RabidAl

Well, according to surveys of fans published in 2013* and 2016**, 54-62% of supporters favour 3 professional tiers and 51% favour a 16-team top league, so you seem to be in agreement with the majority there. The idea of colt teams tends to be deeply unpopular around here (possibly because it's often conflated with the idea of B teams) although I don't know whether it has ever been surveyed or tested more widely in Scottish football. It might depend upon why you want to introduce colt teams and whether you would be prepared to see competition at lower levels potentially being distorted by their introduction. * ** http://www.scottishsupporters.net/survey/2016-2/

Or Ross County and Inverness coming through? Not quite the same thing, maybe. Would an East Kilbride or Cumbernauld, with their populations as a potential fan base, go on to sustain full-time football if they made it into the League? A flatter pyramid with fewer layers could give more opportunity to potential full-time clubs to come through, and could also allow part-time clubs and part-time players a better opportunity of playing at a higher level against better opposition. My premise is that having more full-time clubs is desirable if it they have the fan base to support it, so more full-time clubs would demonstrate the health of the game in terms of more supporters through the gate. I think that would be fine, although something like 14-14-West/North/East might give a better balance. Teams playing each other 3 times to give 39 games per league season would give an extra half home game per season in the top tier than at present, to compensate for the loss of a home game against a member of the Old Firm (loss of bigger travelling support); whilst the additional one-and-a-half home games in tier 2 would compensate for fewer games against full timers/more against part timers than at present. The reduction from 42 to 28 League clubs would also help to replace any lost revenue, with about 5-6 places in tier 2 being available for sides promoted from the regions to consolidate in. The Old Firm could play their third fixture at Hampden to prevent any squabbles; places 3-6 in the top tier could play off for a Europa League place; 12th could play off with 3rd-5th in tier 2 for promotion, with 13th-14th being relegated/1st-2nd promoted; fixtures could be reversed every season for fairness, with tier 2 winners taking over the fixtures of 14th from the season before, etc; 14th from tier 2 could be automatically relegated, with 13th being drawn into 2 play-off 'finals' with the winners of each of 3 regions for the 2 places available in tier 2; the top tier of each region could be kept interesting with League Cup places for the following season made available for the top few sides, with licencing perhaps being a bar to entry to this tier 3 level; the Challenge Cup could also effectively take over from the Junior Scottish, with regional sides competing at a national level in this cup competition.

Right, but (if I remember my education) the loss of finance of moving to 16-16-R for some current full time, tier 2 clubs might produce the ironic outcome of fewer clubs being able to sustain full-time football, the argument being that they need the larger away supports of other full-time clubs twice per league season in order sustain themselves. So it could depend upon how the fixtures of the 16-team tier 2 were structured, such as with an 8/8 split; it might be too big a leap from where we are now to that set-up unless the SPFL structures its prize money differently, although the move from 42 clubs overall to 32 would free up some resources. I believe, though I can't prove it, that part-time clubs would benefit from playing in regions up until the point that promotion would see them mostly playing full-time clubs at the national level. The larger travelling supports of full-time clubs and SPFL prize money/subsidy would help them maintain football playing on a national basis, and perhaps even go full-time (with SFA subsidy to 'blood' youngsters?) if the league was large enough for them to develop - without being certainties for immediate relegation. The larger local travelling supports of playing at regional level and increased frequency of local rather than national travel to matches could give a sustainable football model at that level. I think integrated (juniors, seniors) regional football at tier 3 of the game would thrive. It's subsidising the part-time game at national level that doesn't make sense to me. But, heuristics and biases.

My understanding was that Ayr were operating a hybrid model last season, with a core of full-timers surrounded by part-timers. Possibly not though. Seems an odd way to go about it - part-time in the higher division, then full-time in the lower division. They may have thought it was pointless going full-time in the Championship as there was such a high probability of being relegated again, so remained part-time out of a sort of fatalism or sort of winging it on the off-chance of staying up and then consolidating. Which indicates that tier 2 is too wee at the moment to allow clubs to reasonably build for the future without fear of immediate relegation.

