Championship 2025 Onwards

[Sports Prophet]

It would seem to me from afar, the profile and club standards of the Championship have been growing over the past three or four years and I credit much of this to the growing standards expected of the top tier.

Championship RL is critical to the succession of the sport in my opinion and there are some very famous and historic club names competing in the comp in 2025.

With IMG rankings set to decide which clubs are in SL for the foreseeable future, what is required as a strategy for the Championship over the next 5 years to ensure clubs continue to improve their standards to a point where they can compete with underperforming SL clubs for a place in the top tier from 2030 and beyond?

[StandOffHalf]

I think there's a considerable likelihood that teams won't invest to improve to the extent we have seen at some edge cases this year.

The Castleford take-over has seen Jepson coming out and saying that they wouldn't be putting the money in if they didn't have a strong belief that they would be in SL in 2025.

Once the moat is dug, the 12 clubs - and those outside who have some SL-based points - have an in-built advantage.

Edited October 21, 2024 by StandOffHalf

[RayCee]

7 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

...With IMG rankings set to decide which clubs are in SL for the foreseeable future, what is required as a strategy for the Championship over the next 5 years to ensure clubs continue to improve their standards to a point where they can compete with underperforming SL clubs for a place in the top tier from 2030 and beyond?

Strategy: a plan of action designed to achieve a long-term or overall aim.

RL isn't big on that. 

To entice investors, they need an incentive. A closed stop will stifle that. Getting a balance between standards and an incentive is vital. It's too early to say if that will be achieved or not via IMG rankings despite the speculation.

There does have to be a carrot on the end of the stick. That will ensure standards will be maintained or improved, if promotion is what the club really wants and they can see some light at the end of the tunnel. 

Edited October 19, 2024 by RayCee

[Sports Prophet]

1 hour ago, StandOffHalf said:

I think there's a considerable likelihood that teams won't invest to improve to the extent we have seen at some edge cases this year.

The Castleford take-over has seen Jepson coming out and saying that they wouldn't be putting the money in if they didn't have a strong belief that they would be in SL in 2025.

One the moat is dug, the 12 clubs - and those outside who have some SL-based points - have a in-built advantage.

 I don’t think there is anything to say the points system can’t be edited in weighting in the future to improve the chances of well performing clubs to outscore poor performing ones in SL.

I think that is at least five years away, and of course there is the option to increase SL to 14/16 teams in the future too. Ideally these new teams will be cutting their teeth with great performances on and off the pitch in the Championship.

[Sports Prophet]

27 minutes ago, RayCee said:

Strategy: a plan of action designed to achieve a long-term or overall aim.

RL isn't big on that. 

To entice investors, they need an incentive. A closed stop will stifle that. Getting a balance between standards and an incentive is vital. It's too early to say if that will be achieved or not via IMG rankings although the speculation about what will or won't happen by crystal ball gazers is impressive in its audacity.

There does have to be a carrot on the end of the stick. That will ensure standards will be maintained or improved, if promotion is what the club really wants and they can see some light at the end of the tunnel. 

I think Wakefield (and Fev in the recent past) have shown that great crowds can be achieved at Championship level. I would like to see clubs like (assuming there is a straight Wakie/London SL swap) York, Fev, Bradford, Widnes, Oldham, Toulouse and Halifax if they survive really striving for averages of 5k by 2030.

Achieving that would really bolster the sport and make the second tier a very sustainable option. 

[JM2010]

5 hours ago, StandOffHalf said:

I think there's a considerable likelihood that teams won't invest to improve to the extent we have seen at some edge cases this year.

The Castleford take-over has seen Jepson coming out and saying that they wouldn't be putting the money in if they didn't have a strong belief that they would be in SL in 2025.

One the moat is dug, the 12 clubs - and those outside who have some SL-based points - have a in-built advantage.

