People's opinions of the split (..and possible reconstruction?)

[Ric]

This came about from discussions on another thread. There will be (several) reconstruction threads, but certainly the most recent ones descended into a Budge-a-thon, so I've started a fresh one.

Ok, before people start firing in, just let me clarify that I get that loads of people love the split. I am not completely against it, as I admit further down it's probably one the best systems you could implement having to adhere to very specific requirements in regard to number of games, available calendar in which to play them, and the financial gain from playing them. I do have a couple of issues with it though..

• The possible "inconsistency" that, by the end of the league, teams in the 6th place can have less points than the 7th placed team. Now, I know, "but.. Ric, you idiot, that's because they are in their own separate leagues", however that is the point really. The split locks teams into their relative groupings, this stops late surges for European placings as much as safe guarding a team in obvious decline that scraped into the top six.
   
• The imbalance of games against rivals and/or home and away fixtures. We need to accept that the league is already manipulated so that by 33 games the idea is those who the SPFL had identified as being in the top/bottom six will have games left against their rivals. We know, however, from experience that isn't how it works out. The league does its best but if prediction was easy bookies wouldn't exist.

In some balance, the following is normally the positives given for the split:

• It creates excitement at the end of the league. In general because the teams in their separate splits are only playing each other, which leads to the classic 6 pointer. My counter to that is the league is already manipulated in that manner anyway, the split itself isn't required for those fixtures to take place.
   
• it reduces the number of meaningless games. If you define meaningless as games at the end of the league where no team would benefit regardless of the score (as in no positional changes and no rivals close enough to interfere with the position) then that still happens in the split. In fact without the 6th/7th "cross over" you add a new restriction. You can still have 7th/8th having meaningless games, you can still have 5th and 6th having meaningless games.
   
• It is required in order to get the most finances out of the available calendar. This one I can't really argue with, with 12 teams there is a limited set of implementations you can have, the current system is probably the best regarding finances/games played/calendar available. What this last one suggests is that perhaps we are not starting from the most optimum base and the idea of reconstruction should be considered.

 

I'll admit now, I have absolutely no stick-on solution to resolve the negatives I see with the split. I also accept loads of people like the split. Me? I'd like to see something like an 18 (34 games, 2x H/A, 3 relegation spots - 1 automatic, 2 playoff) premier with perhaps a couple of leagues of 14 below that (with similar promotion/relegation to the premier), then regional pyramids further down.

Before anyone immediately destroys my suggestion above, I fully accept that such a setup has it's own set of problems, even if it does remove the negatives of the split, there doesn't seem to be a silver bullet.

I'll not add a poll here, I expect the vast majority to be in favour for it, and I also accept that I am in the minority here.

 

TL;DR: The split has some issues, most are probably not bothered by them, what's your opinion?

 

 

Edited February 7, 2022 by Ric
typo

[Archie McSquackle]

Happy enough with the split. We'll save reconstruction for when Motherwell are getting relegated.

[VincentGuerin]

I don't really care about the fixture imbalance. Some people get tremendously worked up about it, I don't think it's a big deal.

I don't really see your point about stopping a late push for Europe. It doesn't. Every team knows that the cut-off point for being in the top 6 is 33 games. If you're not, then tough shit. 33 games is when you need to make your late push for.

Similarly, if you've scrambled into the top 6 after 33 games, you don't need to worry about bombing into the play-off or something. That's your reward and everyone knows 33 games is the point you need to do that.

So, I don't really think you've got a point on that one.

[Theyellowbox]

Leave it as is. Scottish football goes through league reconstruction far too often. Only change that would be better would be a larger top league with better distributions. Anything other than that would be change for changes sake.

[Thistle_do_nicely]

Pretty much fine with it as is, you could adjust the prize money for league position to be more equitable though, i think 1st and 2nd still get a big % of the "pot" but that might be outdated.

Theres that regular soundbite about "if we finish 9th instead of 8th thats an extra £50k to this football club so that could be an extra player brought in in the summer" but the bigger that figure gets the more impressive it sounds. Cynical as it is, money can make a big motivator to keep games competitive post split.

