League reconstruction: Let's hear your view

[Jacksgranda]

IMO, there are far too many football clubs in Scotland.  For the population we have and to have so many clubs is just madness.  Take Fife for example, population of around 365,000.  They have what four football clubs, thats madness, merge the four into two or even one club.  Two or one club fighting for the local populations support rather than four makes more sense.  Take Central Scotland aswell, population around 250,000 but it has five clubs.  Again madness, merge into two clubs to fight amongst the local population for their support.   Angus, a population of around 116,000 but has four clubs, absolute stupidity.  Merge into the one club, two at a very large push.  

 

Less clubs, and make the clubs that do exist professional. 

 

But who am I to say which football clubs should and shouldn't merge?  I just think it makes more sense that's all.

 

I think I preferred it when you were just reading, rather than posting.

[parsforlife]

Take Fife for example, population of around 365,000. They have what four football clubs, thats madness,

If the population of Fife drops bellow 100 then fielding 4 teams may start to become problematic, but ATM we have more than enough people to feild 4 teams, which is why there are many junior and amatuer sides(+the shippy) playing in addition to the spfl sides each Saturday.

[BFTD]

If only Celtic had offered to give the Rangers fans a new home four years ago. Surely they'd have jumped at the chance to support a side with an increased chance of playing in the Champions' League.

[GMBairn]

Always Rangers and Celtic fans that talk about merging clubs as though the problem of local club attendances isn't actually towns and cities filled with OF fans with exactly no connection to Glasgow other than bigotry or good old fashioned glory hunting.

 

Especially Ironic considering the fans of Scotland's newest club are going so far out of their way to tell everyone they aren't a new club, support for others forcibly changed would obviously be fantastic.

[lionel hutz]

Always Rangers and Celtic fans that talk about merging clubs as though the problem of local club attendances isn't actually towns and cities filled with OF fans with exactly no connection to Glasgow other than bigotry or good old fashioned glory hunting.

 

Especially Ironic considering the fans of Scotland's newest club are going so far out of their way to tell everyone they aren't a new club, support for others forcibly changed would obviously be fantastic.

This.

[1320Lichtie]

Tory got a few bites I see.

[effeffsee_the2nd]

To be fair the american system is probably a good idea. Aswell as having so many "super" teams for a catchment area.... if football had only just been invented. Wont work now tho

As for salery caps . Spending limits revenue sharing etcetc youv got to mind that the nfl is pretty much the only show in town for that sport. Try that here and players just go elsewhere for more cash. The monster of modern football wont go away unless something comes from the very top. And it wont so were pretty much fucked

Edited May 18, 2016 by effeffsee_the2nd

[Arsenal till I die]

What do you mean?

I'm thinking of the Old Firm's boycott to any changes, is it still 2 votes against and the proposal is rejected?

[Arsenal till I die]

Always Rangers and Celtic fans that talk about merging clubs as though the problem of local club attendances isn't actually towns and cities filled with OF fans with exactly no connection to Glasgow other than bigotry or good old fashioned glory hunting.

 

Especially Ironic considering the fans of Scotland's newest club are going so far out of their way to tell everyone they aren't a new club, support for others forcibly changed would obviously be fantastic.

I don't see the point of mergers. Even a happy medium would be ground sharing...

[foreverarover]

I have read through this post with much interest. I have a suggestion which if has been stated already then I apologise.

Leagues such as Slovakia and Czech Republic have a differing league structure to ours.

The simple basic thing I can see when I go to watch the occasional lowland league game is why oh why do the lowland and junior league have to kick off at the same time or as in juniors a short time prior to senior football.

Am I missing something here is there not a large market of football fans who would watch the local junior or lowland club but chose not to due their senior club commitments as fans

The Czech leagues start at different times over the weekend dependent on the league you play in. It allowed myself and other fans to watch several games over the weekend.

I noticed a remarkable increase in the crowd at a cumbernauld colts match when there was no senior games on the same weekend day.

IT'S BASIC SURELY ?????

Can it put this to you all and would be interested in your thoughts.

Consider junior/lowland football starting at 12.30.

1 - would you as a home fan go and watch a local junior game before your own match knowing we'll you can get a half time pint rather than spend time in the pub.

