Pyramid 2019/2020

[mcruic]

1 minute ago, Cyclizine said:

So, similar sized countries all have totally different league setups? Gotcha. Cheers.

You are either deliberately misconstruing what I say, or having a laugh.  Similar sized countries all have a fully inclusive pyramid, and they all regionalise, mostly at Tier 3.  You did say compare with similar-sized countries - I did, and the results are conclusive.

Also, if 53 of 55 countries regionalise at Tier 4 or above, why should Scotland be any different, especially as bigger countries than us are doing it.

[FairWeatherFan]

So I tried to find a comparison and as always in Scotland let's compare ourselves to Germany Only a difference of 16/17 times the population.

But it's not actually Scotland v. Germany. It's Germany's regional 3rd Tier compared to the National 3rd Tier they introduced from 2008/09.

Above as is the Regional Tier 3 stats. I created the Average for the top 20 best attended clubs to give something to compare to when the 3rd Tier goes National. As you'll notice they actually reduced the number of clubs from 70+ to 36/37 a couple of years in to it. This slight move would actually gradually increase attendances.

Then we've got the 10 years for the 20 team National 3rd Tier.

Some of the Regional years would see a better Top 20 average compared to the National 20. But the 10 year average for both Regional and National works out as:

Seems like National wins

 

[mcruic]

3 minutes ago, FairWeatherFan said:

 

Seems like National wins

 

When you did this comparison, did you take the Top 20's average against the other teams in the Top 20, or against all teams in their division?  Because this would also make a difference.

[craigkillie]

The worst thing about the pyramid debate is the involvement of spreadsheet anoraks who see it as a completely emotionless game of "sort the teams". There's no actual interest in the clubs involved, no respect for history or sentiment, just a desperate desire to draw a bunch of lines on a map and then proclaim their way as the only way.

As soon as the people who actually care about the clubs involved chip in, they start to get defensive and chuck out meaningless comparisons around attendances and other leagues and whatnot.

Fortunately most of them get fed up fairly quickly and the threads stop getting polluted.

[Cyclizine]

5 minutes ago, mcruic said:

You are either deliberately misconstruing what I say, or having a laugh.  Similar sized countries all have a fully inclusive pyramid, and they all regionalise, mostly at Tier 3.  You did say compare with similar-sized countries - I did, and the results are conclusive.

Also, if 53 of 55 countries regionalise at Tier 4 or above, why should Scotland be any different, especially as bigger countries than us are doing it.

Because you've still given no reason why regionalising Leagues 1 and 2 in Scotland would benefit any club: SPFL or not. It's all been conjecture. Again, I point out the "follow the money" argument. If it was going to work, we'd already be doing it in the SPFL.

I'm not in disagreement with you about a pyramid, but you need to be pragmatic. We're not going to see three feeders any time soon. Only one Tier 5 club has ever been promoted (I'm aware of their handicap with playoffs). Give it time.

[FairWeatherFan]

Just now, mcruic said:

When you did this comparison, did you take the Top 20's average against the other teams in the Top 20, or against all teams in their division?  Because this would also make a difference.

Surprisingly enough no I didn't look at 20 years of fixture lists and a map of Germany. One of the reasons being the Top 20 best attended clubs doesn't equal the 20 teams that would make up the 3rd Tier.

See how there are a bunch of 4th Tier clubs with higher attendances than 3rd.

[mcruic]

1 minute ago, craigkillie said:

The worst thing about the pyramid debate is the involvement of spreadsheet anoraks who see it as a completely emotionless game of "sort the teams". There's no actual interest in the clubs involved, no respect for history or sentiment, just a desperate desire to draw a bunch of lines on a map and then proclaim their way as the only way.

As soon as the people who actually care about the clubs involved chip in, they start to get defensive and chuck out meaningless comparisons around attendances and other leagues and whatnot.

Fortunately most of them get fed up fairly quickly and the threads stop getting polluted.

I think you are mistaken.  The worst thing is actually holier-than-thou "fans" who think that they know best just because they stand and watch a team every week.  Nobody is proclaiming anything as the only way - we are offering suggestions for discussion.  The lines are already on the map - otherwise the juniors wouldn't exist, and the senior non-leagues wouldn't exist either.  Which anorak drew those lines I wonder?