[CambieBud]

I agree with almost all of this. The 12 team setup has made the game stale. There is no excitement because the clubs play each other far too often. I get that the big clubs don’t want an increased league but the present setup leads to stagnation in all 4 leagues, but particularly the top league. 
I have always believed increasing the top league and reducing the amount of times clubs have to play each other would encourage clubs to bring through more young players, rather than panic buy journeymen in January. It won’t happen because Rangers/Celtic need and want as many games against each other as possible

[Ric]

Just now, VincentGuerin said:

I don't really see your point about stopping a late push for Europe. It doesn't. Every team knows that the cut-off point for being in the top 6 is 33 games. If you're not, then tough shit. 33 games is when you need to make your late push for.

Similarly, if you've scrambled into the top 6 after 33 games, you don't need to worry about bombing into the play-off or something. That's your reward and everyone knows 33 games is the point you need to do that.

So, I don't really think you've got a point on that one.

Now, to me, that's not really countering my point, if anything that's supporting it. You are saying there is an "artificially" introduced 'water shed' that takes place before the league has finished. If you consider a league being teams having the ability to play all their games. You accept it stops teams from progressing past that boundary, yet 15 points are still available.

[Dons_1988]

Enjoyed it more when we debated relegating teams with 8 games to go. 

[Ric]

5 minutes ago, Theyellowbox said:

Leave it as is. Scottish football goes through league reconstruction far too often. Only change that would be better would be a larger top league with better distributions. Anything other than that would be change for changes sake.

 

I do worry about the ad-nauseam effect. I really should have added it under one of the positives for the current system. It's damning with faint praise, of course, but it's also true. People want consistency and I also understand the fear that change could be for the worse, not the better.

 

4 minutes ago, Thistle_do_nicely said:

Theres that regular soundbite about "if we finish 9th instead of 8th thats an extra £50k to this football club so that could be an extra player brought in in the summer" but the bigger that figure gets the more impressive it sounds. Cynical as it is, money can make a big motivator to keep games competitive post split.

 

I agree in the broad point, it's all finances really. Understandably so, especially in the current financial climate.

[VincentGuerin]

4 minutes ago, Ric said:

Now, to me, that's not really countering my point, if anything that's supporting it. You are saying there is an "artificially" introduced 'water shed' that takes place before the league has finished. If you consider a league being teams having the ability to play all their games. You accept it stops teams from progressing past that boundary, yet 15 points are still available.

No. That part of the competition has finished. In terms of getting into the top 6 there are 0 points available.

Everybody has had 33 games to get there, and if you missed out, tough.

I think you're just failing to understand that it's two separate parts of the competition. I'm not sure you're going to get it, but that's what it is. It's not a difficult concept.

And it's no more 'artificial' than having a play-off for relegation, or the old away goals rule, or deciding to use goal difference rather than head-to-head or goal average. The whole league is just an imaginary thing that exists in our heads.

[FairWeatherFan]

I prefer what we have over most of the realistic alternatives that get floated. Shrinking to 10 or a 14 with an even more convoluted split.

[Ric]

Just now, VincentGuerin said:

I think you're just failing to understand that it's two separate parts of the competition. I'm not sure you're going to get it, but that's what it is. It's not a difficult concept.

Except that isn't the case, it's still the same league, the goals scored and points gained from playing those in opposite splits are retained.

I really don't get the condescending barb at the end there. It's completely out of place.

 

Just now, VincentGuerin said:

And it's no more 'artificial' than having a play-off for relegation, or the old away goals rule, or deciding to use goal difference rather than head-to-head or goal average.

This is just hyperbole, clearly none of those are equivalents.

Just now, VincentGuerin said:

 

The whole league is just an imaginary thing that exists in our heads.

I am sure Descartes said something about that.

[oneteaminglasgow]

An 18 team league with only one automatic relegation spot would be absolutely shite, IMO.