Right, and I take it the same thing applies in the second half of the season for those aiming for a Europa League place - i.e. that if you qualify for a EL play-off in the first half-season, then in the second half-season you do have something to play for since you're aiming to repeat the feat - 'defending' your place, sort-of - in order that you don't have to face a play-off at the season's end. And there's always a chance that you do better, winning the second half-season and qualifying for a "championship" play-off. And if you miss out first time round, then there's something to play for in part II. I'm a bit hard of understanding, but that sounds superb. ------ Er, I thought of another possibility regarding how the development of youths fits with the number of full-time clubs, whether being loaned to part-timers helps their game, etc. Maybe they could continue to be loaned out to part-time clubs, who pay that portion of their wages, with them playing competitive football at weekends, and also training Tuesday and Thursday nights as normal, but... ...the SFA also paying them (16-19 year olds) an apprentice wage, requiring them to train weekdays with their peers at a regional or national centre, such as Oriam, so that they continue to develop their games, and build on-field relationships with their peers to help towards the future national team. Sorry, a bit off topic. I'll go away now.

Quite possibly. The results are purely hypothetical, although the methodology was applied consistently to the facts and so should be a decent guide to what was going across the seasons. I still like the closura/apertura idea (or whatever it's called), but I can't recall what the motivation is for teams in the second 'season' who have already qualified for play-offs via the first season. Otherwise, it would be a decent way to have a larger top tier and less repetition of fixtures except during the play-offs, which always seem to add something. ----- In terms of the other debate about the number of part-time clubs that should be playing at a national level, I think it would be to the benefit of the game if more investment was made by the SPFL and SFA in helping more clubs to become full-time. My reasoning is that our youths need to play genuinely competitive football alongside senior pros week-in, week-out in order to develop (and so reserve team football or sitting on the bench at top level clubs will not help them), and our youths also need to train full-time in order to continuously improve (and so going on loan to part-timers will not help them much). Given this, we really need more full-time clubs in order for more youths to be given the chance to continue developing their skills, both in training full-time and in applying them in meaningful competition at the weekends. (Because of this, I think 'Project Brave' isn't likely to be the answer.) I think Airdrie might have tried this sort of model - full-time, but with youths - last season. Anyhow, one means of helping more clubs to be full-time would be to reduce the number of part-timers currently being subsidised by the SPFL to play at a national level; the funds saved could be used to support more full-time clubs at a national level, and the SFA would also have an interest in supplying funding that would help support the development of youths in this way. Or not.

Meant to say that the investigation in the attachment used the actual league points/positions from the SPFL Archive, every post-war season, then upgrading them with 3 points/win, and taken over a 38 game season. There was a correlation between the best non-OF closing the gap and seasons in which they played the OF only 4 times per season. To find out if there was causation here (i.e. fewer games vs OF/other rivals actually causing the closing of the gap & higher points totals for the best non-OF), there were two historical examples available in which the impact of a change in resources or other factors could be stripped out: namely, from 1975-81 and from 2012-16. On the first occasion, the change from 18-team league to 10-team league resulted in the best non-OF team closing the gap and earning more points, in the range highlighted in bold above. This was due to the shift to playing the OF/other key rivals twice as often. (Then, in 1981, gates were no longer shared, were retained by clubs, and so there were no further seasons for fair comparison at that time. It seems that from 1981-86, with Rangers having spent so much money on making Ibrox 40,000 all-seater, they couldn't field a decent team; it may also have been the case that retaining gate receipts was initially of benefit to the large non-OF clubs; perhaps going some way to explaining why Dundee Utd, Hearts and Aberdeen were successful in this period.) On the second occasion, Rangers went bust and so we had the best non-OF team only playing the best OF team 4 times in the season. Again, this resulted in the best non-OF team earning more points on average and closing the gap to the best OF team, highlighted above. So, it would seem from the historical evidence that a larger top tier where teams play the Old Firm and their other closest rivals on fewer occasions not only results in them scoring more points, but also leads to closer competition for the title. Also of note was the large increase in gap between the best non-OF team and the best OF team once we started using a 12-team league, 38-game season; this seems to be the least competitive of all set-ups, with the gap being much larger in this set-up than it was with 10-team, 36-game and 12-team, 44 game seasons. Possibly partly due to the best non-OF team playing the weakest teams in the league only 3 times in the current set-up rather than 4 times in the other, no-split versions of the small league, and so fewer easy points being available in the current system.

