Jump to content

It's Yet More Madness in Belgium...


HibeeJibee

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I agree with some aspects of the above. I like the split, and I like European play-offs, and I am reasonably affable to the idea of some kind of bonus points/division of points post-split. The issues I have with the Belgian system is that it's too complex / takes things too far, e.g.:

* I think bottom at the end of the regular season should go down, end-of

* I think 14th out of 16 possibly qualifying for Europe, but 4th not, is going too far

* I think the 'Best of 5', 'round-up to the nearest integer', numerous variations in possible games, etc. etc., are also taking it too far

And I'd have to say that I don't like the idea of relegation being based on a 3-year average at all.

I see it as against the culture of annual seasons (which decide everything else... title, Europe, etc.); and it must make it strange + complicated for fans in the 'relegation race'.

In a Scottish context, people moan about our current split... European play-offs, or not carrying-forward all points, would be seen as highly radical. Let alone the Belgium model!!

It'll be interesting to see if they do stick with it, long-term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a wee look at what the other European nations currently with splits (they do exist, Henry) utilise in terms of points carriage:

Andorra

8 teams, after 2 rounds (14 games) split into 4-4 for 2 more rounds (20 games in total)

... carry all points

Azerbaijan

12 teams, after 2 rounds (22 games) split into 4-4 for 2 more rounds (32 games in total)

... carry points only v sides in the same half

Cyprus

14 teams, after 2 rounds (26 games) split into 4-4-4 [bottom 2 discarded] for 2 more rounds (32 games in total)

... carry all points

Greece

16 teams, after 2 rounds (30 games) places 2-5 split away for 2 more rounds (36 games in total)

... start afresh with bonus points which are damned complicated:

"a weighting system applies to the teams' standing at the start of the play-off mini-league. The team finishing fifth in the Super League will start the play-off with 0 points. The fifth placed team's end of season tally of points is subtracted from the sum of the points that other teams have. This number is then divided by five to give the other teams the points with which they start the mini-league."

Israel

16 teams, after 2 rounds (30 games) split into 6-4-6 for 2 more rounds (35/33 games in total)

... carry HALF of all points, rounded-up

Kazakstan + Wales

12 teams, after 2 rounds (22 games) split into 6-6 for 2 more rounds (32 games in total)

... carry all points

Malta

10 teams, after 2 rounds (18 games) split into 6-4 for 2 more rounds (28/24 games in total)

... carry HALF of all points

Northern Ireland + Scotland

12 teams, after 3 rounds (33 games) split into 6-6 for 1 more round (38 games in total)

... carry all points

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahoj!

Me 'ead 'urts!

:)

And I thought that the Argentinian system was complicated ... and I also read that "Belgium is boring .... " :D

BTW - the Polish FA Cup used to have a similar rule to those mentioned above, i.e. teams from upper tiers automatically playing away when drawing lower tier opposition. I think this rule was dropped in the '90s.

Borys

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This would have been the SPL standings going into 2010-11, based on the Belgian system explained in my opening post. (If I have made a mistake here, someone please point it out!!)...

[As Craigkillie notes, it's perverted by the split creating glass-ceiling/floor mid-season... although evidently that doesn't bother the Belgians]

Rangers... 24pts

Celtic... 22pts

Dundee Utd.. 18pts

Hearts... 17pts

Hibs... 16pts

Motherwell... 14pts

Aberdeen... 13pts

Hamilton... 10pts

St Johnstone... 10pts (5 x2)

Kilmarnock... 7pts

St Mirren... 5pts

Inverness... 2pts (1 x2)

Meaning based on current standings (04/03/2011), the Relegation Table reads:

Rangers... 35pts

Celtic... 34pts

Hearts... 27pts

Dundee Utd.. 25pts

Motherwell... 22pts

Hibs... 20pts

Aberdeen... 18pts

Hamilton... 11pts

Kilmarnock... 16pts

St Johnstone... 12pts (8 x1.5)

Inverness... 12pts (8 x1.5)

========================

St Mirren... 7pts

= St Mirren relegated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahoj!

I suspect that the "three year relegation thingy" is meant to address the issues of "meaningless end of season midtable games". And that it will be based on placement after 30 games. As otherwise how do you determine the final positions of the e.g. runners up in the two Middle Groups? Ex-aequo 9th?

For teams finishing 7th-14th their final placing would be irrelevant, due to the points being erased. Hence the "meaning" is added by making the "after 30 games" position count for relegation.

Borys

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahoj!

I suspect that the "three year relegation thingy" is meant to address the issues of "meaningless end of season midtable games".

For teams finishing 7th-14th their final placing would be irrelevant, due to the points being erased. Hence the "meaning" is added by making the "after 30 games" position count for relegation.

Borys

Possibly, although you'd have thought that the European Play-off system with the 6-game mini-groups would give a decent amount of meaning. Perhaps not.

