Yet More League Reconstruction Proposed

[Harry Wragg]

Then topic of concern to every football fan in the country should be the league reconstruction surely . Jackie Mac got it right when he suggested that the successful big guns get a say in the plans, but what in heavens name is wrong with returning to the status quo of a simple system of 2 divisions of 19 teams each , playing each other home and way as was the case in the early days, with one major change coming in the form of "summer football / winter break" lets be practical, our climate does not lend itself to winter football and the fans will come back to watch games in the summer months of that I'm certain, so lets hear a bit of debating on this point and get the gut feeling from the only people who matter , the paying customers !!

[Jaggernaut]

That's not bad. Preferably, I'd go for 3 leagues of 16, each team plays every other in the league twice. Two up, two down, with one or two play-offs if necessary. But if folk prefer splits and re-setting points tallies to zero and manipulations to ensure a minimum of 4 OF derbies and so on, then why not this:

 

 

[Lenziejag2]

I wonder if I could make a plea for simplicity? We have 42 league sides in Scotland. Divide them into 3 divisions of 14 teams, aiming at 2 up/2 down. In each division play 26 initial league games, playing each team once at home and once away. After the 26 games, split each division into top 7/bottom 7 groups to sort out promotion and relegation. Within the split groups give each team 6 more games, 3 at home and 3 away, with one team "resting" each week. That would give 32 league games per season, everybody would be "interested" right up to the end, and everybody would be clear about the outcomes. To achieve this, we must get rid of the SPL layer of administration, and entrust the SFA+SFL to deliver the goods!

[twinny]

I wonder if I could make a plea for simplicity? We have 42 league sides in Scotland. Divide them into 3 divisions of 14 teams, aiming at 2 up/2 down. In each division play 26 initial league games, playing each team once at home and once away. After the 26 games, split each division into top 7/bottom 7 groups to sort out promotion and relegation. Within the split groups give each team 6 more games, 3 at home and 3 away, with one team "resting" each week. That would give 32 league games per season, everybody would be "interested" right up to the end, and everybody would be clear about the outcomes. To achieve this, we must get rid of the SPL layer of administration, and entrust the SFA+SFL to deliver the goods!

 

Why not play twice post split?

[G SUS]

I wonder if I could make a plea for simplicity? We have 42 league sides in Scotland. Divide them into 3 divisions of 14 teams, aiming at 2 up/2 down. In each division play 26 initial league games, playing each team once at home and once away. After the 26 games, split each division into top 7/bottom 7 groups to sort out promotion and relegation. Within the split groups give each team 6 more games, 3 at home and 3 away, with one team "resting" each week. That would give 32 league games per season, everybody would be "interested" right up to the end, and everybody would be clear about the outcomes. To achieve this, we must get rid of the SPL layer of administration, and entrust the SFA+SFL to deliver the goods!

 

I have a problem with the 7/7 split. It means someone has a "bye" every week and could lead to a plethora of problems.

 

Stick it to a 6/8 split and play home and away after the split and you have the ideal top tier.

[yoda-jag]

No to splits of any type. Sheer nonsense.

[Jaggernaut]

No to splits of any type. Sheer nonsense.

 

Post of the thread!

[lady-isobel-barnett]

No to splits of any type. Sheer nonsense.

Even the Banana Splits?

 

Incidentally a mate of mine who follows another SFL club reckons the 16-10-16 notion not that bad. He like me hates the repetitive 4 times a season nonsense but thinks the 2nd tier 10 club division would be tolerable. His thinking is that with play offs at top and bottom no club is likely to spend that long in the 2nd tier and even if they do will play against a much wider number of clubs. Not that convinced myself but anything's better than the status quo.

[jagfox]

 

Even the Banana Splits?

 

Incidentally a mate of mine who follows another SFL club reckons the 16-10-16 notion not that bad. He like me hates the repetitive 4 times a season nonsense but thinks the 2nd tier 10 club division would be tolerable. His thinking is that with play offs at top and bottom no club is likely to spend that long in the 2nd tier and even if they do will play against a much wider number of clubs. Not that convinced myself but anything's better than the status quo.

Even Rocking all over the world?

[G SUS]

No to splits of any type. Sheer nonsense.

 

Like them or not, they work.

[Jaggernaut]

Like them or not, they work.

 

In what way?

 

And if they do, does that mean that splitting is the only way to keep or increase interest?

 

How about instead of splitting, in a percentage of all league matches there have to be so many U-21 players involved, giving the fans the chance to see their teams' youngsters right in at the deep end?

 

With the split, that's the kind of thing that is unlikely to happen.

[G SUS]

In what way?