I think that the split works well. It does create a fixture imbalance, which is an issue (how much of one is open to debate), but it can create more exciting ends to the season. I also think that smaller leagues work fine to give us more meaningful games with things actually riding on them. A 16 team league (for example) is either going to fairly substantially reduce the number of games, or require a split anyway. It would mean teams playing each other less frequently I suppose, which is something of a plus if you’re bothered by that.

Anyway, my only suggestion would be to have more relegation and promotion places to allow for more ventilation between the leagues. 12 team leagues across the SPFL with 2 up 2 down automatically and a 4 team playoff for another promotion place - either 2 from each division or 10th plus 3rd to 5th in division below. 

[Ric]

1 minute ago, FairWeatherFan said:

I prefer what we have over most of the realistic alternatives that get floated. Shrinking to 10 or a 14 with an even more convoluted split.

10 for me would be a backward step, 14 still requires a split. For me it has to be 18 if it goes larger, but it's not that a league that large doesn't have it's own problems.

[AsimButtHitsASix]

Regarding a "push" for a European spot. When was the last time the team in 7th at the split had a genuinely decent chance of getting into Europe with five games to go?

[VincentGuerin]

4 minutes ago, Ric said:

Except that isn't the case, it's still the same league, the goals scored and points gained from playing those in opposite splits are retained.

I really don't get the condescending barb at the end there. It's completely out of place.

 

This is just hyperbole, clearly none of those are equivalents.

I am sure Descartes said something about that.

Apologies if you feel condescended, but it's a fairly simple point that has been made more than once today. You just seem to be skipping over it.

Competitions have different parts.

We could choose two points for a win, or seven points for a win, or give double points for away wins, or have penalty shoot outs to settle draws (like the League Cup, is this artificial?).

Competitions have different structures and rules. Our top flight has a cut-off at 33 games. Everyone knows that from the start and it is no more artificial or illegitimate than any other part of the competition.

[TheScarf]

Isn't the whole point of the split the fact that it guarantees 4 Old Firm games?  Something Sky insist on when bidding for the TV rights.

[Ric]

4 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

Apologies if you feel condescended, but it's a fairly simple point that has been made more than once today. You just seem to be skipping over it.

It's fine, the thing is it's not that I don't get the point you are making this isn't a lack of my understanding, it's just that the point you are making is incorrect for the reasons I posted above.

4 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

Competitions have different structures and rules. Our top flight has a cut-off at 33 games. Everyone knows that from the start and it is no more artificial or illegitimate than any other part of the competition.

I'm not suggesting this is changed mid competition. Of course the current system should be played to completion (right, Hearts fans? ). However, I feel your logic is circular. The split is there because the split has been agreed. I'm not arguing the current system doesn't have that cut off, my argument is that cut off shouldn't exist.

 

Edited February 7, 2022 by Ric

[scottsdad]

21 divisions of 2 teams each. Each season to last a single week. 

Draws in games to be banned. Should a game end in a draw, then a game of "hit the crossbar" shall decide the winner. 

Winners get promoted to the league above. Losers relegated to the league below. 

I realise this means (as of today) that Falkirk would start in the 14th tier of Scottish football. And the mods here would have a hellish time creating and updating the forum each week putting new teams in the new leagues. But that's what they get the big bucks for. 

Think about it - a winning run could mean multiple promotions in a row. Open top bus parades for half the teams in Scotland weekly. 

[VincentGuerin]

3 minutes ago, Ric said:

It's fine, the thing is it's not that I don't get the point you are making this isn't a lack of my understanding, it's just that the point you are making is incorrect for the reasons I posted above.

I'm not suggesting this is changed mid competition. Of course the current system should be played to completion (right, Hearts fans? ). However, I feel your logic is circular. The split is there because the split has been agreed. I'm not arguing the current system doesn't have that cut off, my argument is that cut off shouldn't exist.

 

I don't see the positive outcome we'd get if we removed the split.

We'd lose good fixtures at the end of the season that add to the excitement. We'd lose an easy model for a 38-game season. We'd lose semi-interesting games as clubs scramble for the last top six place in the spring.

What exactly would we gain?