Post split fixtures

[Guest JTS98]

I think a system like they use in Israel could work for Scotland. Rather than explain it all, I'll just let you have a look for yourself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017–18_Israeli_Premier_League

In short, it has fourteen teams, so is a slight enlargement of the division. This would open the door to more promotion relegation (2 up/down plus a play-off?) and keeps the excitement generated by clubs finishing the season playing those around them.

I think it's a decent set-up.

 

[frankthetank22]

10 hours ago, RandomGuy. said:

Your last two sentences would be extended in a larger league, as there would be weaker teams in it, so right now we'd have had meaningless games for the past month.

I dont even know what "the league would find its level" even means.

Why would they be weaker, it's not as if promoted teams go straight back down again?

What is a meaningless game, everyone of my teams games means something to me, always has done. 

[topcat(The most tip top)]

I tend to pick and choose my away games now but rarely going to the same away ground twice. Fir Park and Easter Road have been the only two grounds I've made twice for exceptional reasons.
Each to their own, but I don't find it as appealing as I used to; having that season in the championship was great for variation. It could also be because I'm a miserable git.

An occupational hazard of being a miserable git is that the grass always looks greener on the other side

If we upped the ratio of our games that are against small town outfits who it would be embarrassing to lose against then we’d obviously win a larger number of games over the longer term.

which would be nice

but we’d also have more embarrassing defeats and less big wins in games where failure wouldn’t have been a surprise

Which would be irritating

And that’s the trade off.

I like that we had a second stab at beating Aberdeen in Edinburgh as opposed to a visit from Inverness

But that’s a subjective preference

[10menwent2mow]

Some of the suggestions are bonkers. Any sort of Playoff for European places I’d be dead against, you finish where you deserve to in the league and that should be rewarded with a European spot or not based on that. Also, our teams are back in European action soon enough as it is, extending the season further so they have even less time between the end of the season and European qualifiers would only further hinder the chances of teams progressing in Europe.

[forameus]

Sounds like the same old cry of "this doesn't work, so something different will work", when it could just as well be worse.

From my perspective, I'm not sure I'd change much at all with the way the league is setup.  It's not perfect by any means, but I'm not convinced there's a solution out there that doesn't have an "aye, but..." element to it.  Am I the only one that actually likes the split?  Particularly when we've had fierce relegation battles, playing the sides around you ends up making for a far more exciting end to the season for the neutral, surely?  

If we're going to change anything, just go fucking mental and throw in MLS style chaos.  Playoffs, playoffs, playoffs.  A relegation playoff involving the sides in 11th and 10th.  A Championship playoff involving everyone else, with a wildcard thrown in for the side in 12th for no real reason.  Drafts.  Ceremonial coin-tosses.  Mascots leading the charge of the sides through columns of fire.  Tailgate parties.  Bros.  Franchises.  

Fucking brilliant.

EDIT: There was a BBC article on the fixtures that they'd inexplicably opened to their absolutely rotten "Have Your Say".  Any Scottish article usually descends into the whole "yer Nan" debate, with sprinklings of the usual terrible trolls and Old Firm fans.  But one comment really stuck out, and it claimed that the split was dreadful because it didn't generate any excitement, and it left the teams in 5th and 6th playing nothing games.  Now I get some criticisms of the split, particularly the one about 7th ending up with more points than 6th (even though I think it's a poor point to use), but if you're going to pick a point against it, at least pick one that isn't demonstrably moronic.  If we didn't have the split, the sides at the bottom would have less winnable games, and would likely just end their season on a whimper, rather than the cut-each-others-throats nature of the games they now have.  The sides at the top also have that, but to a lesser extent.  What part of not having the split would lead to the mid-table teams having anything to play for?  Does them having a scheduled match against Celtic rather than, say, St Johnstone really lead to a change in fortunes?  The thrust of the point appeared to be that the sides at the bottom should be looking forward to these mythical giant-killings by playing the top teams, rather than, more likely, getting ridden (at least in Thistle's case).  Nah, you're alright pal.