As long as they become a grade A they are guaranteed to be in SL so if they can invest enough to achieve that then it’s not wasted

[The Phantom Horseman]

8 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

With IMG rankings set to decide which clubs are in SL for the foreseeable future, what is required as a strategy for the Championship over the next 5 years to ensure clubs continue to improve their standards to a point where they can compete with underperforming SL clubs for a place in the top tier from 2030 and beyond?

5 hours ago, StandOffHalf said:

One the moat is dug, the 12 clubs - and those outside who have some SL-based points - have a in-built advantage.

The answer here from StandOffHalf is a point a number of us on this forum have made over and over again since the first proposals for IMG points allocation were made public.

There's a huge incumbency bias at play. Not just from the fact that a team that loses every game in SL gets a higher Performance Ranking score (excluding knock-out trophy wins) than a team that wins every league game in the Championship, but more importantly in the fact that it's so much easier to score highly in certain categories if you are in SL than if you are in the Championship.

You're going to get higher attendances both from home and away supporters, you're going to have far more attractive sponsorship options, you're going to be able to sell more merchandise, you're going to get more social media engagements, you're going to get more TV viewership. It's no wonder that London Broncos are anticipating a 50% increase in their score compared to last season (acknowledging that some of that may come from David Hughes writing off debts).

For a few of the more ambitious clubs in the Championship, that's going to push any chance of getting a score that gives them a chance of making the cut out of reach unless they acquire a fabulously wealthy sugar-daddy type of owner. That must be very discouraging for them, especially when they see one or two existing SL clubs who perhaps on a lot of levels are fairly similar to them but are getting much higher IMG scores on the back of all the incumbency advantages.

 

[sam4731]

44 minutes ago, JM2010 said:

As long as they become a grade A they are guaranteed to be in SL so if they can invest enough to achieve that then it’s not wasted

Getting an A grade only guarantees your place in SL while you have the A grade. I feel that complacency will creep up on some in years to come especially if IMG move the goalposts to keep SL numbers around the 12 mark.

[gingerjon]

2 hours ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

There's a huge incumbency bias at play.

 

Yes.

It's deliberate.

What comes up has to be better than what comes down as a result.

It's not a bug, it's a feature. It is the whole point.

[Derwent]

No matter what system we have in place the clubs always divide into 3 categories.

1. Those who are safe in SL and will remain so. Probably about 10 clubs altogether.

2. Those who are either grimly holding on to SL status or those with realistic achievable ambitions to be in SL. Probably about 6 clubs.

3. The rest, who just try to stay in business and hope for the best.

For as long as we have had SL the game has been tying itself in knots trying to solve the problem of those 6(ish) clubs in the middle. Every restructure, every change of process, every supposed innovation has been to try and solve the conundrum of how to appease and accommodate that small group of middle clubs. We are no nearer to solving it now than we were 30 years ago.

[Taffy Tiger]

2 hours ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

The answer here from StandOffHalf is a point a number of us on this forum have made over and over again since the first proposals for IMG points allocation were made public.

There's a huge incumbency bias at play. Not just from the fact that a team that loses every game in SL gets a higher Performance Ranking score (excluding knock-out trophy wins) than a team that wins every league game in the Championship, but more importantly in the fact that it's so much easier to score highly in certain categories if you are in SL than if you are in the Championship.

You're going to get higher attendances both from home and away supporters, you're going to have far more attractive sponsorship options, you're going to be able to sell more merchandise, you're going to get more social media engagements, you're going to get more TV viewership. It's no wonder that London Broncos are anticipating a 50% increase in their score compared to last season (acknowledging that some of that may come from David Hughes writing off debts).

For a few of the more ambitious clubs in the Championship, that's going to push any chance of getting a score that gives them a chance of making the cut out of reach unless they acquire a fabulously wealthy sugar-daddy type of owner. That must be very discouraging for them, especially when they see one or two existing SL clubs who perhaps on a lot of levels are fairly similar to them but are getting much higher IMG scores on the back of all the incumbency advantages.

 

Some good points , however I have to disagree regarding bottom SL receiving a higher on field performance rating than the top Championship team . Indeed, under the current system the team finishing 13th will gain more points for that season than the teams finishing 11th and 12th in SL . If they also win the 1895 Cup then that will be the equivalent of finishing 9th in any given SL season . 

