How do you solve a problem like the Scottish Premiership?

[stu2910]

I’m sure someone with more time on their hands could do a better analysis than me, but I’m fairly certain that the number of clubs in a league has no negative effect on how meaningful the games are.  It’s all dependent on the number of fixtures.

If there are 38 games played and therefore 114 points available, then it doesn’t matter whether there 12 teams or 20, the spread of points between them will be the same. The only difference is that a larger league will have more teams filling in the gaps, therefore if anything creating MORE games that matter towards the end of the season, even if it’s only deciding 2 places that don’t qualify for anything.

The points for the bottom 6 this year were 50, 46, 43, 40, 34, 31.

In England, for the bottom 10, it was 45, 44, 41, 40, 39, 38, 36, 34, 31, 25.

So essentially, a larger league would see a greater chance of those relegation spots being decided on the final day, as did happen, because the lack of a split makes it harder for Motherwell and St Johnstone this season to pull away from the rest.

On that note, how many “meaningless” games did a third of our top flight clubs play this season, between Celtic, Rangers, Livi and Motherwell?

Edited May 31, 2023 by stu2910

[topcat(The most tip top)]

I've had an idea, hear me out

The solution is the distribution of TV money

But contrary to received opinion it doesn't need to be more equitable, it needs to be less equitable

Rather than, as happens now, distributing some of the money equally and some of it based on league position we should stick it all in a big pile and then give it all to one randomly selected club each season who can then try and cash in their good fortune and chase down the league title

This would deliver most of the things people are calling for. People want unpredictability?. Well you can't get more unpredictable than a literal lottery it would produce a situation. More potential title winners you say?  Well your club might not have a chance to win the league this year but you know that chances are your big shot will come eventually. 

 

[Fuctifano]

12 minutes ago, stu2910 said:

I’m sure someone with more time on their hands could do a better analysis than me, but I’m fairly certain that the number of clubs in a league has no negative effect on how meaningful the games are.  It’s all dependent on the number of fixtures.

If there are 38 games played and therefore 114 points available, then it doesn’t matter whether there 12 teams or 20, the spread of points between them will be the same. The only difference is that a larger league will have more teams filling in the gaps, therefore if anything creating MORE games that matter towards the end of the season, even if it’s only deciding 2 places that don’t qualify for anything.

The points for the bottom 6 this year were 50, 46, 43, 40, 34, 31.

In England, for the bottom 10, it was 45, 44, 41, 40, 39, 38, 36, 34, 31, 25.

So essentially, a larger league would see a greater chance of those relegation spots being decided on the final day, as did happen, because the lack of a split makes it harder for Motherwell and St Johnstone this season to pull away from the rest.

On that note, how many “meaningless” games did a third of our top flight clubs play this season, between Celtic, Rangers, Livi and Motherwell?

small sample size, yes they lucked out with the fixtures, and yes they have 7 European spots but I'm pretty sure every game on the last day of the 18 team Bundesliga there was at least one team with an interest in either the title, the last CL spot, the last European spot, or avoiding relegation.

Even in the 24 team English lower leagues it's normally only with a maximum 4 or 5 games to go that teams have nothing to play for, I've never got this point about having nothing to play for from February onwards about bigger leagues.

The more valid counter argument to bigger leagues pertaining to Scotland is the potential drop off income wise with a bigger top division into a second tier with maybe 4 or 5 full time clubs and then lots of part time clubs.

[annan4eva]

59 minutes ago, stu2910 said:

I’m sure someone with more time on their hands could do a better analysis than me, but I’m fairly certain that the number of clubs in a league has no negative effect on how meaningful the games are.  It’s all dependent on the number of fixtures.

If there are 38 games played and therefore 114 points available, then it doesn’t matter whether there 12 teams or 20, the spread of points between them will be the same. The only difference is that a larger league will have more teams filling in the gaps, therefore if anything creating MORE games that matter towards the end of the season, even if it’s only deciding 2 places that don’t qualify for anything.

The points for the bottom 6 this year were 50, 46, 43, 40, 34, 31.

In England, for the bottom 10, it was 45, 44, 41, 40, 39, 38, 36, 34, 31, 25.

So essentially, a larger league would see a greater chance of those relegation spots being decided on the final day, as did happen, because the lack of a split makes it harder for Motherwell and St Johnstone this season to pull away from the rest.

