anomaly, and should be treated as such. 

I think the transition probably needed more consideration tbh, as I think to would have been problematic had Leigh been relegated had it been introduced this year (and Cas' moving up the rankings). 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Dave T said:

So if they were there, they would be getting relegated at the end of 2024. I don't disagree it appears low, but if its data base, that's what it is, but the outcome of London not being an SL. Club in 2025 was expected? 

There is always the chance they might have stayed up with some investment and another club imploding - albeit unlikely.

But of course even that would be irrelevant. 

I'm not disagreeing they would have gone down.

I would probably pull out of SL this season - IMG can clear up that mess - and keep the club as was. 

I'd happily watch a season in the Champ - no interest in a year in SL sh't show for grading points that will fall off in 3 years anyway, so are worthless.

Also - it is very hard to see why DH would continue with an academy and women's side and incur those costs. So a reduction in investment is also the impact of the grading. 

Edited October 25, 2023 by Leonard

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

41 minutes ago, David Shepherd said:

I know, I've seen them, hence my question.

They definitely or very likely score higher on catchment area, crowd, SM/website interactions and (if the Bulls' directors are to be believed) stadium facilities

[glossop saint]

Yet again we can see who on here has actually read the document and who hasn't. 

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Leonard said:

There is always the chance they might have stayed up with some investment and another club imploding - albeit unlikely.

But of course even that would be irrelevant. 

I'm not disagreeing they would have gone down.

I would probably pull out of SL this season - IMG can clear up that mess - and keep the club as was. 

I'd happily watch a season in the Champ - no interest in a year in SL sh't show for grading points that will fall off in 3 years anyway, so are worthless.

I suppose my point is that if they were ranked 18th, as you believe should be the case, they would effectively be relegated already too. 

This is a problem with a system that changes overnight. 

[Toby Chopra]

25 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

 

My guess is that the vast majority won't want to reveal their detailed figures.

Then they can't complain about where they come in the rankings. Transparency starts with the clubs themselves if they have an issue. 

[RP London]

Taking a slightly different look at this and taking the specific point values away a little... 

If we were to restructure the leagues to be 12-12-11 (Newcastle staying in) then would people really disagree that much with:

Super League: Catalans, Huddersfield, Hull, Hull KR, Leeds, Leigh, Saints, Salford, Tolouse, Wakefield, Warrington, Wigan,

Champ: Batley, Barrow, Bradford, Cas, Doncaster, Fev, Halifax, London, Newcastle, Sheffield, Widnes, York,

League one: Cornwall, Dewsbury, Hunslet, Keighley, Midlands, North Wales, Oldham, Rochdale, Swinton, Whitehaven, Workington

I would say that all looks sensible.. 

Away from the nitty gritty of the scores which would need more delving into and the fact that there are questions over the validity perhaps of how somethings are measured I would be surprised if people are that shocked that London are that far off the pace, as are Sheffield (I love the club but its not a super league club at the moment and I am sure they know it and will be/are fighting to score better). For me it highlights the weakness that a club that is obviously as poor as london are can get into Super League at the moment, in the state they are. Yes on the field is important but even  do we seriously think it is good that DH would just bankroll another 10 years of players wages at the expense of fixing the issues off the pitch? The gradings are just starkly highlighting what people have been saying on here for years. 

Equally the fact that a club in ok shape in Newcastle can have a bad year and end up going to the wall becuase they just cannot see how League one works for them. Remembering that they havent gone "bust" they have basically decided to take a responsible decision not to go bust next year (leaving suppliers etc with unpaid bills)... 

How is any of that the way good for the sport?

I'm not wanting to be an apologist for IMG as there are obviously some issues but For me if we can reset and use these numbers to focus the mind a bit then we will move forward as a game.. next season may be a mess but maybe thats just something we have to live through.

NB: These numbers are a provisional grading the point of which was to iron out any issues and to give clubs a pointer for the next 10 or so months. This was stated by IMG right at the start IIRC.. they know there are potential issues and things may be tweaked/clarified and Cas, I am sure, will not make the same error twice but better this year than next.

Also before any one starts I would still advocate P&R between grade B teams on the field of play, but I would have a further minimum criteria added (for example Eagles could have ended up being promoted this season and that would have been bad for the club and the league.. ) for the grade B teams. I'm not 100% sure what those would be but it wouldn't take a rocket scientist to work it out I just have better things to do with my time. 

 

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

44 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. 

It's produced exactly what it was always likely to produce. 

[TrueBull]

29 minutes ago, David Shepherd said:

They absolutely do and I include my own in that. There have been many occasions this year when the announced number did not correlate with what my eyes were telling me.

I always thought every club would have 2 numbers - tickets sold for that game (ST’s and walk-ups) which is the legal number that the taxman needs to know. 
And then probably by half time, the stadium manager would know the actual number of people through the gates. Both numbers are correct for their purpose. 
Up until this year, which number was released didn’t matter, but now IMG have decreed that the optics of a full stadium are important, the actual attendance is the one to be released. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

I suppose my point is that if they were ranked 18th, as you believe should be the case, they would effectively be relegated already too. 

This is a problem with a system that changes overnight. 

No issue with being 18th and probably fair enough.

Toulouse are also 0.5 points behind Huddersfield.

Sheffield also managed to pull 648 fans for their home tie in the playoffs.

Edited October 25, 2023 by Leonard