The comparisons are not meaningless - they are countering claims made by those who claim to know because they follow the teams.  A bit of factual evidence doesn't hurt anyone.

History or sentiment?  No idea what you think that means - but some history and tradition is outdated.  Those hanging on to the "but we are the juniors, we've always been the juniors" - this is just empty sentiment, as most decent clubs will leave and the juniors will be no better than the amateurs.

[mcruic]

4 minutes ago, Cyclizine said:

Because you've still given no reason why regionalising Leagues 1 and 2 in Scotland would benefit any club: SPFL or not. It's all been conjecture. Again, I point out the "follow the money" argument. If it was going to work, we'd already be doing it in the SPFL.

I'm not in disagreement with you about a pyramid, but you need to be pragmatic. We're not going to see three feeders any time soon. Only one Tier 5 club has ever been promoted (I'm aware of their handicap with playoffs). Give it time.

I'm not expecting it to happen overnight.  But it has to happen with 3 feeder leagues sooner or later if a fully working pyramid is to happen. There are more than twice as many clubs in the "South" for a start.

I laid out a plan above that provides a benefit to all teams, or at least the same as they have now.  All teams with the same chance of promotion or better than they have now.  All SPFL clubs still in a national structure (no regionalisation), all "non-league" clubs still in a regionalised structure (but a more suitable one).  Again - I don't see the problem.

[mcruic]

8 minutes ago, FairWeatherFan said:

Surprisingly enough no I didn't look at 20 years of fixture lists and a map of Germany. One of the reasons being the Top 20 best attended clubs doesn't equal the 20 teams that would make up the 3rd Tier.

See how there are a bunch of 4th Tier clubs with higher attendances than 3rd.

My point was - If you are selecting the Top 20 best attended clubs from across regional divisions, their attendance figures will be made up of matches against what would now be Tier 3 and Tier 4 clubs, so it's not a fair comparison.  The 73 clubs at Tier 3 in the regional leagues, for example, do not equate to the 20 in the national Tier 3.

To put it another way - if you regionalised League 1 and 2 in Scotland, the regional leagues would probably have lower attendance than the current League 1 but higher than the current League 2 (because there would be League 2 clubs in there with smaller fan bases).  So it wouldn't be fair to compare League 1 pre and post-nationalisation.  "National wins" every time, but only because the comparison is not a fair one.

[Cyclizine]

Just now, mcruic said:

I'm not expecting it to happen overnight.  But it has to happen with 3 feeder leagues sooner or later if a fully working pyramid is to happen. There are more than twice as many clubs in the "South" for a start.

I laid out a plan above that provides a benefit to all teams, or at least the same as they have now.  All teams with the same chance of promotion or better than they have now.  All SPFL clubs still in a national structure (no regionalisation), all "non-league" clubs still in a regionalised structure (but a more suitable one).  Again - I don't see the problem.

If you can't see the problem, I can't help.

If we were designing a system from scratch, would we design the current one? No. But we're not. It's a system that's developed over the last century and more. You can't just wipe that away, however nice it is to draw a line on a map.

We have to be pragmatic. The principle of local amateur club being able to ascend to the heights of the Premiership (and vice versa) is easy. How we do it is not.

We have a convoluted system of grades with separate and non-interchangeable leagues. Only recently have things started to move. I'd argue that the tiers below the SPFL need to be in order first, before changing the structure of the SPFL is discussed. We're not quite there yet.

[mcruic]

1 minute ago, Cyclizine said:

If you can't see the problem, I can't help.

If we were designing a system from scratch, would we design the current one? No. But we're not. It's a system that's developed over the last century and more. You can't just wipe that away, however nice it is to draw a line on a map.

We have to be pragmatic. The principle of local amateur club being able to ascend to the heights of the Premiership (and vice versa) is easy. How we do it is not.

We have a convoluted system of grades with separate and non-interchangeable leagues. Only recently have things started to move. I'd argue that the tiers below the SPFL need to be in order first, before changing the structure of the SPFL is discussed. We're not quite there yet.

The Scottish League system has changed many times over the years, from 2 divisions, to 3, to 4.  No wiping away, just continuing the tradition of change.  The number of matches played, and the league system has also changed many times.