2- How many football fans leave on early busses to away matches to spend a fortune getting bevvied up prior to the game. Would you consider again taking in a game as above and . Probably saving money at the same time.

Just putting it out there.

Edited May 22, 2016 by foreverarover

[Mr Bairn]

My view on this hasn't changed

 

 

Two national leagues of 16

Three tiered pyramid

The champions of each region go up, then the three 2nd place teams playoff with 12th in the championship

[Arsenal till I die]

I have read through this post with much interest. I have a suggestion which if has been stated already then I apologise.

Leagues such as Slovakia and Czech Republic have a differing league structure to ours.

The simple basic thing I can see when I go to watch the occasional lowland league game is why oh why do the lowland and junior league have to kick off at the same time or as in juniors a short time prior to senior football.

Am I missing something here is there not a large market of football fans who would watch the local junior or lowland club but chose not to due their senior club commitments as fans

The Czech leagues start at different times over the weekend dependent on the league you play in. It allowed myself and other fans to watch several games over the weekend.

I noticed a remarkable increase in the crowd at a cumbernauld colts match when there was no senior games on the same weekend day.

IT'S BASIC SURELY ?????

Can it put this to you all and would be interested in your thoughts.

Consider junior/lowland football starting at 12.30.

1 - would you as a home fan go and watch a local junior game before your own match knowing we'll you can get a half time pint rather than spend time in the pub.

2- How many football fans leave on early busses to away matches to spend a fortune getting bevvied up prior to the game. Would you consider again taking in a game as above and . Probably saving money at the same time.

Just putting it out there.

I like the idea of a village league. There's no buses where I live on sundays, a far cry from growing up with the tube and double deckers.

[RabidAl]

A split isn't really needed in 12, 14 or 16-team divisions.

12 teams can play home and away for 22 games, play 10 of the teams again once each (5 home games, 5 aways), and play their closest rivals again both at home and away.¹

That would be 17 guaranteed home games and 34 games in total, whilst playing every team 3 times and your closest rivals (in terms of league position) a fourth time.

The first slight imbalance would be that Rangers and Celtic (if ranked 1st and 2nd) would have a marginally more difficult fixtures list than Hearts and Aberdeen (if ranked 3rd and 4th) since they would face each other a fourth time but not any other team for a fourth time, Hearts and Aberdeen (by facing each other a fourth time) would have one slightly harder fixture than the teams in 5th and 6th, and so on.  

The second slight imbalance would be that, in the 10 one-off games, the team ranked 1st would play home games against 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th and 11th and away games against the rest, whereas the team ranked 2nd would play home games against 4th, 6th, 8th, 10th and 12th and away games against the rest, and so on down the league.  But that seems reasonably fair all round.

That would give four old firm games for tv, get rid of the split and inherent unfairnesses, reduce the number of times playing the same team each league season to 3, give 3 home games against the old firm for everyone, and allow teams to push for Europe from lower down the league. 

 

¹It might be easier and more attractive to start the season with the first round of fixtures being 1st vs 2nd, 3rd vs 4th, etc from the previous season, then running through the 10 one-off games, then one round of the reverse fixtures between rivals (2nd vs 1st, 4th vs 3rd, etc), then on into the regular season of 22 home and away fixtures.

The alternative might be to start with the usual 2 rounds of fixtures, 22 games home and away, take rankings from league positions as if the league was about to split at that point, have closest rivals playing home and away, then on into the 10 one-off games until the end of the season. 

[RabidAl]

Similarly, 14 teams can play home and away for 26 games, the nearest rivals (1st vs 2nd, 3rd vs 4th, etc) could then play home and away, with teams then going on to playing against those who were similarly ranked odd or even numbers after 26 games.  For example:

- 1st would play at home to 3rd, 7th and 11th, but away to 5th, 9th and 13th;

- 2nd would play at home to 4th, 8th and 12th, but away to 6th, 10th and 14th;

- 3rd would play at home to 5th, 9th and 13th, but away to 7th, 11th and 1st;

- 4th would play at home to 6th, 10th and 14th, but away to 8th, 12th and 2nd; and so on¹.

So the league would effectively split into two groups in terms of fixtures but not in terms of the league table, with the fixtures being reasonably balanced between the two groups. 

That would give 34 games in total (26 from the initial two rounds, 2 head-to-head games against closest rivals, and 6 games in the ranked groups), and 17 home games guaranteed.