[topcat(The most tip top)]

10 minutes ago, forameus said:

Sounds like the same old cry of "this doesn't work, so something different will work", when it could just as well be worse.

From my perspective, I'm not sure I'd change much at all with the way the league is setup.  It's not perfect by any means, but I'm not convinced there's a solution out there that doesn't have an "aye, but..." element to it.  Am I the only one that actually likes the split?  Particularly when we've had fierce relegation battles, playing the sides around you ends up making for a far more exciting end to the season for the neutral, surely?  

If we're going to change anything, just go fucking mental and throw in MLS style chaos.  Playoffs, playoffs, playoffs.  A relegation playoff involving the sides in 11th and 10th.  A Championship playoff involving everyone else, with a wildcard thrown in for the side in 12th for no real reason.  Drafts.  Ceremonial coin-tosses.  Mascots leading the charge of the sides through columns of fire.  Tailgate parties.  Bros.  Franchises.  

Fucking brilliant.

EDIT: There was a BBC article on the fixtures that they'd inexplicably opened to their absolutely rotten "Have Your Say".  Any Scottish article usually descends into the whole "yer Nan" debate, with sprinklings of the usual terrible trolls and Old Firm fans.  But one comment really stuck out, and it claimed that the split was dreadful because it didn't generate any excitement, and it left the teams in 5th and 6th playing nothing games.  Now I get some criticisms of the split, particularly the one about 7th ending up with more points than 6th (even though I think it's a poor point to use), but if you're going to pick a point against it, at least pick one that isn't demonstrably moronic.  If we didn't have the split, the sides at the bottom would have less winnable games, and would likely just end their season on a whimper, rather than the cut-each-others-throats nature of the games they now have.  The sides at the top also have that, but to a lesser extent.  What part of not having the split would lead to the mid-table teams having anything to play for?  Does them having a scheduled match against Celtic rather than, say, St Johnstone really lead to a change in fortunes?  The thrust of the point appeared to be that the sides at the bottom should be looking forward to these mythical giant-killings by playing the top teams, rather than, more likely, getting ridden (at least in Thistle's case).  Nah, you're alright pal.

One of the many problems with the Bible  is that it doesn't mention all the times Goliath kicked seven shades of shit out of cheeky shepherd boys who thought they were hard before eventually one got a lucky shot in and fluked a victory.

[Green Day]

16 hours ago, bennett said:

Kilmarnocks statement says it all

...and sporting fairness

Integrity.........above all else

[forameus]

28 minutes ago, topcat(The most tip top) said:

One of the many problems with the Bible  is that it doesn't mention all the times Goliath kicked seven shades of shit out of cheeky shepherd boys who thought they were hard before eventually one got a lucky shot in and fluked a victory.

The Bible needed a strong David.

[the jambo-rocker]

3 hours ago, topcat(The most tip top) said:

 

An occupational hazard of being a miserable git is that the grass always looks greener on the other side

If we upped the ratio of our games that are against small town outfits who it would be embarrassing to lose against then we’d obviously win a larger number of games over the longer term.

which would be nice

but we’d also have more embarrassing defeats and less big wins in games where failure wouldn’t have been a surprise

Which would be irritating

And that’s the trade off.

I like that we had a second stab at beating Aberdeen in Edinburgh as opposed to a visit from Inverness

But that’s a subjective preference

 

An away day on the train to Inverness over the sheep stinking out my local hovel Stratties would my subjective preference tbqh.

[Nightmare]

6 hours ago, JTS98 said:

I think a system like they use in Israel could work for Scotland. Rather than explain it all, I'll just let you have a look for yourself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017–18_Israeli_Premier_League

In short, it has fourteen teams, so is a slight enlargement of the division. This would open the door to more promotion relegation (2 up/down plus a play-off?) and keeps the excitement generated by clubs finishing the season playing those around them.

I think it's a decent set-up.