 

Splits have at least 5 uses:

1. Generating Interest in the mid-table

2. Creating a manageable number of fixtures(e.g. not 44 or 22 or 33 under the current set-up)

3. Facilitating a division larger than 10 but smaller than 20, whilst continuing playing mid-to-high30s of games

4. Facilitating an element of 4x playing between clubs of similar standing, without full-blown 4x playing.

5. Creating lots of big-interest games during the final run-in

 

And if they do, does that mean that splitting is the only way to keep or increase interest?

 

How about instead of splitting, in a percentage of all league matches there have to be so many U-21 players involved, giving the fans the chance to see their teams' youngsters right in at the deep end?

 

With the split, that's the kind of thing that is unlikely to happen.

 

You go into March with probably six or seven sides in the middle of the table still having something to aim for and if you do reach the top six, playing all the teams around you means Europe is usually still an option for all sides. Of course, the sides that miss out end up with meaningless games but better five(under current set-up) than playing them from January onwards. The argument that we cant have seventh having more points than sixth is pathetic.

 

I don't have the exact statistics but there are a high number of young players playing in this seasons SPL, regardless of the split. If you're good enough, you're old enough.

[Jaggernaut]

Splits have at least 5 uses:

1. Generating Interest in the mid-table

2. Creating a manageable number of fixtures(e.g. not 44 or 22 or 33 under the current set-up)

3. Facilitating a division larger than 10 but smaller than 20, whilst continuing playing mid-to-high30s of games

4. Facilitating an element of 4x playing between clubs of similar standing, without full-blown 4x playing.

5. Creating lots of big-interest games during the final run-in

 

 

 

You go into March with probably six or seven sides in the middle of the table still having something to aim for and if you do reach the top six, playing all the teams around you means Europe is usually still an option for all sides. Of course, the sides that miss out end up with meaningless games but better five(under current set-up) than playing them from January onwards. The argument that we cant have seventh having more points than sixth is pathetic.

 

I don't have the exact statistics but there are a high number of young players playing in this seasons SPL, regardless of the split. If you're good enough, you're old enough.

 

I'd certainly agree with that last statement, but I'd also say that if you're going to challenge for Europe then you'll still be doing it against teams that are much lower in the league than teams that are just breathing down your neck, so no real difference as far as interest goes. It could even be argued that fans would rather see their team going for it all out against a "weaker" team than cancelling out a team of around the same strength, which is exactly why punters have had just about all that they can take of the current set-up, includes the split.

Edited November 22, 2012 by Jaggernaut

[twinny]

Splits have at least 5 uses:

1. Generating Interest in the mid-table

2. Creating a manageable number of fixtures(e.g. not 44 or 22 or 33 under the current set-up)

3. Facilitating a division larger than 10 but smaller than 20, whilst continuing playing mid-to-high30s of games

4. Facilitating an element of 4x playing between clubs of similar standing, without full-blown 4x playing.

5. Creating lots of big-interest games during the final run-in

 

 

 

You go into March with probably six or seven sides in the middle of the table still having something to aim for and if you do reach the top six, playing all the teams around you means Europe is usually still an option for all sides. Of course, the sides that miss out end up with meaningless games but better five(under current set-up) than playing them from January onwards. The argument that we cant have seventh having more points than sixth is pathetic.

 

I don't have the exact statistics but there are a high number of young players playing in this seasons SPL, regardless of the split. If you're good enough, you're old enough.

 

I agree with most of that. The split has been fairly successful, and has certainly led to a more interesting league than the 10 team Premier League of the 90s.

 

The greater interest in mid-table dies after 33 games though, but that means teams in 6th or 7th post split can play younger players usually.

 

In a larger league with a split after two rounds of matches (say 14 team league with 26 games pre-split) the deadline for playing postponed winter fixtures is much earlier. Shouldn't be too big an issue in the top division, but if lower divisions had the same split trying to get games played in time following a severe winter or wet spring could be tricky.

[Duck snort]

The current split is nonsense. Don't know if they've had a season yet where the pre-season seedings have been correct after 33 games. It always seems to end up with one team playing 3 home games against the same opposition. Any league where you don't have an even number of home and away fixtures against the opposition is a farce.

 

The 14 team league with a split after 26 games games followed by further home and away fixtures against the the teams in your "half" would be fairer, but afraid I'm old fashioned and think everyone should play everyone else in the league an equal number of times, so no split for me.

[kni]

Beattie - http://www.theglaswe...02692-23942126/

 

“I have had a quick look at the SPL proposals and my first impression is you probably need a degree to understand it.

 

“In an ideal world, I like the SFL structure of three leagues comprising of 16-10-16.

 

“I think that would be really exciting for Scottish football and has a lot of merit to it. At the end of the day league reconstruction and any vote for change will all come down to money and the financial distribution.