 

{The fixtures could be completed within 34 match days given the right scheduling, with the 'rivals' matches being played on different weeks according to who had a free week within their ranked group (if the groups were run symmetrically).}

 

¹There would actually be more head-to-heads if odd-ranked teams played against evens, as that would give 2nd v 3rd, 4th v 5th, etc which seem to be missing from this scenario; for example, 1st v 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14; 2nd v 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13; 3rd v 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14; 4th v 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 1. 

 

Edit:

If it's acceptable and reasonably fair that fixtures can be derived from odd/even-ranked groups, then the following two rounds of fixtures could be added...which are based on teams playing one slightly harder and one slightly easier game, and do not repeat any of the other 'ranked group' fixtures.  It is a bit tenuous, but it would give a 14 team league with a 36 game season, and would still be reasonably fair... 

1v8, 1v14; 2v7, 2v13; 3v6, 3v12; 4v5, 4v11; 5v4, 5v10; 6v3, 6v9; 7v2, 7v8; 8v1, 8v7; 9v14, 9v6; 10v13, 10v5; 11v12, 11v4; 12v11, 12v3; 13v10, 13v2; 14v9, 14v1.

Edited August 8, 2016 by RabidAl

[RabidAl]

Again, 16 teams could play the usual two rounds of fixtures (home and away) for 30 games, closest rivals could play home and away for a further 2 games (and 4 against each other in total), and odd/even-ranked groups could be used to give a further 7 games for 39 in total.  For example, fixtures in the ranked groups would be along the lines of:

- 1st would play at home to 3rd, 7th, 11th, 15th; away to 5th, 9th, 13th;

- 2nd would play at home to 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th; away to 6th, 10th, 14th;

- 3rd would play at home to 5th, 9th, 13th; away to 7th, 11th, 15th, 1st;

- 4th would play at home to 6th, 10th, 14th; away to 8th, 12th, 16th, 2nd; and so on.

This would give a larger league, 19-20 home games all round, no split so plenty of movement throughout the league until the end of the season, and playing only one team 4 times, 7 teams 3 times, and the rest only 2 times...

Edited August 1, 2016 by RabidAl

[Salvo Montalbano]

Super League in rugby used to do something like your 12 team solution which meant 4 lots of Wigan v St Helens and Leeds v Bradford games and close games neat the end of the season. At least that's how I remember it. Maybe one of the big RL fans can confirm that. It certainly seemed to work and there weren't too many complaints (although there are also play offs to decide the champions which had never really been a popular suggestion in football).

[Officer Barbrady]

9 hours ago, RabidAl said:

A split isn't really needed in 12, 14 or 16-team divisions.

12 teams can play home and away for 22 games, play 10 of the teams again once each (5 home games, 5 aways), and play their closest rivals again both at home and away.¹

That would be 17 guaranteed home games and 34 games in total, whilst playing every team 3 times and your closest rivals (in terms of league position) a fourth time.

The first slight imbalance would be that Rangers and Celtic (if ranked 1st and 2nd) would have a marginally more difficult fixtures list than Hearts and Aberdeen (if ranked 3rd and 4th) since they would face each other a fourth time but not any other team for a fourth time, Hearts and Aberdeen (by facing each other a fourth time) would have one slightly harder fixture than the teams in 5th and 6th, and so on.  

The second slight imbalance would be that, in the 10 one-off games, the team ranked 1st would play home games against 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th and 11th and away games against the rest, whereas the team ranked 2nd would play home games against 4th, 6th, 8th, 10th and 12th and away games against the rest, and so on down the league.  But that seems reasonably fair all round.

That would give four old firm games for tv, get rid of the split and inherent unfairnesses, reduce the number of times playing the same team each league season to 3, give 3 home games against the old firm for everyone, and allow teams to push for Europe from lower down the league. 

 

¹It might be easier and more attractive to start the season with the first round of fixtures being 1st vs 2nd, 3rd vs 4th, etc from the previous season, then running through the 10 one-off games, then one round of the reverse fixtures between rivals (2nd vs 1st, 4th vs 3rd, etc), then on into the regular season of 22 home and away fixtures.

The alternative might be to start with the usual 2 rounds of fixtures, 22 games home and away, take rankings from league positions as if the league was about to split at that point, have closest rivals playing home and away, then on into the 10 one-off games until the end of the season. 

