tamba_trio Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 5 hours ago, EdTheDuck said: 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) Absolutely. Of course whilst bleating on about fairness it's forgotten that the Scottish league is the most unfair sporting league on the planet. Somehow, team A with a budget of £30 million playing team B with a budget of £1 million, isn't considered unfair. We really should be trying to do the exact opposite of what the EPL does. And there shouldn't be another TV deal with Sky or BT (unless they're willing to pay fairly). Football is more popular in Scotland than England. We really don't have another sport here. TV rights - to a population of 5 million people - should be much closer to £75 million a year. If the TV companies won't give it, then we have to start up our own TV station as the Dutch did. Also, I've completely came around to summer football now. I was always against it but I think we need it now, owing to the European calendar. If the season ended in December, it would give teams January and February to rest rather than having them play European games a month (or more) before the league season even starts. It's no wonder teams struggle. I spent a bit of time thinking up various league structures to try and give other teams a chance - there's loads of possibilities. A Championship play off is pretty much key if we want to start tapping into our potential audience (God knows, 16 teams and 30 games won't do anything). But, it would give teams outwith Glasgow with a chance (albeit slim) of becoming champions though, so we couldn't have that. The sad thing is that football fans are so conditioned into thinking this is normal they haven't noticed that in literally every other sport the best teams or players are defined by a peak snapshot event. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdTheDuck Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 1 hour ago, tamba_trio said: Absolutely. Of course whilst bleating on about fairness it's forgotten that the Scottish league is the most unfair sporting league on the planet. Somehow, team A with a budget of £30 million playing team B with a budget of £1 million, isn't considered unfair. We really should be trying to do the exact opposite of what the EPL does. And there shouldn't be another TV deal with Sky or BT (unless they're willing to pay fairly). Football is more popular in Scotland than England. We really don't have another sport here. TV rights - to a population of 5 million people - should be much closer to £75 million a year. If the TV companies won't give it, then we have to start up our own TV station as the Dutch did. Also, I've completely came around to summer football now. I was always against it but I think we need it now, owing to the European calendar. If the season ended in December, it would give teams January and February to rest rather than having them play European games a month (or more) before the league season even starts. It's no wonder teams struggle. I spent a bit of time thinking up various league structures to try and give other teams a chance - there's loads of possibilities. A Championship play off is pretty much key if we want to start tapping into our potential audience (God knows, 16 teams and 30 games won't do anything). But, it would give teams outwith Glasgow with a chance (albeit slim) of becoming champions though, so we couldn't have that. The sad thing is that football fans are so conditioned into thinking this is normal they haven't noticed that in literally every other sport the best teams or players are defined by a peak snapshot event. The 'best team wins the league' thing is always stated as a universal truth and any system that challenges that is dismissed as manipulation, ignoring the fact that the 36/38 9 month slog to the title is also manipulation in favour of, as you say, the bigger, richer clubs. And you're right there's loads of ways to improve interest in our football with a bit of imagination. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RabidAl Posted August 3, 2016 Share Posted August 3, 2016 (edited) Play-offs for the title are a valuable addition to a closely competitive league, but look farcical where teams who top the division by a large margin then have to go on to play against obviously weaker sides - it renders the whole season pretty pointless; who would actually be the champions and qualify for the Champions' League if a side 20 points worse off in the league then came through to win the play off? If the teams below can't get within in a certain points margin - that would trigger the play off - then there shouldn't be a play off for the title. The other point is that our teams already play each other 4 times in the league season, with the potential for several further encounters in the cups - having play offs for the title on top of the current format would be an almost jaw-breaking yawn of repetition. Where they would work well is to use up some of the quota of 4 old firm games to make a bigger league commercially possible; for example, in an 18-team, 34 game division the old firm could play off home and away for the title, if they finished within a certain number of points of each other, and the next four could play off for the European place(s) making the mid-table more meaningful until the end of the season. Edit: Another situation where they'd make sense is where a season is made up of 3 full rounds of the fixtures list, (such as a 33 game season in a 12 team league) because teams would not have played each other an even number of times home and away and so, in a close league, there would be cause to be unsure about who was actually the better team. Edited August 3, 2016 by RabidAl 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdTheDuck Posted August 3, 2016 Share Posted August 3, 2016 I agree, sudden death championship playoffs at the end of a 9 month 38 game single division quadruple round robin slog wouldn't be very palatable to anyone but then I've never advocated such. