Jump to content

League Reconstruction 20/21 season


Recommended Posts

Worth mentioning that Steve, and Geoff, Brown have been vehemently against expanding the top flight for years now.

I'd be stunned if they didnt vote against it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

Worth mentioning that Steve, and Geoff, Brown have been vehemently against expanding the top flight for years now.

I'd be stunned if they didnt vote against it

What's their reasoning for that, do you know? Is it purely the Old Firm games thing or is there any other reason for it? Genuine question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Coventry Saint said:

What's their reasoning for that, do you know? Is it purely the Old Firm games thing or is there any other reason for it? Genuine question.

No idea, but I'd strongly guess it would come down to money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Todd_is_God said:

It's actually possible to play the same team TEN times

League Cup group

League Cup knockout

Scottish Cup

Scottish Cup Replay

4 x League Games

Playoff Leg One

Playoff Leg Two

All of the above could, in theory, be achieved in just 46 games. Imagine playing 22% of your season against the same team 😂

If you are championship - league two you could also face that team in the tunnocks cup. Only way you could reduce that number is making the playoffs one legged and doing away with replays. But even then would possibly still bring you down to playing the same team 9 times. 
 

ETA: i think bigger leagues and fewer games against the same opposition would be good, but it’s hard to put an optimum number on it. Plus you are at the mercy of the tv companies wanting 4 old firm games a season. Even with bigger leagues, i would keep the playoffs but maybe change them to the way they work in the league one/league two where it is basically semi final - final. 

Edited by buchan30
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, scottmcleanscontacts said:

Playing some teams three times in a league, and some four times is completely and utterly boring and the set up as it is will always mean the league will be won by Celtic or maybe in the future, Rangers. There is just no way any other has a chance as it stands. By playing less against 'them' there's a slight chance another club could properly compete.
 

Sorry but you're wrong. The size of the league is irrelevnt to any other club putting in a challenge. The fact is that dropped points against The Rest play as big a part as the myth of dropping 24 points against the Ugly Sisters.

Last season Kilmarnock (Best of the Rest) dropped 34 points in 30 games against The Rest (37.78%).  Celtic only dropped dropped 21 in 34 games aainst The Rest (20.59%) . Aberdeen in 4th dropped 28 in their 30 games (31.11%)  If you're interested, Killie matched the US with a W3 D2 L3 against them.  They actually picked up 11 points vs the US, Celtic only picked up 6. Even given Aberdeen's general capitulation against Celtic, they still picked 5pts in those US games, just a point less than Celtic.

Apply those percentages to a 16 team league and Killie/Aberdeen would STILL be 12 points off top spot; that isn't a genuine challenge and

If a team can get close to matching the OF in games versus The Rest then the games against celtic and sevco would take care of themselves and QED a genuine challenge in a 10, 12, 16 or 18 team league.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7/7 split would never work as because a team has to sit out each week there is an opportunity on the last day for teams to 'fix' results if it suits as per W Germany v Austria many years ago. That's the reason that on last day all games are played at same time

Make it so that the teams who finished 7th and 8th have the last weekend off. They're unlikely to be involved in title or relegation fights

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the moment does each club play one of the arse cheeks twice at home and the other twice away pre-split? I fear what may kill off any reconstruction that involves splitting after 2 rounds is the smaller clubs being afraid to lose their 3rd home OF game

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

Worth mentioning that Steve, and Geoff, Brown have been vehemently against expanding the top flight for years now.

I'd be stunned if they didnt vote against it

 

22 minutes ago, Coventry Saint said:

What's their reasoning for that, do you know? Is it purely the Old Firm games thing or is there any other reason for it? Genuine question.

 

21 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

No idea, but I'd strongly guess it would come down to money.

Or it could be that they actually like the structure the way it is, mainly because they think it works.

 

Before anyone says it's about the old firm coin etc you need to remember since moving away from the larger top league Saints have had a fair amount of time in the lower divisions and still believe a smaller premiership is the way ahead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scotty Tunbridge said:

 


Was the winter break not brought in because of the Betfred cup group stages meaning teams came back 2 weeks earlier, wouldn’t see it getting scrapped unless the group stages also so go with it.

FWIW I also hate the winter break mainly due to the farcical nature of it being at the end of December when the weather isn’t that bad, we then have brutal weather at the end of January/start of February every year without fail.

 

To be fair I didn't know that was the reason for the winter break. Could it not be a longer season?

I would bring the season forward a bit, then. I reckon it would help our clubs in Europe, where we've had some embarrassing results over the years, e.g. Celtic losing to Lincoln Red Imps, Rangers going out to Progres Niederkorn, and Kilmarnock going out to that Welsh side this season. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Donathan said:

At the moment does each club play one of the arse cheeks twice at home and the other twice away pre-split? I fear what may kill off any reconstruction that involves splitting after 2 rounds is the smaller clubs being afraid to lose their 3rd home OF game

Aye, I think they usually get three games against the Old Firm, but if it was a 6/8 split, they'd get two extra home games so would be compensated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, EdTheDuck said:

Sorry but you're wrong. The size of the league is irrelevnt to any other club putting in a challenge. The fact is that dropped points against The Rest play as big a part as the myth of dropping 24 points against the Ugly Sisters.

