The Reality of the IMG Grading System

I know this has probably done to death before on here, but the reality to me is horrifying for our sport.

1)  For approximately 96% of our clubs the 'On The Field Performance' contribution totals LESS than 20% of the total

2) I have noticed a number of clubs announce million pound investments at the beginning of this season (some would say not a bad thing, but is it just to sit on the books?)

3) I would suggest that at least 50% of available points can be 'manipulated', (see point 2 above as an example)

I could go on but I thnk i have put across my own thoughts on this subject.  The result of this is you find clubs virtually admitting they don't care how they do on the field as they think by  concentrating 100% on off field performance they are almost certain they will be guaranteed a SL place.  London on the other hand are not throwing good money after bad as they are virtually sure they won't be in SL in 2025.  Look at Bradford after the last few years of mid table championship performances they managed to be up in 14th or 15th position only a small fraction of a point below being given a SL place.

I did think that the Grading system would be tweaked a little but nothing has been said. 

Is this still sport?  I don't know.  What do I think will happen a week or two before the end of the 2024 season?  In a word 'carnage'.

1 hour ago, DemonUK said:

I know this has probably done to death before on here, but the reality to me is horrifying for our sport.

1)  For approximately 96% of our clubs the 'On The Field Performance' contribution totals LESS than 20% of the total

2) I have noticed a number of clubs announce million pound investments at the beginning of this season (some would say not a bad thing, but is it just to sit on the books?)

3) I would suggest that at least 50% of available points can be 'manipulated', (see point 2 above as an example)

I could go on but I thnk i have put across my own thoughts on this subject.  The result of this is you find clubs virtually admitting they don't care how they do on the field as they think by  concentrating 100% on off field performance they are almost certain they will be guaranteed a SL place.  London on the other hand are not throwing good money after bad as they are virtually sure they won't be in SL in 2025.  Look at Bradford after the last few years of mid table championship performances they managed to be up in 14th or 15th position only a small fraction of a point below being given a SL place.

I did think that the Grading system would be tweaked a little but nothing has been said. 

Is this still sport?  I don't know.  What do I think will happen a week or two before the end of the 2024 season?  In a word 'carnage'.

 

It will be very interesting, at what point this season are the grading points of each club going to be disclosed, should it be as early as possible say 3 months prior to the end or will it be after the season is completed, will all clubs have all the relevant information to submit especially financial not all clubs end of year figures are at the same time, and what if it comes down to a fraction of a point where the finishing position could mean SL status or not.

You say 'carnage' Demon are you expecting if that fraction of a point comes into play, then the club(s) involved will obviously contest it? and what if that is by legal process how long could that take, maybe impacting in the start of the '25 season.

I'm looking forward to the end of the season when 14 into 12 doesn't go.  That will be funnier than watching Hull try to defend their line.

2 minutes ago, Jill Halfpenny fan said:

I'm looking forward to the end of the season when 14 into 12 doesn't go.  That will be funnier than watching Hull try to defend their line.

As the young uns say, I actually LOL'd. I'm the same I really can't wait, it is going to be a total mess when it comes to the announcements, threats of legal action, none of the clubs involved been able to plan for the following season. I would hate to see it but the fact Leigh could drop out of the top division is funny as anything(not for their fans), we can have a forward thinking progressive club been booted from the league in favor of Toulouse or Bradford would just be the funniest thing and totally the opposite of what the new system was supposedly brought in to do.

The RFL if they have anything about them really need to be planning the TV build up for how these things will be announced. They could draw it out for a week or two to increase viewers and like I have said before, they seriously could do with bringing in Ant and Dec to make the announcements.

8 minutes ago, Jill Halfpenny fan said:

I'm looking forward to the end of the season when 14 into 12 doesn't go.  That will be funnier than watching Hull try to defend

Missed an opportunity......FYP

15 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

It will be very interesting, at what point this season are the grading points of each club going to be disclosed, should it be as early as possible say 3 months prior to the end or will it be after the season is completed, will all clubs have all the relevant information to submit especially financial not all clubs end of year figures are at the same time, and what if it comes down to a fraction of a point where the finishing position could mean SL status or not.