 

Denmark and Bulgaria have 14 as well. I wouldn’t mind following any of these 14-team formats, as nothing at the top really changes (big teams still get their 4x fixtures) and it would create slightly more variety for the rest of us.

But I don’t see a change happening any time soon. The current system seems to be working pretty well. Very few “meaningless” games with lots to play for most seasons since it’s been in this current format.

[Thistle_do_nicely]

2 hours ago, forameus said:

Sounds like the same old cry of "this doesn't work, so something different will work", when it could just as well be worse.

From my perspective, I'm not sure I'd change much at all with the way the league is setup.  It's not perfect by any means, but I'm not convinced there's a solution out there that doesn't have an "aye, but..." element to it.  Am I the only one that actually likes the split?  Particularly when we've had fierce relegation battles, playing the sides around you ends up making for a far more exciting end to the season for the neutral, surely?  

If we're going to change anything, just go fucking mental and throw in MLS style chaos.  Playoffs, playoffs, playoffs.  A relegation playoff involving the sides in 11th and 10th.  A Championship playoff involving everyone else, with a wildcard thrown in for the side in 12th for no real reason.  Drafts.  Ceremonial coin-tosses.  Mascots leading the charge of the sides through columns of fire.  Tailgate parties.  Bros.  Franchises.  

Fucking brilliant.

EDIT: There was a BBC article on the fixtures that they'd inexplicably opened to their absolutely rotten "Have Your Say".  Any Scottish article usually descends into the whole "yer Nan" debate, with sprinklings of the usual terrible trolls and Old Firm fans.  But one comment really stuck out, and it claimed that the split was dreadful because it didn't generate any excitement, and it left the teams in 5th and 6th playing nothing games.  Now I get some criticisms of the split, particularly the one about 7th ending up with more points than 6th (even though I think it's a poor point to use), but if you're going to pick a point against it, at least pick one that isn't demonstrably moronic.  If we didn't have the split, the sides at the bottom would have less winnable games, and would likely just end their season on a whimper, rather than the cut-each-others-throats nature of the games they now have.  The sides at the top also have that, but to a lesser extent.  What part of not having the split would lead to the mid-table teams having anything to play for?  Does them having a scheduled match against Celtic rather than, say, St Johnstone really lead to a change in fortunes?  The thrust of the point appeared to be that the sides at the bottom should be looking forward to these mythical giant-killings by playing the top teams, rather than, more likely, getting ridden (at least in Thistle's case).  Nah, you're alright pal.

Pretty firmly in agreement with this.

I would say that options like playing about with the bands for prize money for each league position in the system we've already got would be a better start than going mental and planning for an 8 team system (which would remove 33% of the clubs from the league) or going all the way with our cringetastic copying of the naming conventions in the English league structure and having 20 teams.

[topcat(The most tip top)]

Denmark and Bulgaria have 14 as well. I wouldn’t mind following any of these 14-team formats, as nothing at the top really changes (big teams still get their 4x fixtures) and it would create slightly more variety for the rest of us.
But I don’t see a change happening any time soon. The current system seems to be working pretty well. Very few “meaningless” games with lots to play for most seasons since it’s been in this current format.

the current level of moaning and bitching about the SPFL playoffs would be nothing compared to a system where finishing 10th still have you a shot at Europe football

[JamesM82]

26 minutes ago, Thistle_do_nicely said:

Pretty firmly in agreement with this.

I would say that options like playing about with the bands for prize money for each league position in the system we've already got would be a better start than going mental and planning for an 8 team system (which would remove 33% of the clubs from the league) or going all the way with our cringetastic copying of the naming conventions in the English league structure and having 20 teams.

I think to a large extent that this has already happened, as the distribution was made a lot fairer when the leagues merged.

Before then the top two positions in the SPL got by the far biggest amounts, with a massive drop down to 3rd place. I could be wrong in saying this, but I think the gap between 2nd and 3rd was bigger than 1st and 2nd. Pretty obvious who that was pandering to.