Last season Kilmarnock (Best of the Rest) dropped 34 points in 30 games against The Rest (37.78%).  Celtic only dropped dropped 21 in 34 games aainst The Rest (20.59%) . Aberdeen in 4th dropped 28 in their 30 games (31.11%)  If you're interested, Killie matched the US with a W3 D2 L3 against them.  They actually picked up 11 points vs the US, Celtic only picked up 6. Even given Aberdeen's general capitulation against Celtic, they still picked 5pts in those US games, just a point less than Celtic.

Apply those percentages to a 16 team league and Killie/Aberdeen would STILL be 12 points off top spot; that isn't a genuine challenge and

If a team can get close to matching the OF in games versus The Rest then the games against celtic and sevco would take care of themselves and QED a genuine challenge in a 10, 12, 16 or 18 team league.

You're basing all this on the current set up though.

It stands to reason that in a bigger league and playing each other less often, Aberdeen (for example) would have a better chance. They'd be swapping fixtures at Ibrox, Parkhead, Easter Road, Fir Park for fixtures at Morton, Ayr, Partick, Dunfermline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Henderson to deliver ..... said:

fixtures at Morton, Ayr, Partick, Dunfermline.

If we have to go to these places (dunfy aside) they can take reconstruction and shove it up their collective arses..........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Green Day said:

If we have to go to these places (dunfy aside) they can take reconstruction and shove it up their collective arses..........

Hey, enough of that, plus I don't think you'd be visiting Partick anytime soon unless it was in a cup match.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Henderson to deliver ..... said:

You're basing all this on the current set up though.

It stands to reason that in a bigger league and playing each other less often, Aberdeen (for example) would have a better chance. They'd be swapping fixtures at Ibrox, Parkhead, Easter Road, Fir Park for fixtures at Morton, Ayr, Partick, Dunfermline.

It makes no difference. Given the facts of the current structure it is more likely Aberdeen will drop points against Dundee or ICT than celtic or sevco. Kilmarnock last season demonstrated that the Ugly Sisters can be matched head-on, but raising your game against the US is pointless if you scatter points to the four winds against The Rest.

Having said that, if, for example, Kilmarnock were within 4 points of the leaders  in a 16 team league after 22 games the whole dynamic would change for the 8 game run-in. Whereas, last season, with 16 games left the smaller  squad meant injuries & suspensions played a bigger role...probably.  It needs that consistency against all teams though, not just raising your game against celtic and sevco.

I wouldn't mind giving it a go, just to see, but it is never going to happen because the 5 biggest city clubs are money grabbing twonks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Me as one of the ' auld yins' who vividly remembers the 18 team top league set up before 1974 , I have to say that as a supporter of Motherwell who were almost always mid table at the time I found the arrangement to be terrible.

Basically having no chance of Europe , little risk of relegation and invariably papped out of both cups early, we found ourselves as early as February with nothing to play for. Consequently our attendances plummeted sometimes getting as low as 2,000 when up against clubs in a similar position. 

So for all I understand why some others see the attraction of playing each other only twice and blooding more youngsters the reality is that this is considerably outweighed by the drop in attendances , loss of revenue and the mind numbing boredom when playing games that don't matter. Contrast with just now when invariably deep into the season all clubs have something to play for.

Therefore I would recommend that unless we can retain the current arrangement ( which with Dundee's quid pro quo making this unlikely) I would go reluctantly with an increase to 14. But I would insist on keeping the play offs which to me have been brilliant.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Marinello said:

Me as one of the ' auld yins' who vividly remembers the 18 team top league set up before 1974 , I have to say that as a supporter of Motherwell who were almost always mid table at the time I found the arrangement to be terrible.

Basically having no chance of Europe , little risk of relegation and invariably papped out of both cups early, we found ourselves as early as February with nothing to play for. Consequently our attendances plummeted sometimes getting as low as 2,000 when up against clubs in a similar position. 

So for all I understand why some others see the attraction of playing each other only twice and blooding more youngsters the reality is that this is considerably outweighed by the drop in attendances , loss of revenue and the mind numbing boredom when playing games that don't matter. Contrast with just now when invariably deep into the season all clubs have something to play for.

Therefore I would recommend that unless we can retain the current arrangement ( which with Dundee's quid pro quo making this unlikely) I would go reluctantly with an increase to 14. But I would insist on keeping the play offs which to me have been brilliant.

 

 

This man speaketh wisdom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry but you're wrong. The size of the league is irrelevnt to any other club putting in a challenge. The fact is that dropped points against The Rest play as big a part as the myth of dropping 24 points against the Ugly Sisters.
Last season Kilmarnock (Best of the Rest) dropped 34 points in 30 games against The Rest (37.78%).  Celtic only dropped dropped 21 in 34 games aainst The Rest (20.59%) . Aberdeen in 4th dropped 28 in their 30 games (31.11%)  If you're interested, Killie matched the US with a W3 D2 L3 against them.  They actually picked up 11 points vs the US, Celtic only picked up 6. Even given Aberdeen's general capitulation against Celtic, they still picked 5pts in those US games, just a point less than Celtic.
Apply those percentages to a 16 team league and Killie/Aberdeen would STILL be 12 points off top spot; that isn't a genuine challenge and
If a team can get close to matching the OF in games versus The Rest then the games against celtic and sevco would take care of themselves and QED a genuine challenge in a 10, 12, 16 or 18 team league.
It's a more genuine challenge than there currently is. I'm not for a second saying we'll suddenly see a different winner every year but it could and probably would lead to a more competitive top end, and likely the same at the bottom.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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