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RabidAl Posted August 4, 2016 Share Posted August 4, 2016 ...and I agree that the final league table is about as truthful as your average politician; however, detrimental results caused by fixture congestion (due to cup runs, rescheduled call-offs, etc), dodgy refereeing decisions, and bad luck with injuries don't explain away the huge points gaps that would make play offs based solely on league position a bit daft. The fixtures list itself should attempt to be as 'democratic' as possible to at least have a reasonably fair baseline for teams to start from, but play offs would help to sort out any unfairnesses that arise across the season. Factoring in points gaps as well as league position into whether a team qualifies for a play off place or not could keep teams pushing for longer, such as finishing within single figures of your rival as well as in the position below them. This might manifest itself in a 16 team, 37-game season where there is no split in the league after 30 games, but there is a split in the fixtures (evens vs evens, odds vs odds, to give the additional 7 games)... 1 Champions' League Play Off 2 Champions' League Play Off 3 Europa League Play Off 4 Europa League Play Off 5 Europa League Play Off 6 Europa League Play Off 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Relegation Play Off 15 Relegated 16 Relegated ...the play offs might be used to settle a close title race and who qualifies for the Champions' League if the teams are within 9 points (?) of each other, with further play offs for teams finishing 3rd-6th as follows: - if 1st-2nd win the Scottish Cup...3rd vs 6th play off for one Europa League place, 4th vs 5th play off for the other; - if one of 3rd-6th win the Scottish Cup...the lowest 2 remaining teams (of 3rd-6th who did not win the Scottish Cup) play a semi-final, with the winner playing the other remaining team for the final Europa League place; - if 7th+ win the Scottish Cup...3rd vs 6th in play off in one semi-final, 4th vs 5th play off in the other, with the two winners playing off for final Europa League place. ...the Europa League play off final could take place the weekend after the Scottish Cup final, with one-off semi-finals taking place at the home ground of the higher-ranked team in the mid-week; the Champions' League play-off final could be over two legs, with the second leg being at home for the higher-ranked team the week after the Scottish Cup final. All of which would give a larger league, no split, 18-19 homes games, 4 x old firm games for tv money, and plenty of head-to-heads at the right time of the season. Maybe. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RabidAl Posted August 8, 2016 Share Posted August 8, 2016 (edited) To qualify for play offs I think you'd be looking at having about 90% of the points of the team above you, since the league table gives a reasonable approximation to but not always accurate outcome of the season. And there'd need to be something at stake. And it wouldn't work if teams had played umpteen times in the league already. A 14-team, 36 game season would be possible by playing home and away for 26 games; then splitting the fixtures (but not the table) fairly with odd-ranked teams (after 26 games) playing against even-ranked teams, and evens playing odds... 1st v 2, 4, 6, 8 10, 12, 14; 2nd v 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13; 3rd v 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 2; 4th v 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 1; and so on. ...which would give an additional 7 fixtures (one more fixture than odds v odds, evens v evens gives, and more head-to-heads since 2nd plays 3rd, 4th plays 5th, etc in this scenario), ...to bring the running total to 33 rounds of fixtures1; then a 6/8 split in the table and fixtures to give a final 3 games each and a possible final three match days as follows... MD34 MD35 MD 36 2 v 1 1 v 6 4 v 1 4 v 3 3 v 2 2 v 5 6 v 5 5 v 4 6 v 3 9 v 7 7 v 3 11 v 7 13 v 11 11 v 9 13 v 9 10 v 8 8 v 14 12 v 8 14 v 12 12 v 10 14 v 10 ...where (top 6) odd-ranked teams at the split play v evens, and even-ranked v odds (1st v 2, 4, 6; 2nd v 1, 3, 5; 3rd v 4, 6, 2; 4th v 3, 5, 1; 5th v 6, 2, 4; 6th v 5, 1, 3) ... and the bottom 8 are divided into 2 groups of 4 in terms of fixtures (odds v odds, evens v evens). This would give a larger league, with the required 4 x old firm games, an average of 18 home games each, plenty of head-to-heads, a minimal split, and keep fixtures reasonably fair and balanced throughout. 1If these 33 games were preceded by an initial round of head-to-heads (1st v 2nd down to 13th v 14th) then there'd be a 34-game season with 4 x old firm games, bigger league, etc, with no split in the table itself required. Edited August 8, 2016 by RabidAl 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RabidAl Posted August 8, 2016 Share Posted August 8, 2016 (edited) Another way to look at the 16-team league would be to go along similar lines, playing home and away for 30 games, splitting the league 8/8, then having... 