SPFL 16-16-10

[EdTheDuck]

The old English First Division wasn't *behind* the times, it was *of* the times; the technology that created Pay TV wasn't available until the late 80s.

[EdTheDuck]

Bollocks. The three-foreigner rule prevented most clubs stockpiling the top foreign players of todays game, but there were plenty around pre Premiership. It also took the English clubs less than two years to win a trophy (Man Utd CwC) after the ban, it could be argued that the Italian dominance of the early Champions League (finalists in each of the first sx years) was their peak, and subsequent lack of one country running things (England 2005-2012, only one year no finalist excepted) that perhaps the Sky money is basically smoke being blown up peoples arse, as an indication football has 'never been so good', as we're often told. I'm well aware teams have been 'reduced' to fielding the kids (for longer than 3 years too), but my suggestion was it would encourage this further, not as some wonderful new idea i'd stumbled upon. But every time a club has a crap season, or even every time Scotland get pumped, the mass reaction is always 'just play the boys', it could be argued theres never been a better time to be a young footballer, why not encourage this development further??? England are panicking like f**k that beyond Wilshere, Llallana Shaw Sturridge and Walker, they have no young players. The reason they don't have more is because the ones they bring through their academies are far too mollycoddled. Fling them in, no holds barred, and develop the men as well as the footballer. More games would help achieve this.

You’re right, The lack of talent in the English gene pool is something they should be panicking about; the latest attempts to force English clubs to play English players (the ridiculous B League and the even more preposterous non-EU rule) simply masks the fact that English players aren’t good enough – if clubs are compelled to play English players they will be poorer for it.

Weeto misses this point IMO, he seems to believe that the EPL buying in all the best foreigners is a choice which the Sky/Commercial riches make possible. I think it’s an absolute bloody necessity to keep the Hype machine pumping; I honestly believe if the English talent was there, Man U would spend £30M on them before a Spaniard or German or Bulgarian. The truth is that the English talent isn’t there.

Following that example, as he seems to suggest, would pitch Scottish football back into the sort of cashless society we are currently struggling to get out of.

The difference for Scottish clubs is that our league is not hyped up like the EPL, there is not a requirement to “keep the cash pouring in” (except in two notable exceptions and his own club has already seen the consequences of following that particular path) because we have never had TV cash pouring in and never will; the production and employment of local talent makes perfect sense economically and practically.

I’d suggest that the best way to improve the cash flow in Scottish football is to increase the number of high stakes games, particularly for The Rest, which would get more folks in through the gates. Whether that would get a better deal from Sky/BT I doubt, Scottish football is and always will be a filler item for them and the bigot-fest is “The Only Game In Town” as far as they’re concerned; it certainly would never get anything even remotely approaching EPL levels of money.

[RabidAl]

^{Post-war winners of Scotland’s top tier, by number of teams in the division:}

^{{Source: Scottish Football Historical Archives, ‘First Level Final Tables’ by James M. Ross}}

^{Size-Wins/Team}

^#wins

^{#teams Rangers Celtic Hibs Aberdeen Hearts DundeeKillieDUtd}

^{16 4 1 3 1}

^{(‘A’ Division 1946-55)}

^{18 7 9 2 1 1}

^{(‘A’ Division 1955-1956; and Division One 1956-1975)}

^{10 2 5 3 1}

^{(Premier Division 1975-1986)}

^{12 1 1}

^{(Premier Division 1986-1988)}

^{10 3}

^{(Premier Division 1988-1991)}

^{12 3}

^{(Premier Division 1991-1994)}

^{10 3 1}

^{(Premier Division 1994-1998)}

^{10 2}

^{(SPL 1998-2000)}

^{12 5 8}

^{(SPL 2000-2013)}

^{12 1}

^{(Premiership 2013-)}

^{Size-Total Wins}

^{#teams OF Wins Non-OF Wins % of Non-OF Winners}

^{10 16/20 4/20 20.0%}

^{12 19/19 0/19 0.0%}

^{16 5/9 4/9 44.4%}

^{18 16/20 4/20 20.0%}

^{Maybe our 12-team top tier is too competitive.}

^{It doesn’t help our best teams to put together a challenge when they cut eachother’s throats four times a season.}

^{Wouldn’t Motherwell and Aberdeen have picked up more points this season if they were playing a few more games against relatively weaker opposition in a 16-team league, whilst playing eachother and the likes of Celtic and Dundee United only twice?}

[HibeeJibee]

Someone else has bust these figures before, but non-OF clubs lose v smaller clubs more often than OF do.

Playing OF 4 times gives more opportunites to cancel-out that underperformance.

[sjc]

Would like to see:

3 Divisions of 14 teams with a 7-7 split after 26 games.

2 automatic promotions/relegations.

12th v 3rd Play Off.

Regional Pyramid below.

Restrict Clubs to 18 players over the age of 21/23yo which would benefit youth development by giving easier access to the 1st team and possibly "levelling the playing field" for the smaller Clubs.

[ShawfieldAggro]

↑↑↑↑ Yes. Not overly sure about a split, particularly in what would be the 1st and 2nd divisions, as i believe having a healthy mid-table within a 14 club league crucial to its success. Two down, 3rd bottom into playoff......at the top, again 2 up and 3, 4 and 5th place enter the playoffs. This would leave six spots for teams likely to struggle to aim for as safety without them accidentally ending up in a promotion position. Thats my only criticism of the structure within 10 club leagues, hopefully we'll get there soon enough.

[dburns]

16 teams in the top league wouldn't work, unless, they kept the split.

With a split, teams could play each other twice before the split and once after reducing it to teams play each other two or three times a season with each team playing 37 games a season rather than 45 or 30, without a split.