I don't like the idea at all... I think club football is played on an annual basis, end-of-story... but I think it's got palpable potential for unfairness, when used in a split league. Moreso one like Belgium - where they're splitting the clubs rated 7th-14th into 2 parallel groups (and Group A contains those finishing 7th, 9th, 12th + 14th / Group B those finishing 8th, 10th, 11th + 13th).

Presumably the sides finishing 1st in each group get rated as 7th = 10pts, 2nd rated as 9th = 8pts, etc. etc.? Or will it go on points > wins > GD > GF in the 2 pools? If so that's even more unfair, as they've been playing different teams.

I'd be sceptical it's not equally about [1] making sure big sides can't get relegated for 1 bad season (see my listing... the 'big' SPL clubs easily safe), and/or [2] yet more "experimentation".

Anyone able to find... and translate... an online article about the 3-year relegation system, and it's rationale?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I'd have to say that I don't like the idea of relegation being based on a 3-year average at all.

I see it as against the culture of annual seasons (which decide everything else... title, Europe, etc.); and it must make it strange + complicated for fans in the 'relegation race'.

UEFA coeffieciant is over 5 years, FIFA rankings is over 4 years. So why not judge relagation over 3. Title, Europe, etc are positives while relagation has went from something really bad to something which could put a club into administration.

As for fans understanding all it takes is a newspaper artical or internet site to point out what club needs what.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahoj!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010–11_Argentine_Primera_División_season#Relegation

This is after being 3 games into the Clauzura, i.e. after 3 completed Aperturas and 2 completed Clauzuras.

Or, in more European terms - the 2nd parts of the 3rd season has just began, and the 2010-11 season has played 22 rounds of 38.

Hadn't it been for the average, the teams relegated after 2009-10 would had been Gimnasia, Huracan and Tigre.

HBJB - By article you mean in Spanish, or in French/Vlaams?

Borys

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep Borys, although any language would do... GoogleTranslate can often make an OK job.

I've tried Googling myself but couldn't turn anything up.

I agree with some of the post about the lack of 'imagination' in Scotland... our 'radical reform' © (Neil Doncaster, 2010-11) is simply a case of going back to 1980s/1990s set-up. There's nothing radical about 10-team SPL, 12-team SPL2, even the winter break has gone. There was an opportunity to use a better split, have European play-offs, change the points systems?, etc. etc. - but all of this has been rejected. The inter-divisional play-offs have a vague sense of novelty, in that they involve 8th v 9th and 2nd v 3rd... but I would not go as far as to describe it as radical, nor will that element make it particularly more exciting than other play-off formats. The intention is just to ensure one of the bigger sides is involved every season, to ensure the crowds + income + media coverage are decent.

Out of interest does anyone know of European leagues not using the 3/1/0 points system, or awarding points bonuses for away wins/X goals scored in a game/thresholds in in the Goals For column, etc.?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I spoke too soon!! French Wikipedia mentions it, I've copied it below in original and translated. Very interesting.

Just before Christmas, clubs voted 12-4 in favour of going back to an 18-team league (playing 34-game season one assumes)... it was the 'Big 4' who voted against.

I remember at the time of the original reconstruction, it was said that the "big driving factor" was securing 4x playing between the top sides as they demanded this for revenues + for TV. [something familiar there...]. Seems they have a semi-organised group of 'smaller clubs' called the G11 - they voted for the return to the old format, as did Standard Liege.

However, last week clubs voted 11-5 in favour of continuing the 16-team league, with the new relegation format... but with more £££ given to sides not making the Top 6 (I think).

http://fr.wikipedia....ition_2011-2012

On December 10, 2010, a majority of clubs in the Jupiler Pro League has opted for a return to old form, as a single pool to 18 clubs. This vote (12 for - 4 cons) highlighted the divergence of view between the big clubs (G4: RSC Anderlecht, KRC Genk, FC Bruges and Ghent The), supporters of maintaining the system of play-offs, and other (G11 + Standard de Liege) [1].

On 25 February 2011 the Committee for Pro League endorsed the new majority vote of two thirds (11 - 5 cons) to sixteen with a championship play-offs for the next three seasons, with financial compensation for down and the clubs do not participate in Play-offs 1. In addition to maintaining the system, the pro league also voted by a majority of two thirds of the fact that the descendant of Jupiler Pro League in Division 2 will be determined on the results of the three previous seasons from the 2011-2012 season. There will be a weight for clubs who have played one or two seasons in the Jupiler Pro League [2].

Le 10 décembre 2010, une majorité de clubs de la Jupiler Pro League a opté pour un retour à l'ancienne formule, sous forme d'une poule unique à 18 clubs. Ce vote (12 pour - 4 contre) a mis en exergue la divergence de vue entre les grands clubs (G4 : RSC Anderlecht, KRC Genk, FC Bruges et La Gantoise), partisans du maintien du système de play-offs, et les autres (G11 + le Standard de Liège)[1].