I like the twist of this. Presumably, you're basing the positions on how things look after 22 weeks, in order to give everyone as fair a chance of finishing in any given position? 

 

Of course, there aren't many examples of anyone splitting the cheeks that late into the season recently, when in the same division of course. Hearts twice, in 97/98 and 2005/6 come to mind, and of course they ended in tears.....and by finishing 2nd at 22 weeks, their chances of staying there may be compromised by them facing Celtic (who won both titles) twice, whist NeoGers do not. The simple answer, would be to not be as negative as that outlook suggests, though and try to beat them...after all, they get a second chance offered to no one else. On the whole though, i like the concept of trying to sell not only 1st v 2nd but also 11th v 12th as genuinely do-or-die six-pointers. 

[tamba_trio]

17 hours ago, Salvo Montalbano said:

Super League in rugby used to do something like your 12 team solution which meant 4 lots of Wigan v St Helens and Leeds v Bradford games and close games neat the end of the season. At least that's how I remember it. Maybe one of the big RL fans can confirm that. It certainly seemed to work and there weren't too many complaints (although there are also play offs to decide the champions which had never really been a popular suggestion in football).

Why is football so against championship play offs?  I think every other sport I know has them in some form, with teams and players getting reputations as bottlers if they continously fail at them. 

Given the struggles we have differentiating ourselves from the English set up and our lack of variety in champions we could do worse than consider it. 

[RabidAl]

10 hours ago, Officer Barbrady said:

I like the twist of this. Presumably, you're basing the positions on how things look after 22 weeks, in order to give everyone as fair a chance of finishing in any given position? 

Of course, there aren't many examples of anyone splitting the cheeks that late into the season recently, when in the same division of course. Hearts twice, in 97/98 and 2005/6 come to mind, and of course they ended in tears.....and by finishing 2nd at 22 weeks, their chances of staying there may be compromised by them facing Celtic (who won both titles) twice, whist NeoGers do not. The simple answer, would be to not be as negative as that outlook suggests, though and try to beat them...after all, they get a second chance offered to no one else. On the whole though, i like the concept of trying to sell not only 1st v 2nd but also 11th v 12th as genuinely do-or-die six-pointers. 

Yep, that would be one way to do it.

The other way that could work with both 12 or 14 team leagues would have teams playing each other 3 times (for 33 or 39 games each, respectively), but also having an additional match day of head-to-heads based on the previous season's finishing positions (1st v 2nd, 3rd v 4th, etc) on the first day of the season. 

This would give 34 games in a 12-team league and 40 games in a 14-team league, and would be an exciting opening to any season.   

As you say, it would give 4 old firm games in almost all seasons, 4 head-to-heads for other teams of similar ability, there'd still be 3 home games against the old firm for all teams in the league, less repetition by only playing most teams 3 times in the league, and there'd be no split to get in the way of a run for Europe/to distort the fixtures.

The 14-team, 40 game season would be tight in terms of fitting in the fixtures, but I see in England they're getting rid of FA Cup replays from the quarter-final stage now, so possibly we could do something similar for the last 16 and quarter-final stages in order to free up a couple of potential mid-week fixture dates later in the season.

At any rate, leagues that retain the only closest head-to-heads, without doing them to death, and that don't require any split or too much contortion of the fixtures would be a relief!

Edited August 2, 2016 by RabidAl

[EdTheDuck]

1 hour ago, tamba_trio said:

Why is football so against championship play offs?  I think every other sport I know has them in some form, with teams and players getting reputations as bottlers if they continously fail at them. 

Given the struggles we have differentiating ourselves from the English set up and our lack of variety in champions we could do worse than consider it. 

You only need to see the number of times 'the league table doesn't lie' or 'the best team wins the league' being quoted in all seriousness, to realise our football is run by conservatives for conservatives. Not necessarily just playoffs either, look at the bile the split conjures up, a pragmatic solution to a fixture list problem that regularly throws up high stakes, high attendance games as a by-product. It's hated by the hidebound because it isn't a "proper" league, which, according to the Laws of Nature apparently, is a double round robin of at least 16 teams with an abundance of low key mid-table games to 'blood youngsters' (another favourite of the traditionalists)