Apropos of former discussion about whether #games vs the Old Firm (or # head-to-heads in a league season) made any difference to the chance of the 'best of the rest' challenging... ...I did a wee bit of research into it and didn't really find anything conclusive (surprise); there's the inevitable attachment here, showing the best OF and best non-OF points totals in each post-war season, using 3 points/win and then multiplying the resulting points/game ratio by 38 for each OF & non-OF team to give an even comparison with today's 12 team, 38 game season. In case the attachment doesn't work, a the main result was/results were: - the best non-OF team averages 10 points more in seasons where they play the OF only 4 times, rather than 8 (general average taken from 1945-75; 2012-2016); - the best non-OF team gains 6-11 points on average and closes the gap on the best OF team by 5-10 points in seasons where they only play the OF 4 times rather than 8 times (same thing, but using a couple of specific examples to give the points range). Even if it's accurate/true, it wouldn't really mean anything other than a more sustained title challenge with a larger league, maybe larger attendances whilst the challenge lasted. There's a breakdown by league size, type (split/no-split) and pre-/post- shared gates in there also. Obviously it is proof of nothing, and there are plenty of holes to pick in it, but it kept me busy for a wee while. Points of note also: Hibs would have won the '52-'53 season under 3 points/win and Hearts would have scored a hypothetical 102 points in '57-'58. Top Tier Size & Competitiveness.xlsx

You could have an 18-team league with 35 games and play-offs for European places that would deliver the 4 old firm games needed for television money and keep an interesting mid-table... - match day 1 could be an additional fixture, of teams playing head-to-heads based on the previous season's finishing positions (1st v 2nd, 3rd v 4th...promoted v promoted, etc); - match days 2 to 35 would just be running through the home and away games against each other team as normal. Then play-offs for European places where... - the team finishing 2nd in the league plays away to 1st to decide the title (if they finished within 5% of the points total of 1st) and the Champions' League place; or, - the team finishing 2nd in the league plays away to 1st to decide the Champions' League place (if they finished within 10% of 1st). - 6th plays away to 5th, the winner plays away to 4th, and the winner plays away to 3rd (if there is only one Europa League place remaining, because a team outwith the top 6 has won the Scottish Cup) to decide who takes the final Europa League place; or, - 6th plays away to 5th, and the winner plays away to 4th, with the winner taking the final Europa League place (if 1st, 2nd or 3rd in the league has won the Scottish Cup); or, - if one of 3rd to 6th has won the Scottish Cup, then the remaining teams play off in the same manner (e.g. 6th away to 5th, with the winner playing away to 3rd, if 4th has won the Scottish Cup). In this way, there'd be plenty of meaningful head-to-heads to top and tail the season, 17-18 home league games per club, there'd be the larger league that the vast majority of supporters want, with plenty to play for (still a 'top six'), about one game per week of the biggest clubs playing each other (there would be 30 head-to-heads between Celtic, Rangers, Aberdeen, Hearts, Hibernian, and Dundee Utd in the core 34 games of the season, which would help with tv revenues) and 4x old firm games (1 head-to-head on match day 1; 2 during the course of the regular season; 1 end of season play-off) for commercial revenues. The second tier could be 18 teams also, with an integrated SFA non-league (juniors, seniors, amateurs) West, North and East regions below that; the money saved from having 35* rather than 42 League clubs could be re-distributed to the remaining clubs to help make the second tier financially viable, but there would really need to be a proper all-through model (not the lip-service to 'all-through' that we currently have) to make it work. *And it might help the development of players for the national team to have a Scotland Youth (u18s?) team competing in the second tier, where they could have the benefit of living and training full-time (which they don't have when on loan to part-time clubs) at Oriam, where they would be coached by the best that we have to improve their skills/technique and understanding of tactics (developing in the 'Scotland Way') during the week, with matches at a high level of senior football (which they don't have at full-time clubs, at that age) each weekend, playing league and cup away from home every week (which would also give their opponents an additional home match each season). And this could be further extended with regional academy teams participating in the top tier of each regional league, West, North and East, to help with development of the best players in each area every year...

That seems a fair interpretation, although I'm not sure how earned the prize money is when only one team/club can be relegated from the League in a season - i.e. all clubs will be paid regardless of performance. The point I was labouring to make, though, is that you can't really say that part-time football on a national basis is, in itself, financially viable (or 'balances the books', might be a better way of putting it) since the prize money/subsidy is a significant source of income for them. It seems to me that playing in regions would be more cost-effective for semi-pro clubs because travel costs would be lower and gate receipts would, in theory, be higher, given that there would be more matches against local part-timers (so more support that is willing to travel locally) than there would be when competing in national leagues. It would also surely be easier to recruit players since those who have other jobs to go to aren't going to want to travel the length and breadth of the country to play their football in addition to their other commitments. I think the difference for Brora had they been promoted to play in League Two last season was a rise from about 3,900 miles (when playing in the Highland League) to 7,900 miles in distance travelled, so I can see why clubs don't want to play on a national basis for anything other than one-off cup games, regional-national promotion play-offs, or to play full-timers with the extra dosh of their bigger away supports. I don't know how accurate it is, but here's a link to a website that gives an illustration of the travel costs... http://www.roadfares.com/coach-hire-prices It's worth considering that, while the current part-timers playing in the national leagues may not want to participate in regional leagues ('enforced' regionalisation, if that's the rhetoric), the remaining part-timers outwith the national leagues may be just as keen to progress as they are, but don't want to be 'forced' to play in national leagues until they can be sure that it's affordable for them.