1st v 2, 4, 6, 8; 2nd v 1, 3, 5, 7; 3rd v 4, 6, 8, 2, 4th v 3, 5, 7, 1, etc ...which would give 34 games each, plenty of head-to-heads, and only 4 games post-split; but it would only give 3 x old firm games, so maybe the season could begin with a round of head-to-heads based on the previous season's finishing positions (in addition to the standard 30 games of home and away fixtures) to give a total of 35 games and 17-18 home matches each. This total could also be achieved without a split in the league table by grouping the fixtures reasonably fairly into 4, where 1st would play 5th, 9th, 13th; 2nd would play 6th, 10th and 14th; and so on - after game 31 (if the season began with head-to-heads based on the previous season's finishing positions, 1st v 2nd down to 15th v 16th). Edited August 8, 2016 by RabidAl 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy48 Posted August 14, 2016 Share Posted August 14, 2016 Take a leaf from Norway and Sweden 2 leagues then regionals. We are a small country.Not a fan of playoffs where you could be promoted or relegated by a penalty kick 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdTheDuck Posted August 15, 2016 Share Posted August 15, 2016 Is it really the case that those opposed to playoffs think that football is ‘too important’ to be decided by a penalty shoot-out? It really isn’t, it’s a sport and as such it should be looking for any way to increase the tension and drama that might attract more fans not find ever more boring ways to drive them away… …having said that, after a 30-odd game 9 month season regardless of the fact teams know the playoffs are coming, it is a wee bit harsh that a team who finished 20 points ahead of another might be KO’d from promotion because half their team is injured. The playoffs should be between 2nd and 9th (11th in the Prem). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tamba_trio Posted August 15, 2016 Share Posted August 15, 2016 5 hours ago, EdTheDuck said: Is it really the case that those opposed to playoffs think that football is ‘too important’ to be decided by a penalty shoot-out? It really isn’t, it’s a sport and as such it should be looking for any way to increase the tension and drama that might attract more fans not find ever more boring ways to drive them away… …having said that, after a 30-odd game 9 month season regardless of the fact teams know the playoffs are coming, it is a wee bit harsh that a team who finished 20 points ahead of another might be KO’d from promotion because half their team is injured. The playoffs should be between 2nd and 9th (11th in the Prem). I've two problems with the current playoffs: 1 - The league structure isn't set up for it. Playoffs offer a chance to have the season asymmetrical and to vary fixtures. We don't take advantage of that. 2 - Two legged ties don't offer much of an advantage to the higher up team. A one off game at the home ground of the higher finished team would be better. And I wouldn't really have a problem with playoffs for the top of the table as well. Currently, if you're team wins the league easily they might not have a proper competitive match for the last few months of the season, whilst the poorer teams have some thrilling games and much more excitement. I'd rather the best teams were the ones involved in the final matches of the season. Also, if you are 20+ points clear you'd get to rest players and - in my scenario - you'd be getting home advantage too (it could even be like the AFL where the top teams get two chances to get through to the final). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdTheDuck Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 17 hours ago, tamba_trio said: I've two problems with the current playoffs: 1 - The league structure isn't set up for it. Playoffs offer a chance to have the season asymmetrical and to vary fixtures. We don't take advantage of that. 2 - Two legged ties don't offer much of an advantage to the higher up team. A one off game at the home ground of the higher finished team would be better. And I wouldn't really have a problem with playoffs for the top of the table as well. Currently, if you're team wins the league easily they might not have a proper competitive match for the last few months of the season, whilst the poorer teams have some thrilling games and much more excitement. I'd rather the best teams were the ones involved in the final matches of the season. Also, if you are 20+ points clear you'd get to rest players and - in my scenario - you'd be getting home advantage too (it could even be like the AFL where the top teams get two chances to get through to the final). Even the yanks recognise the ‘best team over the season’ with the Supporters’ Shield and a place in the CONCACAF Champions League, but that might offer a way to incorporate some form of play offs and appease You Know Who… The “best team over the season” get the UCL spot and “second best team over the season” get the top league EL spot; the playoff winner get the accolade of Champion, the trophy and a spot in the EL (unless, of course it’s either “the best” or “second best” team in the league in which case the 2nd EL spot goes to “third best team overall”). It offers all sorts of possibilities; bigger league, Winter