Le 25 février 2011, le comité de la Pro League entérine le nouveau vote à la majorité des deux tiers (11 pour - 5 contre), pour un championnat à seize avec play-offs pour les trois saisons à venir, avec compensation financière pour le descendant et les clubs ne participant pas aux play-offs 1. Outre le maintien du système, la pro ligue a également voté à la majorité des deux tiers le fait que le descendant de Jupiler Pro League en Division 2 sera déterminé sur les résultats des trois saisons précédentes à partir de la saison 2011-2012. Il y aura une pondération pour les clubs n'ayant joué qu'une ou deux saisons en Jupiler Pro League[2].

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More translated articles.

Back to 18...

http://www.7sur7.be/...2011-2012.dhtml

Supported by clubs Division 2, "11 small clubs" had the last word: the return of a championship to 18 teams in D1 and without playoffs from the 2011-2012 season. Anderlecht, Club Brugge and Genk AA Gent did not wish this formula.

Pro Football League voted Friday for a Belgian Championship 2011-2012 to 18 teams and no playoffs, not 16 with playoffs as is the case now. The vote closed with 12 votes for the reform of the championship and 4 votes for keeping the current formula.

The four "big" clubs (Anderlecht, Club Brugge, Genk AA Gent) had recently expressed support the status quo, while the other eleven clubs were joined by the Standard for a return to classic championship.

Modalities, such as television rights and the procedure concerning the degradation or promotion, have not yet been fixed and will be at a future meeting of the Pro League.

... or not, sticking with 16 and the splits...

http://www.rtbf.be/s...offs?id=5678553

It's official: the Board of Directors of the Pro League has decided to adopt the same formula in D1 championship at 16 with playoffs for the next 3 seasons. Five clubs had voted against this decision.

Pro League, meeting in the Board of Directors this Friday, has therefore reached agreement to maintain the formula of a Belgian Championship Division 1 to 16, with playoffs for the next three seasons, subject But last season, 2013-2014, depending on the results of a study commissioned on this subject. Of the 16 elite clubs, five voted against it: it is the Standard, the GBA, Saint-Trond, the Lierse and Charleroi.

Pro League also voted by a majority of two thirds of the fact that the descendant of D1 to D2 will be determined on the results of the three previous seasons from the 2011-2012 season. There will be a weight for clubs who have played one or two seasons in D1.

The outline of this agreement had been signed late Tuesday by some of the elite clubs at the initiative of G4 (Anderlecht, Bruges, Genk AA Gent), which had not been involved several clubs: Standard, Charleroi Saint-Trond.

One wonders if that this was perhaps a political game from some "Small 11" clubs?

Vote for going back to 18-teams (2x playing / 34-games), forcing the hand of the "Big 4".

Then, after the "Big 4" made financial concessions + new relegation format was devised, some voted to stick with the current set-up afterall.

(Seemingly the Belgian voting threshold is 2/3 i.e. 11-5... as opposed to the SPL which is 10/11-1).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It get's better!!

http://www.nonleaguematters.co.uk/forum/gforum.cgi?post=306678;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;guest=33585329

The system will not, seemingly, actually apply to everyone in the league.

It will only be used to seperate the sides finishing 15th + 16th, at the end of the pre-split 30-game mark.

* the side with the lower 3-year positional-points total goes down automatically

[their season finishes in mid-March, after only 30 games]

* the side with the higher 3-year positional-points total goes into the 6-game play-off group alongside 2nd-4th from the 18-team (34-game) 2nd tier

[which means they sit-out 6 weeks, from mid-March to late April, then start-up again]

So it's actually scrapping the 'Best of 5' and going back to last season's model (16th down, 15th into play-offs)...

... but changing how they decide which of the 2 goes down v goes into the play-offs.

Incredible stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It get's better!!

http://www.nonleague...;guest=33585329

The system will not, seemingly, actually apply to everyone in the league.

It will only be used to seperate the sides finishing 15th + 16th, at the end of the pre-split 30-game mark.

* the side with the lower 3-year positional-points total goes down automatically

[their season finishes in mid-March, after only 30 games]

* the side with the higher 3-year positional-points total goes into the 6-game play-off group alongside 2nd-4th from the 18-team (34-game) 2nd tier

[which means they sit-out 6 weeks, from mid-March to late April, then start-up again]

So it's actually scrapping the 'Best of 5' and going back to last season's model (16th down, 15th into play-offs)...

... but changing how they decide which of the 2 goes down v goes into the play-offs.

Incredible stuff.

I didn't like the best of five but it was the only way to plug the gap for these two teams.

Instead of splitting the league 6-2(4)-2, how about 6-6-4.

It gives 40 games across the top twelve and 36 games for the bottom four before playoffs. I don't know why I'm coming up with solutions. It's a bit annoying because I like different league ideas and I feel they could almost be on to something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I think it could be simplified a bit. I would suggest award seven points for a win (double it if they beat the same team last year, add three points if it's a local derby). At the end of the season the top thirteen go into the play-offs. Twelve play each other while the ninth placed team plays keepy-uppy. Have the best three-and-a-half Walloon teams from the play-off/keepy-uppy section play the best two-and-three-quarters Flemish teams. If still level, papers-scissors-stone decides European places. If still level, everybody dies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...