Jump to content

SPFL split . . . Is it time to revert back to a traditional league format?


Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, Marr1 said:

I quite like the split, the United-Aberdeen game a few years ago on MD33, which was basically a winner takes all (for sixth) since Killie didn't beat Dundee, was one of the most exciting games I've ever been to. 

The #scenes when Rory Boulding scored. Skip to 4:20

 

Your post pretty much sums up why our game is shite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 191
  • Created
  • Last Reply

It's become the default position to moan like hell and call for radical change in every aspect of Scottish football as if that is enough in itself.

I'd like to have a 16 top team league but we just don't have enough professional clubs to do so, not so much at the top level but it would have bad repercussions down the tiers and any team relegated from the top tier would be going into a wasteland.  

44 matches a season is unplayable from a football position and would probably lead to big increases in season tickets as well.

The current set up is not perfect and has its faults but it's the best we can realistically have, although I think we could tinker with the play off system and maybe have two automatic relegations or 2nd bottom going straight into play off semi finals. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd stick with a 12 team league and have a 2/4/6 split after 33 games.

Bottom 6 season ends there and then.

Middle 4 have a quick round robin to determine European places.

Top 2 points are reset and they play each other 18 times in May to determine the champions.

If anyone at sky is reading this, get in touch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just leave it alone. It's fine. It's not perfect, but it's fine. The format is fine. Stop trying to fiddle with it, at best we'll end up with a system "as good" as what we've got.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the current set up.

On the,reasonable assumption that the top four positions are already spoken for that leaves eight teams fighting for two places.     

I think the bottom two will be contested by Hamilton and Killie.     That leaves six teams competing.

In what world is that not exciting and attractive?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course it's time to revert to even league programme of fixtures which is fair to all sides rather than this distorted shambles with five rounds of fixtures made up. 

A league were teams can be sent to one ground three times out of four is just wrong.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course it's time to revert to even league programme of fixtures which is fair to all sides rather than this distorted shambles with five rounds of fixtures made up. 

A league were teams can be sent to one ground three times out of four is just wrong.

 



Totally agree.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact the Hibs, Hearts and now Dundee United have fallen into the Championship and survived is proof we don't need a bigger league.  The Championship with 10 teams is an excellent competition and free of the uneven split nonsense.

It should be the blueprint for the top division.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, itzdrk said:

It should be a 10 team top flight for me.  If they want to call it our 'elite league' it should not be bigger than the rest. 

This is perhaps the dumbest reason possible for wanting change. Kudos

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎30‎/‎07‎/‎2016 at 09:59, mart1 said:

Would the English premiership even contemplate in putting such a ridiculous structure in place. . . Don't think so!

 

 

England, Spain, Italy and the like have 20-team divisions as they have dozens of large professional clubs and large populations and incomes... In some cases like England and Spain they actually used to have 22-team divisions but had to downsize owing to the expansions in the European and international calendars. It's no surprise that the only nations with 18 or 20-team divisions currently are England, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and Turkey.

However that doesn't mean that having splits is somehow the hallmark of diddy-ness. Leagues like Belgium, Denmark, Israel, Poland, Romania and Serbia have splits (and if you feel ours is odd or wacky you should have a look at Belgium or Denmark). About a quarter of European top divisions have - including 3 of 4 in the UK. Several have more imbalanced set-ups than ours. Many without splits also play thrice (e.g. 33-game seasons). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

England, Spain, Italy and the like have 20-team divisions as they have dozens of large professional clubs and large populations and incomes... In some cases like England and Spain they actually used to have 22-team divisions but had to downsize owing to the expansions in the European and international calendars. It's no surprise that the only nations with 18 or 20-team divisions currently are England, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and Turkey.

However that doesn't mean that having splits is somehow the hallmark of diddy-ness. Leagues like Belgium, Denmark, Israel, Poland, Romania and Serbia have splits (and if you feel ours is odd or wacky you should have a look at Belgium or Denmark). About a quarter of European top divisions have - including 3 of 4 in the UK. Several have more imbalanced set-ups than ours. Many without splits also play thrice (e.g. 33-game seasons). 



Some great points.

If you look at leagues which you mention that compete with more teams, give or take the majority of them work with the reserves participating in either the lower or the bottom league in their specific country. Another argument on another day would be why would Scottish football would bring back reserve football again.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 31/07/2016 at 12:39, Ya Bezzer! said:

It's become the default position to moan like hell and call for radical change in every aspect of Scottish football as if that is enough in itself.

I'd like to have a 16 top team league but we just don't have enough professional clubs to do so, not so much at the top level but it would have bad repercussions down the tiers and any team relegated from the top tier would be going into a wasteland.  

44 matches a season is unplayable from a football position and would probably lead to big increases in season tickets as well.

The current set up is not perfect and has its faults but it's the best we can realistically have, although I think we could tinker with the play off system and maybe have two automatic relegations or 2nd bottom going straight into play off semi finals. 

You mean like Portugal?  Our second tier would still likely be better supported than that.  Morton v Livingston will get more fans than most of not all Second Division Portuguese matches.  Swap Livingston with St Mirren or Kilmarnock and you can guarantee that fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Half or more have separate reserve or youth leagues, IIRC, as opposed to including such teams in their league systems. Certainly the case in England, Italy, Turkey, the Netherlands (bar a couple who filled places in the lower level which no non-league clubs wanted) and possibly Portugal.

Not sure if anyone has pure "reserve" football nowadays.

EDIT: Belarus, Macedonia, Northern Ireland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, HibeeJibee said:

England, Spain, Italy and the like have 20-team divisions as they have dozens of large professional clubs and large populations and incomes... In some cases like England and Spain they actually used to have 22-team divisions but had to downsize owing to the expansions in the European and international calendars. It's no surprise that the only nations with 18 or 20-team divisions currently are England, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and Turkey.

http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn.htm

Portugal has exactly the same number of clubs with an average attendance of over 2,000 as Scotland: 20. By any benchmark you wish to use, there is very little difference between the size of clubs in that country and in Scotland. Any comparison with countries with a similar population misses the important facts that i) Scottish football is much better attended per capita than any comparable nation in Europe and ii) Scotland, like England, also has a much longer tradition of professional football clubs being representative of a given locality or town (as opposed to effectively franchise outfits being formed to represent areas, like in The Netherlands), which helps to spread out football support among a wider set of clubs. 

So there is in fact no good reason why a top flight size that works perfectly well for Portugal shouldn't work well for Scotland. 18-18 with two regional feeder divisions beneath it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, vikingTON said:

 

So there is in fact no good reason why a top flight size that works perfectly well for Portugal shouldn't work well for Scotland. 18-18 with two regional feeder divisions beneath it. 

This.  The problem in Scotland is not the amount of teams but in fact the amount of leagues before regionalisation.  

Two Professional leagues with Regional leagues all the way down to amateur if you wish is very doable if they can get the clubs on board.  

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...