Edited October 19, 2024 by Taffy Tiger

[The Phantom Horseman]

47 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

What comes up has to be better than what comes down as a result.

It's not a bug, it's a feature. It is the whole point.

here's the problem: a team in the Championship might be a whole lot better than a team in SL, and still not surpass them on IMG points.

[The Phantom Horseman]

3 hours ago, Taffy Tiger said:

Some good points , however I have to disagree regarding bottom SL receiving a higher on field performance rating than the top Championship team . Indeed, under the current system the team finishing 13th will gain more points for that season than the teams finishing 11th and 12th in SL . If they also win the 1895 Cup then that will be the equivalent of finishing 9th in any given SL season . 

Ok but that's because the team winning the Championship Final (and gaining the 0.25 points bonus) automatically also gets the number 1 Championship ranking (13th overall).

If Wakefield lost today, they would still get fewer performance points than London despite having won the 1895 Cup and losing only 1 league game all season, and that would still be the case even if London had lost every league game and Wakefield had won every league game.

Edited October 19, 2024 by The Phantom Horseman

[JM2010]

Think it’s time to merge this with the other IMG thread!

[gingerjon]

10 minutes ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

here's the problem: a team in the Championship might be a whole lot better than a team in SL, and still not surpass them on IMG points.

They might be but not enough for it to be worth the change. This system is designed (imperfectly - we can agree on that) that only when a club is obviously better - not on potential but on reality - will they replace another.

And, like I say, this isn’t a secret or a trick. It is very obviously the purpose.

[Taffy Tiger]

9 minutes ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

Ok but that's because the team winning the Championship Final (and gaining the 0.25 points bonus) automatically also getts the number 1 Championship ranking (13th overall).

If Wakefield lost today, they would still get fewer performance points than London despite having won the 1895 Cup and losing only 1 league game all season, and that would still be the case even if London had lost every league game and Wakefield had won every league game.

Disagree again . Wakefield will be graded as finishing 12th this season as it's a 3-year average , so they are guaranteed to finish above London on performance rating , even if they lose today 

[Taffy Tiger]

1 hour ago, Taffy Tiger said:

Disagree again . Wakefield will be graded as finishing 12th this season as it's a 3-year average , so they are guaranteed to finish above London on performance rating , even if they lose today 

Toulouse are also guaranteed more on field performance points than London , irrespective of if they win or lose today . 

 

Finishing positions in last 3 years (22/23/24)

London 23rd, 13th and 12th

Toulouse 12th , 14th and 13/14

Wakey 10th , 12th and 13/14

 

For this season alone London will score more points than either Wakey or Toulouse (losing team this evening)  , but the team that wins tonight , will score more performance points this season than London . Both Wakey and Toulouse will have higher 3-year performance rating than London

Edited October 19, 2024 by Taffy Tiger

[The Phantom Horseman]

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

They might be but not enough for it to be worth the change. This system is designed (imperfectly - we can agree on that) that only when a club is obviously better - not on potential but on reality - will they replace another.

And, like I say, this isn’t a secret or a trick. It is very obviously the purpose.

Here's an example of what I mean. When they were in the Championship, London were regularly getting triple-figure attendances; I've been several times when there were clearly no more than 500 people there. That would mean they get 0.75 points for attendance. This year, they have averaged just over 3,000. That means2 points, they get a 1.25 points boost. I can think of 3 or 4 Championship clubs who are intrinsically much better supported than London and would get far bigger average attendances than them if they were in SL, but the IMG system adjudges they're worth fewer points.

I don't disagree that this isn't an accident either!

[The Phantom Horseman]

3 minutes ago, Taffy Tiger said:

Toulouse are also guaranteed more on field performance points than London , irrespective of if they win or lose today . 