League/Spring League and so on and so forth… …then again 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tamba_trio Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 55 minutes ago, EdTheDuck said: Even the yanks recognise the ‘best team over the season’ with the Supporters’ Shield and a place in the CONCACAF Champions League, but that might offer a way to incorporate some form of play offs and appease You Know Who… The “best team over the season” get the UCL spot and “second best team over the season” get the top league EL spot; the playoff winner get the accolade of Champion, the trophy and a spot in the EL (unless, of course it’s either “the best” or “second best” team in the league in which case the 2nd EL spot goes to “third best team overall”). It offers all sorts of possibilities; bigger league, Winter League/Spring League and so on and so forth… …then again Yes, the CL spot going to the top points total might appease the Old Firm and stop the average supporter from having a rupture. I like the idea of the best team in the league losing the Championship because of a dodgy last minute goal (see the 2007 New England Patriots...) but I'm in the minority. The A-league also does that with the CL spot. I've came around to the idea of summer football. Albeit, it's not really summer but a March - December league. The reason isn't a quest for glorious weather, but purely because there's no European or International games between the start of December and middle of February (and even the Feb ones are only for the top sides still in Europe). It'd give all our players at least a month without football, so we avoid the stupid situation of players going from league season - Euros - European qualifiers - league season without time to breathe. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tamba_trio Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 Of course, we are not mentioning the real problem with Scottish football: Finances. Being humped eternally because the opposition has a budget 10 times bigger than you is never going to be attractive to supporters. TV Money: Split equally Prize Money: Split equally Gate Money: 50% to the home team, 50% split amongst the league European Prize Money: 50% to the team earning it, 50% to the rest of the league (seeing as the league is nice enough to re-arrange fixtures around European games) Celtic and Rangers would still have budgets 3 or 4 times bigger than everyone else, but it'd level things a little bit. Other sides would start to have a chance. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fiferjon Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 AS a said in an a different thread THE FROST. REPORT 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdTheDuck Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 9 hours ago, tamba_trio said: Of course, we are not mentioning the real problem with Scottish football: Finances. Being humped eternally because the opposition has a budget 10 times bigger than you is never going to be attractive to supporters. TV Money: Split equally Prize Money: Split equally Gate Money: 50% to the home team, 50% split amongst the league European Prize Money: 50% to the team earning it, 50% to the rest of the league (seeing as the league is nice enough to re-arrange fixtures around European games) Celtic and Rangers would still have budgets 3 or 4 times bigger than everyone else, but it'd level things a little bit. Other sides would start to have a chance. You'll be wanting the moon on a stick to go with that... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tamba_trio Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 I know. Truth is I'm fed up. I'm a Celtic fan: I get to watch us play teams with a tenth of our budget 34 times a year. Yay. Imagine the excitement in winning against such odds... When Rangers went bust in 2012, it was immediately obvious the SPL had no idea how to market the league beyond the old firm. They had 4 years to fix it, instead they've doubled down on the old firm again. If Rangers were to go bust again (which isn't unthinkable, they're hardly paragons of frugality) they'd repeat the same steps as 2012, but probably ignore the fan backlash when Rangers 3.0 get placed straight into the Premiership. Celtic are only as strong as the league they play in. If the league is strong, they will benefit too. If the league is the most financially unequal in professional sports, you get a TV deal like ours and loads of kids in English teams strips. The NFL figured this out in the 60s when they convinced the New York Giants that collective bargaining would benefit them in the long term. The result was a sport which was a distant second to baseball now gets half the country watching it on TV. It dominates the US. At the moment Scottish football is a distant second to English football here in Scotland, and I'd like to think that could change one day. I know, it's not going to happen. I just like pretending that one day Aberdeen or Hibs or someone will realise they've tens of thousands of fans and they can stop letting the old firm bully them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdTheDuck Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 You are absolutely right, of course, and Doncaster’s recent bout of foot-in-mouth where he completely disrespected every other club in Scotland mirror your thoughts perfectly; his words should be written on a plaque and nailed to his