You say 'carnage' Demon are you expecting if that fraction of a point comes into play, then the club(s) involved will obviously contest it? and what if that is by legal process how long could that take, maybe impacting in the start of the '25 season.

It's funny isn't it that some sports fans are against technology in sport because you lose that instant celebration moment after you've scored while it gets checked for maybe a couple of minutes. Whereas we could be in a situation that a fan might have to wait until a couple of months after the season to find out what division they'll be in for the next year.

It has been done to death, but I won't tire of complaining about it. Regardless of views on P&R in general, I struggle to find any redeeming features of this particular system.

Metrics points are flawed, scoring bands too wide, apart from in the performance pillar where the bands are so narrow it makes on field stuff virtually irrelevant. The grading handbook specifies a minimum standard for stadia, and awards half a point (i think) for failing to meet them.

On top of that, the execution of the indicative grades was a mess. It took till December for the RFL to rule on an appeal that would've decided who out of Cas or Leigh would be relegated, had it been a live run. To go ahead and make this system live, seems strange. 

It could get very messy, and if it does, will not be good for the sport.

34 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

The RFL if they have anything about them really need to be planning the TV build up for how these things will be announced. They could draw it out for a week or two to increase viewers and like I have said before, they seriously could do with bringing in Ant and Dec to make the announcements.

Hull, its not you, Leeds its not you, Castleford it could be you.

45 minutes ago, phiggins said:

It has been done to death, but I won't tire of complaining about it. Regardless of views on P&R in general, I struggle to find any redeeming features of this particular system.

Metrics points are flawed, scoring bands too wide, apart from in the performance pillar where the bands are so narrow it makes on field stuff virtually irrelevant. The grading handbook specifies a minimum standard for stadia, and awards half a point (i think) for failing to meet them.

On top of that, the execution of the indicative grades was a mess. It took till December for the RFL to rule on an appeal that would've decided who out of Cas or Leigh would be relegated, had it been a live run. To go ahead and make this system live, seems strange. 

It could get very messy, and if it does, will not be good for the sport.

In fairness, that last point is the purpose of a trial run...

4 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

In fairness, that last point is the purpose of a trial run...

Yes, and thank goodness it was a trial run. But the trial run couldn't really have gone any worse. It certainly didn't give me any confidence that the first live run will go well, or that the system and processes behind it are ready for a live run. We will see.

1 minute ago, phiggins said:

Yes, and thank goodness it was a trial run. But the trial run couldn't really have gone any worse. It certainly didn't give me any confidence that the first live run will go well, or that the system and processes behind it are ready for a live run. We will see.

Has any feedback been given as to how IMG and the RFL felt like the trial went? As far as I know, no adjustments have been made.

5 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

In fairness, that last point is the purpose of a trial run...

I have no problem with the trial run, that is the correct way to bring something in.  Have you seen anywhere that the IMG grading areas are going to be tweaked.  Also do you agree that large areas of the grading system can be manipulated for gain.  RL is a sport and success should be rewarded, but when 75-80% of the points being awarded for off the field 'achievements'(?) it is miles away from being a 'sport' anymore.  I am sure Wigan are really pleased for Leigh that they get exactly the same number of 'catchment area' points for example. Cas have suddenly got lots to spend, but none of it is being spent to improve on field performance for the fans, but I am sure they will love their new padded seats.

Whilst IMG are being labelled for being responsible for this grading criteria, isn't this a watered down version of what they actually suggested? Wasn't their recommendation basically a return to licensing with no P&R, whereas this version has been designed after feedback from the clubs? In which case, the clubs are as much if not more to blame than IMG for this new system. I may well have got this wrong, so happy to be corrected.

The tragedy is that there is an easy fix to make everyone happy. A grade clubs protected; B grade clubs can go up or down via P&R. Clubs can still aim for A and get precisely the same reward, no short-term tinkering/gaming required by B clubs, no appeals holding the system up in October, excitement and at the bottom of SL and top of Champ. Win-win.

Clearly, I don't agree with the content and opinion of the opening post and poster. On-field performance is DIRECTLY related to the grading criteria that the professional game has voted for. 

