invergowrie arab Posted June 11, 2020 Share Posted June 11, 2020 I'm only in my 30s and have seen 3 league governing bodies and the leagues as 10 14 14 12 12 14 10 10 10 10 12 10 10 10 Please stop. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoriginalhedge Posted June 11, 2020 Share Posted June 11, 2020 15 hours ago, Zing. said: 14-10-10-10 back on the table. Another week or two of this then. Great. Good. If that had been done right at the start it would have saved our association from becoming a laughing stock . 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JTS98 Posted June 11, 2020 Share Posted June 11, 2020 (edited) 7 minutes ago, theoriginalhedge said: Good. If that had been done right at the start it would have saved our association from becoming a laughing stock . I think all tribal nonsense aside, this is the most sensible and least divisive thing that could have been done from day 1. It would have saved an awful lot of messing around and bad feeling. Teams being relegated in this scenario were always going to kick up shite and this is the easiest way to just move on quickly. Nothing is perfect, but this would have made sense from the off. I think that if this had been the league's first proposal most people would just have shrugged, taken the piss out of Hearts for a bit, then moved on. Edited June 11, 2020 by JTS98 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Day Posted June 11, 2020 Share Posted June 11, 2020 4 minutes ago, JTS98 said: this is the most sensible and least divisive thing that could have been done from day 1 Can you list the pros and cons of this versus the current setup? This is a genuine question, and not one I would ask of one or two of your walloper chums. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JTS98 Posted June 11, 2020 Share Posted June 11, 2020 1 minute ago, Green Day said: Can you list the pros and cons of this versus the current setup? This is a genuine question, and not one I would ask of one or two of your walloper chums. I did a few pages back. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Day Posted June 11, 2020 Share Posted June 11, 2020 Just now, JTS98 said: I did a few pages back. Can you cut and paste? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JTS98 Posted June 11, 2020 Share Posted June 11, 2020 (edited) 59 minutes ago, Green Day said: Can you cut and paste? But I think the league of 14 versus league of 12 discussion is interesting in and of itself. I've long defended the 12-team league and 6/6 split system. I think it's a pretty decent set-up for our league and provides decent competition towards the end of the season. It also creates a bit of interest in the spring with teams jostling for the last top 6 place, which despite sarcy comments about the top 6 trophy etc, is something clubs are very keen to be in. I like the post-split sprint finish with teams playing those around them. In short, I think it's good. The main criticisms of a 12-team 6/6 seem to be the following (in no particular order). 1) The team in 7th ends up with more points than the team in 6th. - Who cares? Next. 2) Pre-split (with 33 games) teams have lopsided fixtures and every year this means some teams will have more favourable pre-split fixtures than others. 'Sporting integrity' etc etc. - A 14-team division with a split after 26 solves this problem. 3) - Teams end up with lopsided fixtures even once it's all finished. In 2005/06 Hearts beat Aberdeen at Tynecastle to guarantee second place. It was our third home game against Aberdeen in the league that season. Our away form was pretty shite, would we have finished second if we'd had to go to Pittodrie that night? Maybe. Maybe not. We hadn't won away from home against any of the top six sides since the opening day of the season. - A 14-team division with a split after 26 games solves this problem. Criticisms of a 14-team division with a split after 26 games: 1) 26 games is too early a cut-off point to condemn someone to the lower section. - A fair point, but it's also 'fairer' to do this after clubs have all had identical fixtures than after the lopsided 33 games and it provides a bit more jeopardy in early season games. So, fair arguments either way. 2) More meaningless games. - True. You will end up with some teams doddering along with hee haw to play for. But that is simply part of football. Some games are meaningless for some teams. And for some teams this will be a positive. I think Ross County, Hearts, St Mirren, or Accies would be happier doddering along with hee haw to play for post-split than fighting off relegation, and some clubs would see it as a chance to play young players or formulate solid plans for the following season in a pressure-free environment so it can be framed both ways. Ultimately, it's just a general rule of football around the world that being mid-table is boring. Also, we don't know how that would play out. Would teams at the bottom of the league benefit from only playing lower-half teams for longer? It might bunch up that section of the league. We won't know unless we see it play out. Different seasons will be different. 3) Teams playing an unequal number of games. - Bottom section sides will benefit from an extra home game's worth of income as a softner for not being in the top section. Top section sides will get a breather as they are more likely to have competed in Europe and will usually go further in cups. 75% of the Scottish Cup quarter finalists (ETA this should have said semi-finalists) this season are top-half sides. 50% or 75% of League Cup semi-finalists (complicated by Hibs' placement) were top-half sides. I think both systems have their pros. Neither would be particularly disastrous. Edited June 11, 2020 by JTS98 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomGuy. Posted June 11, 2020 Share Posted June 11, 2020 1 hour ago, Stanislav Petrov said: Reconstruction is back on the table because of Sky and Celtic. If neither were adding pressure then this wouldn’t be happening. Certain clubs are rightfully concerned about alienating their fan base. So Sky, who have already agreed terms to televise games next season, and have zero interest in anything to do with Scottish football outwith Celtic and Rangers, are pushing for a 14 team top flight for what reason? And what are they threatening if clubs dont back it up? What do Celtic have to gain from a 14 team top flight? Your entire act falls down the moment you look back and realise all you ever post is vague promises reconstruction will be "done next week", every week for a month. You've been on here for a month seemingly claiming to be ITK about the inner workings of this all, yet have never once revealed anything thats happened in those 4 months at any point before it's made public. You're entire belief system is based on the belief theres 41 clubs quivering in a corner that Hearts can take legal action, something Hearts have had 3 months to action, yet instead theyve gone down the route of trying to pressurise, guilt, and bribe, other clubs into voting reconstruction through instead. You're just Pet Jedens dad arent you? 