There is no drawing of any lines on a map - the lines are already there and being used.  The only one that needs redrawn is the Tier 5 one - for historical reasons, as juniors weren't involved, there was no need for a West region - but with the current evolution, it looks likely that this will be necessary, otherwise the West clubs would have to join the East of Scotland League - which seems bizarre to me.

The only problem is the junior/senior divide.  The East juniors last year showed how easy it was to overcome that by joining the EoS League.

 

 

[FairWeatherFan]

45 minutes ago, mcruic said:

My point was - If you are selecting the Top 20 best attended clubs from across regional divisions, their attendance figures will be made up of matches against what would now be Tier 3 and Tier 4 clubs, so it's not a fair comparison.  The 73 clubs at Tier 3 in the regional leagues, for example, do not equate to the 20 in the national Tier 3.

To put it another way - if you regionalised League 1 and 2 in Scotland, the regional leagues would probably have lower attendance than the current League 1 but higher than the current League 2 (because there would be League 2 clubs in there with smaller fan bases).  So it wouldn't be fair to compare League 1 pre and post-nationalisation.  "National wins" every time, but only because the comparison is not a fair one.

Happier?

[mcruic]

17 minutes ago, FairWeatherFan said:

Happier?

Not sure this is entirely down to them moving into national leagues - the Tier 2 attendances also went up in this period (from around 15,000 to 17,000) with no change in league structure.  But yes, the average attendance of the latter 3 clubs seem to have gone up quite a lot.

[Burnie_man]

To bring this thread back on point, I believe the EoS structure for next season will be confirmed soon as there's a board meeting coming up.

 

 

 

 

 

[Auld Heid]

The worst thing about the pyramid debate is the involvement of spreadsheet anoraks who see it as a completely emotionless game of "sort the teams". There's no actual interest in the clubs involved, no respect for history or sentiment, just a desperate desire to draw a bunch of lines on a map and then proclaim their way as the only way.

As soon as the people who actually care about the clubs involved chip in, they start to get defensive and chuck out meaningless comparisons around attendances and other leagues and whatnot.

Fortunately most of them get fed up fairly quickly and the threads stop getting polluted.

Spot on

Whilst acknowledging change was required. A degree of certainty of what's actually happening would be appreciated. Still more questions than answers.

At present it looks like we will have a glorified super league next season where only some teams can progress. Where the best team is also the biggest loser and losers have become winners by application

Only in Scotland

[GordonS]

3 hours ago, Auld Heid said:

Only in Scotland

Oh, the English can screw this stuff up every bit as much.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/48097020

 

[Marten]

6 hours ago, GordonS said:

Oh, the English can screw this stuff up every bit as much.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/48097020

 

That's a quite bizarre rule. Surely, if not all play-off winners get promoted, you'll put some of the winners against each other to fight on the pitch for promotion?

Even Scottish football couldn't come up with this, surely? Or maybe I shouldn't say that, as they'll likely see it as a challenge...

[Guest]

From the eosfl meeting attended by RP and IM it was put to the room that the chief exec would be able to decide who plays for promotion and who doesn't..... It was quickly batted down but it concerns me that it was anywhere near the thoughts of the two men in charge of running Scottish football. 

[Che Dail]

13 hours ago, Cyclizine said:

If we were designing a system from scratch, would we design the current one? No. But we're not. It's a system that's developed over the last century and more.

You can't just wipe that away, however nice it is to draw a line on a map.

Yes, we can.

And we should. Tip the table up and start again. Design a structure based on what is evidently successful in other small countries.

There are simply too many clubs in the 'professional' game.

In this day we only really need 2 elite top leagues, and go regional below that.  

Self interest, poor leadership and bad management will hold football back in this country until the right people, with full authority to initiate change, are appointed.

[Cyclizine]

28 minutes ago, Che Dail said:

Yes, we can.

And we should. Tip the table up and start again. Design a structure based on what is evidently successful in other small countries.

There are simply too many clubs in the 'professional' game.

In this day we only really need 2 elite top leagues, and go regional below that.  

Self interest, poor leadership and bad management will hold football back in this country until the right people, with full authority to initiate change, are appointed.

Let's not start this again and derail the thread more. I'm sure there's a thread somewhere that's more appropriate. Suffice to say, I disagree.