Well, they are subsidised by League prize money to the tune of tens of thousands of pounds, so I have my doubts whether part-time football being played on a national basis is, in itself, viable; it must be pretty marginal; certainly, the juniors aren't too keen on it and Brora weren't; as ever, I'm just surmising from my impressions; my goal here is only to try to find a unified set-up that fits everyone (hence, the different pyramids sketched out above).

...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.

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:

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).

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.

...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.

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.

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!

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...

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.

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 suppose there's a more 'organic' alternative that could do away with the juniors/seniors distinction and acrimony and just give us plain old non-leaguers. It might need the Lowland and Highland leagues to act as de-facto league bodies for their entire 'regions' but, essentially, it would require: - it be mandatory that they accepted applications from any licenced club in their respective area (Angus clubs would be accepted where they applied); and - there to be no mandatory relegation from the league as a whole (i.e. the bottom division of the overall Highland or Lowland set-up). This could see a continual expansion of their membership, with the member clubs themselves deciding on the structure of the divisions - such as whether the lowlands would go for two tiers, or for an east/west split of teams - and choosing when to divide into smaller 'districts' when membership had expanded enough. It could address the issue of where clubs originally from, say, the West Super League, South of Scotland League, or even 'new' clubs like BSC Glasgow would be relegated to, since they wouldn't have to be relegated anywhere - but they could re-apply to join their former league/league body if they wished. It could also address the issue of how to sort out who would get priority from, for example, the East Super League and East of Scotland League clubs, as clubs from either could gain a licence, then apply, be automatically accepted, and then take it from there.

Realised that I hadn't answered this one...(it sounded like a trivia question?)...my guess would be Morton, Ayr or Cowden - but couldn't tell you how many or when as I've been a stranger to EEP for a long time. I think you're right insofar as the Highland/Lowland divide reflects the physical geography of our country. I suppose that, because of the Grampians being in the way for easy travel to/from the south, the 'highland' region would need to be the cornerstone of the regional system, and so the number of clubs in this area would be the basic number of clubs that a regional unit would aim to be formed from if we are to keep the pyramid broadly fair. {And the LL shows that this initial lowland/highland division has helped the 'lowland' area to achieve parity with the highlands in terms of the LL goal of strength in depth of licenced non-league clubs (22 lowland region; 20 highland region at present).} However, the total number of clubs is our proxy for the human geography - the population - of our sport. And, as any pyramid structure demands fair opportunities for progression to its participants, a proportionate split of the population - taking into consideration the size of the basic 'highland' unit - should be the rational way forward. So, if we are restructuring this summer and looking at the licenced part-time seniors (who the pyramid really affects at this moment), both league and non-league, this is most equitably achieved by a three-way divide of the licenced clubs, which would be approximately 23 west to 20 east to 22 north - rather than a lopsided 43 lowland to 22 highland. In this way, the rationale for the lowland/highland divide appears to weaken with ever more lowland clubs becoming licenced - which is inevitable given their greater numbers overall - and the rationale also strengthens for a three-way split with any potential restructuring of tiers 3 and 4. Unless, that is, we want clubs piling up in the bloated divisions of a lowland region, with a relatively sparse highland region, and requiring some contorted promotion system to guarantee that an even number of clubs come from east, west, central regions yet also from the same league. It is much simpler to keep clubs within more evenly balanced regions where there are, on average, shorter journeys and more local rivalries. Similarly, if the juniors are included, it would be sensible to begin with a three-way split on the basis of fairness - about 97 west: 87 east: 62 north all-in; a 3:3:2 divide of the clubs, rather than a 3:1-weighted split with 184 lowland: 62 highland. This would ensure strength in depth (as, admittedly, the LL has done in terms of licencing until now) and also continuity for the juniors. Thereafter, if there is deemed sufficient strength, and if a central region can be carved out, the overall population of part-time clubs could allow for a fourth region, to give 3 'lowland' regions of broadly similar size the 1 'highland' region (50-60 in each). Yawn. Apologies.