forehead as a warning to future chief executives. Sky confirm it too with their recent adverts, it’s as if the last four years didn’t happen, the Only Show in Town is on and everything else is background noise that can be safely tuned out. And of course nothing is going to change; there’ll be no revenue sharing or playoffs or Winter/Spring Leagues or any of the other things that could make our football more interesting because it isn’t in the interests of the old firm to change anything and there enough clubs whose ambitions seem to start and end with 4 visits from the old firm and 3rd in the league. Now don’t get me wrong, the spread of cup wins over the last 4 years has been great and long may it continue and our attendances are actually very good; however, that is no reason not to try and make things a better sell for TV or getting full houses at more clubs more often. TBH I really don’t think there’s a secret army of fans out there just waiting for the right conditions to come along and they’ll be down at the football every weekend. The best you can IMO do is create a situation where there are games that will fill grounds or attract big crowds more often. But we won’t… 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
effeffsee_the2nd Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 Agree with alot of this. Just mind were not the worst for tv money, that would be spain. Real and barca get about a third each with the other 3rd spread between the other 18 a fact that makes athleticos success almost beyond comprehension if it werent for their eye watering debt but im getting sidetracked.Your not going to get wealth re distribution. Even tv money only works if tv games are split evenly between clubs. Clubs wont agree to splitting their gates . Just not going to happen.Something i think we can all agree on here tho. It is true in any league that the top clubs have players that arent even on the bench that would walk into the starting 11 of other teams. Perhaps youv got to look at maximum numbers of players a club can have under contract at any one time. After all from a fans , media and entertainment point of view it cant be a good thing having better players in the stand than on the park. This would have to come f4om the very top or clubs in other countrys will just carry on as before . I think it would make better football accross the world. Instead of big teams cruising to an easy 4-0 they have to fight hard and play there best. And shock horror lose a bit more oftenSocialism in one country doesnt work tho 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RabidAl Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 (edited) In order to develop and progress the game in Scotland we need to look at the SFA taking control of all of grass-roots football, integrating the amateur, junior and senior non-league pyramid right up to and including a national, semi-professional Conference. This would leave the SPFL to deal with a 2 tier professional game that encompassed all 22 full-time clubs and a further 6 part-time/hybrid clubs (who would be able to use this platform to develop towards full-time football), with the remaining clubs (from current League One level down to amateur) coming under the aegis of the SFA for league matters... SPFL Premiership Tier 1 I SPFL Championship Tier 2 I League -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- SFA Conference Tier 3 Non-League I I I I SFA West Tiers 4 & 5 SFA North Tiers 4 & 5 SFA East Tiers 4 & 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I South6 Ayrshire6 Central6 North6 West6 East6 Angus6 Fife6 Lothian6 (SoSFL) (Clyde valley) (NCL) (Abdnshire) & Tay & Forth & Borders League (14-14- ) SPFL Premiership: expanded to 14 teams; but still with 4x old firm games - see the past two pages of this thread for possible formats; 2 automatically relegated to Championship; 1 automatically promoted to Premiership, with Championship play-offs for the second promotion place. SPFL Championship: expanded to 14 teams; including 6 semi-pro teams as a 'landing strip' to progress to fully professional; 2 automatically relegated to Conference; 1 automatically promoted to Championship, with Conference play-offs for the second promotion place. Non-League ( -18-West/North/East) SFA Conference: 14-18 teams; jointly subsidised by SPFL & SFA to at least current levels, since part-time clubs cannot afford to play on a national basis without subsidy; including a Scottish Youth team (under 18s), with our best youths each year on 'loan' to the SFA, based at Oriam and training full-time to develop skills and tactical awareness (the 'Scotland Way') and playing away league and cup matches every weekend. SFA National-Regional Pyramid Play-Offs: bottom team of Conference is automatically relegated; second bottom of Conference and the three regional league winners are drawn into two Pyramid finals, with the 2 winners taking their places in the Conference the following season. SFA West, North and East regions: East Region incorporates all remaining clubs from Angus, Tayside, Fife, Lothians, Borders, and Forth (which is Stirling, Clackmannan and Falkirk); North Region includes all clubs to the north of this East Region; West Region includes all clubs to the west of the East Region; this gives about a one-fifth (North), two-fifths (East) two-fifths (West) split, which is reasonably even when the geographical limitations of travelling in the North/Highland region are