 

Finishing positions in last 3 years (22/23/24)

London 23rd, 13th and 12th

Toulouse 12th , 14th and 13/14

Wakey 1oth , 12th and 13/14

 

For this season alone London will score more points than either Wakey or Toulouse , but not both

This is all true, but if anything emphasises my point - the incumbency bias will increase with each passing year.

[Taffy Tiger]

1 minute ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

This is all true, but if anything emphasises my point - the incumbency bias will increase with each passing year.

Again , not necessarily . For on field performance rating in any given year , the team finishing 13th (Championship GF Winner) is guaranteed an extra 0.25 points ( 0.35 if winning 1895 Cup) . This is the equivalent to 2 SL places (0.25) or 3 SL places higher (0.35) than the team finishing bottom (3 year average) in SL in any given season . 

 

In effect this means that every season the team finishing 11th and 12th in SL (after 3 year average taken into account) will score less on field perforrmance points than the team winning Championship GF

 

[JohnM]

Championship 2025 onwards.

I forsee a much stronger emphasis from the clubs to establish a higher, better marketed and more positive league, with a collective identity, sense of purpose and confidence in its own ability.  I expect them to work hard to prove that  the competition is well worth winning in it own right.

[Taffy Tiger]

1 hour ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

Here's an example of what I mean. When they were in the Championship, London were regularly getting triple-figure attendances; I've been several times when there were clearly no more than 500 people there. That would mean they get 0.75 points for attendance. This year, they have averaged just over 3,000. That means2 points, they get a 1.25 points boost. I can think of 3 or 4 Championship clubs who are intrinsically much better supported than London and would get far bigger average attendances than them if they were in SL, but the IMG system adjudges they're worth fewer points.

I don't disagree that this isn't an accident either!

Again disagree . Their average is based on 3-years not just this season . They will move up from under 1500 to the next bracket 1500 - 3000 , an extra 0.75 points . 

Any Championship team getting over 3k (and still scoring more than London this year), would have to improve considerably to get to the next level of attendance (over 7.5k) and then it would only be an extra 0.5 points . 

Edited October 19, 2024 by Taffy Tiger

[The Phantom Horseman]

19 minutes ago, Taffy Tiger said:

Again disagree . Their average is based on 3-years not just this season . They will move up from under 1500 to the next bracket 1500 - 3000 , an extra 0.75 points . 

Any Championship team getting over 3k (and still scoring more than London this year), would have to improve considerably to get to the next level of attendance (over 7.5k) and then it would only be an extra 0.5 points . 

Yes you're right about the average over 3 seasons but again that will be accentuated as time goes by and the incumbents are consistently scoring more for an average of say 4k over the 3-year period than the Championship hopefuls are for averaging 2.75k. It's going to get easier for SL incumbents to remain there, and harder for Championship clubs to climb past them.

 

[Taffy Tiger]

5 minutes ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

Yes you're right about the average over 3 seasons but again that will be accentuated as time goes by and the incumbents are consistently scoring more for an average of say 4k over the 3-year period than the Championship hopefuls are for averaging 2.75k. It's going to get easier for SL incumbents to remain there, and harder for Championship clubs to climb past them.

 

Agree , you might be right , however the top Championship club in any given season will have at least a 0.25 bonus (2 SL Places) and will have a chance of making SL . They may need to be a Category A though by then to achieve SL status , but if they do then they will have strong foundations to build on in order to remain in SL .

How often in the past have we seen the yo-yo effect where teams have come up from the Championship one season only to be relegated the following season . The IMG criteria should now mean that any team coming up from Championship is in a much better position to stay up the following season .

[Tommygilf]

9 minutes ago, Taffy Tiger said:

Agree , you might be right , however the top Championship club in any given season will have at least a 0.25 bonus (2 SL Places) and will have a chance of making SL . They may need to be a Category A though by then to achieve SL status , but if they do then they will have strong foundations to build on in order to remain in SL .

How often in the past have we seen the yo-yo effect where teams have come up from the Championship one season only to be relegated the following season . The IMG criteria should now mean that any team coming up from Championship is in a much better position to stay up the following season .

This is the core issue.