Jaggernaut Posted March 8, 2012 Report Share Posted March 8, 2012 It's hard to keep pace with everything that going on as a result of the delicious situation that the h u n s are in, and there's a lot of nonsense doing the rounds but this looks potentially interesting http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17304341 ...or maybe it's just another piece of nonsense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norwejag Posted March 8, 2012 Report Share Posted March 8, 2012 They will also consider the distribution of income and the possibility of a 10-club second tier. Radical change! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenziejag2 Posted March 8, 2012 Report Share Posted March 8, 2012 I have long been an advocate of leaving the SPL as a 12-team league - and leaving them to "get on with it". A guaranteed 1-up 1-down with SFL1 is an absolute necessity, as is a play-off involving 11th place in the SPL with 2nd place (or more) in SFL1. Thereafter, I have hitherto advocated two SFL divisions of 16 teams - a nice tidy number for all sorts of reasons. I am prepared to modify that arrangement in order to accommodate minimum Euro-recommended league sizes and to have two divisions of 18 teams - playing each other home and away once - thereby giving a guaranteed 34 league games, before any Cup games are added into the equation. It would also allow six new teams to join the SFL (hello to the likes of Spartans, Gala Fairydean, Deveronvale, Cove Rangers) adding further greater interest. Two-up two-down would be an absolute prerequisite for these two divisions, with the option to have "pyramid" entry to the bottom of SFL2. We absolutely cannot go on with the drudgery of 4 times per season against everyone! Any views? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G SUS Posted March 9, 2012 Report Share Posted March 9, 2012 I'd go for a league of 14. Every team plays each other twice (brings 26 games). Top 6/Bottom 8. Everyone plays twice again in their split. Allows the 4 OF game's for the TV deal(assuming the OF are in the top 6). Also gives teams the bumper gate of the OF again. Bottom 8 will play more games but that will offset the loss of OF income. None of this 20/18 game split between home and away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lady-isobel-barnett Posted March 9, 2012 Report Share Posted March 9, 2012 (edited) I'd go for a league of 14. Every team plays each other twice (brings 26 games). Top 6/Bottom 8. Everyone plays twice again in their split. Allows the 4 OF game's for the TV deal(assuming the OF are in the top 6). Also gives teams the bumper gate of the OF again. Bottom 8 will play more games but that will offset the loss of OF income. None of this 20/18 game split between home and away. Undoubtedly far better than the status quo. Only nitpicking but that means you could still be playing seven teams each four times against the present nine teams four times. Repetitiveness is one of principal reasons most want change. And also maybe better a split Top 8/Bottom 6 incorporating some sort of play off/relegation decider involving lower division club(s)? As I say G SUS's idea is still much better than the present silly set up. Edited March 9, 2012 by lady-isobel-barnett Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junior Posted March 9, 2012 Report Share Posted March 9, 2012 Undoubtedly far better than the status quo. Only nitpicking but that means you could still be playing seven teams each four times against the present nine teams four times. Repetitiveness is one of principal reasons most want change. And also maybe better a split Top 8/Bottom 6 incorporating some sort of play off/relegation decider involving lower division club(s)? As I say G SUS's idea is still much better than the present silly set up. I think thats probably a better split -Offer a trophy and maybe a European place to the winner of the "first stage" - Top 8 reset to zero and play for championship - Bottom 6 + top 2 in lower league again reset to zero and play for 6 places in the top league next year. Would be interesting to see if anyone would consider that. I know Ive heard of a couple of countries that do the reset all points after first stage thing and that defo would be a radical change for Scottish football. Whatever we do it has to be committed to for at least 10 years IMO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian_mac Posted March 9, 2012 Report Share Posted March 9, 2012 16 would be my preference, but I would most definitely compromise on a 14 team top league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Dastardly Posted March 9, 2012 Report Share Posted March 9, 2012 16 is by far and away the best option in my view, however if the powers that be insist on giving us smaller leagues and playing 4 times, how about having 4 "periods" that determine the play off places. So the over all league winner gets promotted automatically. Excluding the league winner, the team that had the best record from the first round of games goes to the playoff Excluding the above 2, the team that had the best record from the second round of games goes to the playoff Excluding the above 3, the team that had the best record from the third round of games goes to the playoff Excluding the above 4, the team that had the best record from the fourth round of games goes to the playoff This is used in several other countries (Belgium springs to mind) and it keeps interest for most clubs right to the seasons end. If you have a bad start, there is still something to play for. Also, if your playoff place is safe, you have a great option to blood younger players later in the season. Not ideal as we still have to play teams 4 times (potentially 8 if we get drawn in all the cups and have to face a replay) but it has to be better than what we have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twinny Posted March 9, 2012 Report Share Posted March 9, 2012 16 is by far and away the best option in my view, however if the powers that be insist on giving us smaller leagues and playing 4 times, how about having 4 "periods" that determine the play off places. So the over all league winner gets promotted automatically. Excluding the league winner, the team that had the best record from the first round of games goes to the playoff Excluding the above 2, the team that had the best record from the second round of games goes to the playoff Excluding the above 3, the team that had the best record from the third round of games goes to the playoff Excluding the above 4, the team that had the best record from the fourth round of games goes to the playoff This is used in several other countries (Belgium springs to mind) and it keeps interest for most clubs right to the seasons end. If you have a bad start, there is still something to play for. Also, if your playoff place is safe, you have a great option to blood younger players later in the season. Not ideal as we still have to play teams 4 times (potentially 8 if we get drawn in all the cups and have to face a replay) but it has to be better than what we have. I'm not sure quoting the Belgian system helps, it is extremely convoluted and difficult to interpret. Is relegation decided by performance over the previous three seasons for the bottom two or three clubs? Theoretically, though unlikely, one of the relegated teams could qualify for the playoffs. There are lots of ifs and buts here, and the Rangers situation makes it actually sensible to have this neverending discussion on league restructuring. If Rangers go bust and Newco are readmitted to the SPL, apart from setting a horrible precedent there will be no reconstruction as the SPL will continue with the four OF games. If Rangers are not readmitted following potential liquidation, there will be two teams (Ross County and Falkirk) promoted this season, and hopefully this can show two promoted teams can work well in the SPL, and removing the pressure of the OF matches/tv deal could lead to real discussion on league format. There are plenty of options regarding structure, 18 teams would allow 36 game seasons, but the quality at either end might be a total mismatch. I'd favour 16 or 18 teams either way, as the lower end teams would improve with greater funds available. I think the 14 team league with uneven split is a bit silly, though perhaps justifiable in that the lower 8 get more games to make up for less games against the bigger teams. A 7/7 split again would be silly as it would leave two teams fixtureless each weekend, but I don't think that is a terrible thing. 12 seems to work well entertainment wise, as the race for European spaces and against relegations has been fairly interesting in most recent years, but this would be improved with a further relegation play-off spot. I do think that if the SPL doesn't expend, the SFL really should look at the 16 team league option suggested above, provided an additional promotion or playoff spot becomes available. On top of this, something would need to be done to account for the loss of six league games. Many fans argue for and against regional sections of the league cup (or maybe challenge cup) first round. I think this would make sense, having only to play teams in the same division two times in the league, cup groups with local 'derbies' ensuring that groups are made up of two SFL1 and two SFL2 clubs. The challenge cup doesn't have that much interest, so I think it would be worth revamping it with this type of set up alongside two 16 team SFL leagues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.