1 hour ago, Jill Halfpenny fan said:

Hull, its not you, Leeds its not you, Castleford it could be you.

 

Or get Sugar to do it. Four club chairmen sat in front of him and one will be fired!

     I wish The Championship and League 1 clubs had the b-lls to make a clean break away.For what little money they now get from SL if they can't stand on their own two feet without it the games not worth supporting.

There's a good reason they won't  break away, though. They'd not survive. It's their choice, though. 

24 minutes ago, sentoffagain2 said:

     I wish The Championship and League 1 clubs had the b-lls to make a clean break away.For what little money they now get from SL if they can't stand on their own two feet without it the games not worth supporting.

And presumably from the RFL? If so who pays for & then who runs the central infrastructure?
 

And if not then again why would the RFL want to keep them & again who would pay for the infrastructure as the RFL don’t have a load of spare cash knocking about 

51 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

Whilst IMG are being labelled for being responsible for this grading criteria, isn't this a watered down version of what they actually suggested? Wasn't their recommendation basically a return to licensing with no P&R, whereas this version has been designed after feedback from the clubs? In which case, the clubs are as much if not more to blame than IMG for this new system. I may well have got this wrong, so happy to be corrected.

You are correct. The original IMG suggestion was amended by the clubs

30 minutes ago, JohnM said:

Clearly, I don't agree with the content and opinion of the opening post and poster. On-field performance is DIRECTLY related to the grading criteria that the professional game has voted for. 

And the grading structure encourages long term planning and investment in infrastructure which the opening post and poster seems to not like for some reason

30 minutes ago, Gooleboy said:

Or get Sugar to do it. Four club chairmen sat in front of him and one will be fired!

Getting Apprentice actor/hosts to do genuinely important jobs is not something that has a good track record.

4 hours ago, DemonUK said:

I know this has probably done to death before on here, but the reality to me is horrifying for our sport.

1)  For approximately 96% of our clubs the 'On The Field Performance' contribution totals LESS than 20% of the total

2) I have noticed a number of clubs announce million pound investments at the beginning of this season (some would say not a bad thing, but is it just to sit on the books?)

3) I would suggest that at least 50% of available points can be 'manipulated', (see point 2 above as an example)

I could go on but I thnk i have put across my own thoughts on this subject.  The result of this is you find clubs virtually admitting they don't care how they do on the field as they think by  concentrating 100% on off field performance they are almost certain they will be guaranteed a SL place.  London on the other hand are not throwing good money after bad as they are virtually sure they won't be in SL in 2025.  Look at Bradford after the last few years of mid table championship performances they managed to be up in 14th or 15th position only a small fraction of a point below being given a SL place.

I did think that the Grading system would be tweaked a little but nothing has been said. 

Is this still sport?  I don't know.  What do I think will happen a week or two before the end of the 2024 season?  In a word 'carnage'.

 

Can you detail either the 96% or even the  4% if that’s easier, mentioned in point 1 as I’m struggling to get to either number?
 

Also what do you mean by “manipulated” and where do you get the 50% figure from? 

33 minutes ago, Gooleboy said:

Or get Sugar to do it. Four club chairmen sat in front of him and one will be fired!

Or put a golden ticket in a chocolate bar. Degsy would have all his staff - including the dude on twitter - unwrapping bars 24 hours a day. 

54 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

The tragedy is that there is an easy fix to make everyone happy. A grade clubs protected; B grade clubs can go up or down via P&R. Clubs can still aim for A and get precisely the same reward, no short-term tinkering/gaming required by B clubs, no appeals holding the system up in October, excitement and at the bottom of SL and top of Champ. Win-win.

I think this is possibly my favourite suggested iteration of this grading system - I do think it'd be strange though if a newcomer to the sport looked at the SL table at the end of the season and noticed the 9th placed B grade club had been relegated instead of the three A grade clubs below them. I'm admittedly being pedantic, but it's not beyond the realms of possibility.

I suppose the only other glaring issue here too is there's an assumption there'll be at least one B grade team in SL at any point. If the grading system drives standards as intended, there could be 12 A grade clubs in SL by the end of a season (unless there's a set number of A grades available, in which case we're essentially back to the points system for who gets an A grade!).