They'd be as well making it three "professional" leagues of 14 and having each team play the others 3 times, 39 games and a little more competition until the situation improves in Scotland and there are enough teams to compete in an 18 or 20 team league.

I think the new model is to try and generate extra interest for now, with a view of further expansion and reforms in a few seasons. The whole teams playing each other 3 or 4 times a season is boring and repetitive, more teams less repetition and, imo, more excitement.

[ShawfieldAggro]

Think the biggest obstacle to 3x14 would ironically come from not the top-end Prem clubs, but First Div clubs who would inevitably drop into what would become the next-to-bottom league. Which is where the problem lies. Playing 26 fixtures, up until the end of January, then the final 13 weeks matches decided by position....eg every club in the top half playing the 7 teams immediately below them at home and the others away. The beauty of this is that the teams fighting for their lives (bottom four say) are at home to all.or most of the top half clubs, and hopefully see results that are capable of changing the landscape at both ends. On a not totally unrelated matter, it would also pre-determine that you will play 19 or 20 home matches.....based entirely on your immediate performance.......rather than the current format of the split, where a team not expected to feature in the top six can find themselves punished for success by having the cheek to finish higher than expected and lose a home match as a result.

[EdTheDuck]

16 teams in the top league wouldn't work, unless, they kept the split.

With a split, teams could play each other twice before the split and once after reducing it to teams play each other two or three times a season with each team playing 37 games a season rather than 45 or 30, without a split.

They'd be as well making it three "professional" leagues of 14 and having each team play the others 3 times, 39 games and a little more competition until the situation improves in Scotland and there are enough teams to compete in an 18 or 20 team league.

I think the new model is to try and generate extra interest for now, with a view of further expansion and reforms in a few seasons. The whole teams playing each other 3 or 4 times a season is boring and repetitive, more teams less repetition and, imo, more excitement.

There will never be 18 or 20 teams who can compete in a Scottish league.

The whole teams playing each other 3 or 4 times a season is boring and repetitive except when it isn't, like the season just finished where the whole playing each other 3 or 4 times gave us so much excitement in the bottom 6 and top of Div One they really should have made treatment avaiable on the NHS.

[itzdrk]

12-10-10-10 then lowland and highland leagues with ambitious non league clubs IMO

Radical but it might just work if we give it a go

[EdTheDuck]

12-10-10-10 then lowland and highland leagues with ambitious non league clubs IMO

Radical but it might just work if we give it a go

You crazy man.

He crazy

[itzdrk]

There was some chap in the Scotsman letter pages at the weekend calling for a move to structure of 20-22 and abolish the League Cup. Country is full of fruitcakes. This season has been a perfect advert for small divisions with 1-up-1-down and playoffs, loads of meanginful football and good crowds.

This season has been excellent in general, its such a shame celtic & rangers exist

[ShawfieldAggro]

This year should serve to provide us with the evidence that if even more mid-table clubs than just one per league could mount a challenge for promotion then its worth expansion. Its the only way.

[EdTheDuck]

This year should serve to provide us with the evidence that if even more mid-table clubs than just one per league could mount a challenge for promotion then its worth expansion. Its the only way.

Expansion to 14 is feasible for the top league but that would be it IMO; 16 is impractical (unless there are splits galore) and 18 or 20 would be chock full of so many meaningless games it would be a hideous bore-fest and the league below would be a financial death sentence for the teams relegated into it (and usually the pro-18/20s want at least 3 teams relegated "to create excitement like England, ken")

[ShawfieldAggro]

Still with the full 330* degree erection for the top league. For fucks sake. Give the other

30 clubs something to shout about. After all,every one of them contributes. Timothy will win every league this decade....only Iain Paisley and Donald Findlay QC would utter a giving of a broon jobby otherwise. If we really want to make fitba fun where better to start. Bottoms up xx

[EdTheDuck]

Still with the full 330* degree erection for the top league. For fucks sake. Give the other 30 clubs something to shout about. After all,every one of them contributes. Timothy will win every league this decade....only Iain Paisley and Donald Findlay QC would utter a giving of a broon jobby otherwise. If we really want to make fitba fun where better to start. Bottoms up xx

Fun would be good and what I'd like to see would give us all the fun of the fair and possibly permanent laugh lines but it's Scottish fitba we're talking about so...

[EdTheDuck]

I often read on the electric journals such as this one that in an expanded league (16, 18 or 20 teams) the increase in the number of “wee” teams will propel the “Bigger” teams to a challenge at the top of the table.

That being the case and with the Scottish Prem positively awash with “wee” teams next season it’ll be interesting to see if the gap after 2 rounds of games is substantially less than it was this season when the Prem had its full complement of “Big” teams (excepting you know who).

Well, maybe interesting is too strong a word, maybe “not in the least interesting at all” would be more accurate but as you can see I’m trying to use up an excess of inverted commas.

[ShawfieldAggro]

There seems to be this misconception that only a close-nit league can provide the entertainment or quality we are lacking. Which is of course bollocks. Its exciting if you have two or more of a similar level, be it at the top or bottom of a league, and get a conclusion out of it, but the simple reason the 'bigger' clubs you mention have been unable to mount a genuine challenge because they arent good enough. Syphoning even more mediocrity into this will only make things worse.

[lionel hutz]

What about 16, with home and away, followed by a split, with there being 2 down and 1 play-off - 37 games

[HibeeJibee]

Not very fair to play teams competing with you 3 times and half of clubs to receive 19 home games but half 18. Also more of a liklihood of quite a few clubs having meaningless games post-split. Also weakening the 2nd tier by taking the 4 biggest clubs out, yet possibly relegating 3 into it instead of 2.