[Fuctifano]

I'm sure in one of those mental splits with a dozen playoff leagues like Denmark or Belgium there was a disincentive for a team to do well, can't quite remember what it was but it didn't surprise me. Maybe finishing bottom half to get a better shot at Europa League than finishing bottom of the top half? 

[JamesM82]

1 minute ago, Fuctifano said:

I'm sure in one of those mental splits with a dozen playoff leagues like Denmark or Belgium there was a disincentive for a team to do well, can't quite remember what it was but it didn't surprise me. Maybe finishing bottom half to get a better shot at Europa League than finishing bottom of the top half? 

There's a danger of that with the Nations League. It offers a guaranteed qualifying spot for the Euros from each of the four tiers, i.e. whichever country wins the bottom tier, which is mostly filled by San Marino et al, will qualify. So it may be in the interests of poor-to-middling sides (us???) to fall into the fourth tier.

The highest ranked teams in that tier this time are Azerbaijan, Macedonia, Belarus and Georgia (i.e. someone of that ilk will qualify for Euro 2020).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018–19_UEFA_Nations_League_D

[kbp1960]

On 11/04/2018 at 20:02, craigkillie said:

Why wouldn't we have a trip to Easter Road?  We've only been there once this season.  And not having a TV game is a good thing, if anything, since TV games tend to have lower attendances.

So? When we get the 1,600 tickets for Easter Road that it appears, no-one else will be able to watch the game live. TV games don't need to be at home.

[Aim Here]

20 minutes ago, kbp1960 said:

So? When we get the 1,600 tickets for Easter Road that it appears, no-one else will be able to watch the game live. TV games don't need to be at home.

Gads, you're Killie. If the size of your home gate is anything to go by, your support base mostly shows up to away games, which is to be commended. There won't be anyone left at home to watch the game on telly.

Just come to Edinburgh and watch the damn game like everyone else, ya muppet. Make a day of it - tea and scones at Jenners and make faces at the miserable pandas in the zoo, or whatever it is you small-town folks do when you get into the big city. If the tickets sell out (and that's not unlikely), pester the ticket office to get yourselves a bigger allocation. I'll be rooting for you - if we up the Kilmarnock allocation while simultaneously cutting the Rangers game a fortnight later, the mass-seethe on RangersMedia will be an absolute joy to behold.

[kbp1960]

3 minutes ago, Aim Here said:

Gads, you're Killie. If the size of your home gate is anything to go by, your support base mostly shows up to away games, which is to be commended. There won't be anyone left at home to watch the game on telly.

Just come to Edinburgh and watch the damn game like everyone else, ya muppet. Make a day of it - tea and scones at Jenners and make faces at the miserable pandas in the zoo, or whatever it is you small-town folks do when you get into the big city. If the tickets sell out (and that's not unlikely), pester the ticket office to get yourselves a bigger allocation. I'll be rooting for you - if we up the Kilmarnock allocation while simultaneously cutting the Rangers game a fortnight later, the mass-seethe on RangersMedia will be an absolute joy to behold.

Yeah, I will be there, I always am, my most recent favourite was when Boydie pointed you in the direction of Hamilton and they did the rest!

But you are a big team now, employing odious cretins like Neil Lennon, even rumours that Celtic will lie down this weekend so their wee pal can chase the ***, the only way you lot will up the allocation for us is if, as is likely, the expectation that the home support will turn up doesn't happen, at least Hearts can fill their place.

[Aim Here]

Righto - the home support might not turn up so hard for you guys. We don't have cat B season tickets for the South Stand, so it's all walk-ups, and if the more casual fans have only budgeted for one or two of the three home games, your game will be the one they're least likely to show up to.

Whereas it's a dead certainty that the Rangers game will sell out, it's only a question of whether the home demand is high enough for it to be worth chopping the away end in two.

[Poet of the Macabre]

I think the only way you'd ever get an 18-team league to work would be if the TV companies paid clubs enough for them to be ok with the loss of a couple of home games.

Seeing as they'd be losing a couple of OF games, I don't think that's very likely.