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Day Posted June 11, 2020 Share Posted June 11, 2020 3 minutes ago, JTS98 said: I think both systems have their pros. Neither would be particularly disastrous I think your assessment is decent. I wonder if some less well supported clubs will baulk at losing that 3rd Celtic / Rangers match that they get at the moment - its worth a lot more to some clubs as a %age of their seasons gate money than - lets say - a meaningless match v another bottom 8 team. My personal preference is for a larger top division, but I think that has even less chance, sadly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Day Posted June 11, 2020 Share Posted June 11, 2020 6 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said: What do Celtic have to gain from a 14 team top flight Thats an easy one - more cannon fodder to destroy in the early stages and make their lead even more unassailable. ICT played at Easter Road last season and were comfortably the worst, dirtiest team I have seen for many a year. They are apparently skint, so they will not be able to strengthen either. Hearts would do just fine as they have cash, but Inverness inclusion in the top flight will add absolutely nothing. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Fingers Posted June 11, 2020 Share Posted June 11, 2020 Just making sure I could remember my login for here. As you were. Speak soon. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JTS98 Posted June 11, 2020 Share Posted June 11, 2020 3 minutes ago, Green Day said: I think your assessment is decent. I wonder if some less well supported clubs will baulk at losing that 3rd Celtic / Rangers match that they get at the moment - its worth a lot more to some clubs as a %age of their seasons gate money than - lets say - a meaningless match v another bottom 8 team. My personal preference is for a larger top division, but I think that has even less chance, sadly. Possibly. But, as I mentioned a while back, I think the smart clubs of the smaller group will have an eye on the long game. Over a decade this set-up would make it harder for them to be relegated and easier for them to be promoted. Spending more seasons in the top flight outweighs one home game per season against the Old Firm. Depends on the length of view you take. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Grimes Posted June 11, 2020 Share Posted June 11, 2020 A genuine FUCKING shambles this is still rumbling on Embarrassing 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itzdrk Posted June 11, 2020 Share Posted June 11, 2020 2 hours ago, JTS98 said: Apologies, 40 games. You're right. But the point about 37 games is a major obstacle to 16 I think. Can you imagine a relegation head-to-head where Team A has to go to play Team B away from home after the split. How do you balance that out year-on-year if they get relegated? No team is going to be happy with that. You're making every single issue in the division weighted unfairly. Imagine if Motherwell were going for Europe next season in direct competition with Aberdeen and had to play them twice away from home and missed out by a point. Then the following season had a poor season and were head-to-head for relegation with St Johnstone and had to play them away from home twice and ended up going down? Perfectly feasible and no way to iron that out. It would lead to paranoia off the scale. Five years in every support in the country would be saying "How come five years ago we had to go there twice, then we had to go there twice" etc etc. And as clubs move around from season to season there would be some clubs repeatedly winning from the scenario and some clubs repeatedly losing. It's a jigsaw you can only fit if the same teams finish in the same positions every year. That doesn't happen. 16 is the least viable number of the lot. Your objections to 16 are situations which arise in 12 which we currently have. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Day Posted June 11, 2020 Share Posted June 11, 2020 5 minutes ago, JTS98 said: Depends on the length of view you take Nail on head - and Scottish football, of course, is well known for taking the long view !! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingjoey Posted June 11, 2020 Share Posted June 11, 2020 2 hours ago, Pet Jeden said: Heeeyyyy. Joey! First Wiggy. Then Cormack. Now you. Is there a correlation between being a loon and sleekit behaviour? Absolutely. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JTS98 Posted June 11, 2020 Share Posted June 11, 2020 (edited) 6 minutes ago, itzdrk said: Your objections to 16 are situations which arise in 12 which we currently have. Yeah. I think in 16 they are more pronounced. I think 16 is the worst of all the options, for the reasons I outlined before. 14 is the 'fairest' in a pure sense. Everybody would play exactly the same fixtures as their competitors for the first time in two decades. Edited June 11, 2020 by JTS98 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve McQueen Posted June 11, 2020 Share Posted June 11, 2020 We may as well have a American style east/west conferences. 6 teams in each play each other 4 times plus teams in the other conference twice. 32 games then top 2 from each enter championship playoffs.Sorry, I thought we were just naming things that would never get voted through. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itzdrk Posted June 11, 2020 Share Posted June 11, 2020 Just now, JTS98 said: Yeah. I think in 16 they are more pronounced. I think 16 is the worst of all the options, for the reasons I outlined before. 14 is the 'fairest' in a pure sense. Everybody would play exactly the same fixtures as their competitors for the first time in decades. I have a big problem with the initial 14 clubs but not so much the structure. I do not see any good reason why all the teams in the first playoff position should be promoted and it sits wrong with me. I am also petty as f**k and demand Partick Thistle remain relegated. I think 18 is the best for us all generally, we very obviously haven't reached that level of discussion with our bigger clubs yet but I'd imagine next time round we might be looking at it playing eachother home and away without the need for a split. Not sure how that would look below the top flight either. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted June 11, 2020 Share Posted June 11, 2020 29 minutes ago, JTS98 said: I did a few pages back. Is this the shortest post you've made to date? 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.