considered; each Region could also include a regional youth side to develop players from that area. SFA East Region: two tiers of 16 teams, with licenced seniors of east & central Lowland League clubs and juniors East Super League clubs taking precedence; the region then sub-divides into Angus & Tay, Fife & Forth, Lothian & Borders districts, which then divide into local, amateur leagues. SFA West Region: two tiers of 16 teams, with licenced seniors of west & south Lowland League clubs and juniors West Super League clubs taking precedence, then West Premier Division clubs; the region then sub-divides into South (current South of Scotland League), Ayrshire, and Central (Clyde valley; could be east/west split, or two divisions) districts, which then divide into local, amateur leagues. SFA North Region: two tiers of 16 teams, with licenced seniors of Highland League in the upper tier and the remaining Highland League clubs plus the juniors North Super League in the second tier; the region then sub-divides into North (North Caledonian League), West (Moray and Inverness), East (Aberdeenshire), which then divide into local, amateur leagues. Scottish Cup, League Cup and Challenge Cup formats for this structure can be found on the other long-winded post near the foot of the following thread: Edited August 24, 2016 by RabidAl 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RabidAl Posted August 26, 2016 Share Posted August 26, 2016 (edited) ...however, the most cost-effective way for the best semi-pro clubs to operate might be to replace the large, 18-team national conference at the third tier with 3 small, 8-team regional (West, North and East) conferences at that level. If teams were to play each team in their own conference both at home and away (14 games) in the latter part of the season, and play each team in the other conferences either at home or away in the earlier part of the season (16 games), it would get the longest away trips out of the way before the worst of the winter weather and would see local head-to-head matches for the promotion place(s) at the end of the season (30 games in total)*. For teams in each conference there would be a maximum of 4 of the longest (north to south) away trips each season since teams would only play away to 4 teams from each of the other conferences, which would be a comfort to clubs who aren't keen to play part-time on a national basis. Conferences operating in this way would also be a good bridge between regional and national football, keeping travel costs to a minimum whilst providing a good number of games on a national basis. Realistically, semi-pro clubs need to compete within their region/across a smaller area right up until the point that they can be promoted to playing against full-time opposition (with higher revenues from larger away supports) to be viable, unless they are subsidised beyond the current levels seen in tiers 3 and 4. * 9-team conferences operating on the same basis would give a 34-game season; 10-team conferences on the same basis would give a 38-game season. Possible pyramid: SPFL Premiership 14 teams I (national, professional game) SPFL Championship 14 teams I I I I (regional, semi-pro) SFA Conference West 8-10 teams SFA Conference North 8-10 teams SFA Conference East 8-10 teams I I I West of Scotland Premier16 teams Highland Football League16 teams East of Scotland Premier16 teams I I I West First Division16 teams Highland First Division16 teams East First Division16 teams I I I I I I I I I I I I (district, amateur) South Ayrshire Central North West East Angus Fife Lothian (SoSFL) (Clyde valley) (NCL) (Abdnshire) & Tay & Forth & Borders I I I I I I I I I <------------------------------------------------------- Local, amateur leagues ----------------------------------------------------------------> (local, amateur) Edit/notes: 1) Promotion from the conferences could be by way of the conference winner with the most points being promoted automatically, with the two other conference winners playing off for the second promotion place (assuming two teams would be automatically relegated from the Championship). This would generate a good degree of cross-conference competition and excitement for supporters to see which team would reach the highest points total by the season's end, whilst giving the other two conference winners a fair shot at promotion. Or, the conference champions that have the highest points total could play off for one promotion place (in Final A), against the winner of a play off semi-final between the other two conferences' runners-up (in Semi-Final A); and the conference champions that have the second-highest points total could play off for the other promotion place (in Final B), against the winner of a play off semi-final between the lowest-scoring conference champions and the remaining conference runners-up (Semi-Final B). In this way, making the top two places in each conference worth something would keep the conferences more interesting through to the season's end. 2) In the event that the juniors were not interested in this set up, teams from the Forth area (Falkirk, Clackmannan, Stirling) would participate in the West region to strengthen the numbers. 3) It may be more cost-effective for the conference system overall if the Angus clubs participated in the North section, thereby reducing journey times for the majority of clubs. Edited August 30, 2016 by RabidAl 0 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.