 

“I don’t know the details of the financial distribution in the SPL model but I do know the financial implications for Partick Thistle in the SFL model.

 

“For Partick Thistle to be promoted this season would be great but the problem with that is that if you are relegated then you fall off a cliff, financially.

 

“The SFL model is a good and solid proposal. I just don’t understand the financial ins and outs of the SPL model.”

Edited November 22, 2012 by kni

[lady-isobel-barnett]

Beattie - http://www.theglaswe...02692-23942126/

 

“I have had a quick look at the SPL proposals and my first impression is you probably need a degree to understand it.

 

“In an ideal world, I like the SFL structure of three leagues comprising of 16-10-16.

 

“I think that would be really exciting for Scottish football and has a lot of merit to it. At the end of the day league reconstruction and any vote for change will all come down to money and the financial distribution.

 

“I don’t know the details of the financial distribution in the SPL model but I do know the financial implications for Partick Thistle in the SFL model.

 

“For Partick Thistle to be promoted this season would be great but the problem with that is that if you are relegated then you fall off a cliff, financially.

 

“The SFL model is a good and solid proposal. I just don’t understand the financial ins and outs of the SPL model.”

I don't believe you could ever accuse Mr B of not being pragmatic.

 

Anyway doesn't really matter which route you take as long as you end up in the right place.

[kni]

^^ I still don't like the SFL's 16-10-16 model. The middle league of only 10 clubs is bizarre and I would hate to see us in that league. What's wrong with 3 Leagues of 14? Perhaps Mr Beattie could explain.

[Willjag]

I think that 16 is the best size of a division in Scotland. The only change I'd make is to make the bottom league the one with only ten teams. The Clubs at that end always have poor attendances and I don't see variety making that much of a difference to the crowd sizes.

 

The only problem 16 poses, is the amount of games. I don't think Clubs can survive on only 15 home games. Do they play each other twice each then split and play another 7 games?

[twinny]

I think that 16 is the best size of a division in Scotland. The only change I'd make is to make the bottom league the one with only ten teams. The Clubs at that end always have poor attendances and I don't see variety making that much of a difference to the crowd sizes.

 

The only problem 16 poses, is the amount of games. I don't think Clubs can survive on only 15 home games. Do they play each other twice each then split and play another 7 games?

 

The 16-10-16 proposal comes alongside a proposal for a sectional league cup, which is where the extra games would come from. The only problem is, the proposed set up would see R1 as a knockout round with the bottom placed 20 clubs playing for 10 places. The top 22 would then join the 10 who go through for the group stage. So how do the clubs who were knocked out in Round 1 make up for the lost home games? Putting the league of 10 at the bottom would help, as these 10 are more likely to lose the R1 match, however that isn't a very good solution.

[lady-isobel-barnett]

I think that 16 is the best size of a division in Scotland. The only change I'd make is to make the bottom league the one with only ten teams. The Clubs at that end always have poor attendances and I don't see variety making that much of a difference to the crowd sizes.

Just guessing but having the middle league of ten clubs is favoured as with play offs top and bottom you're less likely to be stuck in it too long. Having 16 clubs in the bottom division will mean teams like Berwick, Annan, Stranraer only making the one journey to Elgin and Peterhead & vice versa.

That said it may also have been political to get the a unanimous SFL vote. Hard to say without sounding elitist but it should always be remembered that the majority of lower league clubs have voiced little opposition to the status quo and to get a majority vote may be dependent on the presented format.

[Lenziejag]

I think the high number of young players in SPL is more to do with budgets as opposed to the league structure. If there was more money in Scottish football, it would be full of expensive foreign journeymen

[P-R]

4 games a season obsession.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/20581620

[McKennan]

The SPL would invite clubs to enter the league, determined by their league positions prior to the start of any re-organised season.

It hopes that this would head off criticism from those who might argue that re-organisation is being used as a vehicle to accelerate Rangers' return to the top division.

 

 

I see what they did there ...

[Lenziejag2]

Oh dear! Still the obsession with playing each other 4 times per season! I have lost count of the number of times I have suggested the simple solution. Scotland has 42 league clubs, so divide them into three equal divisions of 14 teams. Play each other once at home and once away = 26 matches. At that point, split into a top 7 and a bottom 7 (yes, I know it's an odd number and means one team will have to "sit out" each week, but in the last third of the season they'll all be grateful for that!), and play each of the other 6 teams home and away = total of 38 league matches (yes, I know that is tantamount to the 4 times per season obsession in the top and bottom halves, but every team will have something to play for!). I am assuming that we all want two up/two down as a given feature! Get rid of the SPL as a discrete entity, get the SFA + SFL to run the show, and spread the income around much more equitably! Everybody happy?