On that note, how many “meaningless” games did a third of our top flight clubs play this season, between Celtic, Rangers, Livi and Motherwell?

What do you do when you have time on your hands ?

[stu2910]

1 minute ago, annan4eva said:

What do you do when you have time on your hands ?

As parent of a toddler soon to be joined by a baby and working full time, I don’t remember.

[Trackdaybob]

3 minutes ago, stu2910 said:

As parent of a toddler soon to be joined by a baby and working full time, I don’t remember.

That's what you get for shaggin

 

[annan4eva]

2 minutes ago, Trackdaybob said:

That's what you get for shaggin

 

Know when you post and at the point of pressed you just know the answer is going to be utter pish.

[Otis Blue]

1 hour ago, craigkillie said:

The Championship clubs have won these play-offs three out of eight seasons which is not really far off 50-50, and every single one of the five beaten finalists have played in the Premiership in the last deacde anyway.

I don't see which "aspirational diddy clubs" are being discussed here - since the play-offs started, there have been 6 clubs who have taken part in them who haven't been in the top flight this century (Queen of the South, Raith, Morton, Ayr, Arbroath and Queen's Park). Across those clubs, only one has even won a tie in the play-offs (Raith in the QF in 2020/21), so regardless of the play-off structure it's unlikely any of them would have been promoted.

I think this is my point (poorly made as usual).  The "aspirational diddy clubs" (that you listed above) just can't make it to the top table in the current format (and it could be suggested that that is almost by design).

If my quick look in the SPFL archives is correct (big if tbf as I'm prone to error), the promoted sides were:

22/23 - Kilmarnock

21/22 - Hearts & Dundee

20/21 - Dundee Utd

19/20 - Ross County

18/19 - St Mirren & Livingston

17/18 - Hibs

16/17 - Rangers

15/16 - Hearts

OK, a short sample only - but usually only one side makes it out of the Championship (ie the play-offs aren't often a fruitful route to the promised land) and most of the promoted sides that actually make it up are not what I'd call "aspirational diddy sides" (I wouldn't label Rangers, Hearts, Hibs, Dundee Utd, Dundee, Killie, St Mirren as "aspirational diddy sides").

The 12 team top league size, and its relegation/promotion structure will pretty well keep it so ... and change is prevented by the voting structure.  So it will remain as is and the diddies will know their place.  The exception of course will always be the rich sugar daddy funded routes - eg County, Gretna and possibly QP.

Edited May 31, 2023 by Otis Blue

[CambieBud]

I don’t get the argument that there would be meaningless games. As things stand, the risk of relegation from the top flight, coupled with the drop in revenue that follows, makes managers risk averse. Youngsters aren’t blooded as the risk is too high.  Most teams, outwith the Glasgow Mafia, have too much to lose. That, coupled with playing the same teams 4 times a season is stale. 
Look at the big leagues of Europe. In England, Germany, Spain, Italy and France, there are loads of meaningless games towards the end of every season. Clubs who are safe or cannot qualify for Europe, use these games to rotate their squads and start building for the next season. Here, clubs cannot contemplate any advance thinking until the season ends.

[David1979]

4 hours ago, Otis Blue said:

Depends what you mean by "stagnation".  I've used the word to relate to the facts that:

- only two clubs can realistically ever win the league with everyone else chasing a possible 3rd at best

- that the top league is essentially forbidden ground to most of the aspirational diddy clubs below due to the heavily biased bottom play-off structure

- that change is effectively prevented due to the voting structure

As you say, we are indeed a football loving country and that shows through the figures you mention and that's to be applauded.

The crux of the matter is that virtually every single indicator tells us that our game is actually the opposite of stagnating. It's arguably in the best health it's been in for a long time. Those who run the game would be insane to make any kind of sweeping changes at the moment.

[bendan]

12 minutes ago, David1979 said:

The crux of the matter is that virtually every single indicator tells us that our game is actually the opposite of stagnating. It's arguably in the best health it's been in for a long time. Those who run the game would be insane to make any kind of sweeping changes at the moment.

 

Yeah, I feel like we are on an upward path so it would be weird to make massive changes. I don't see the harm in having bigger leagues below the Championship, though.

If Hearts, Hibs and Aberdeen could ever properly get their shit together they would sometimes split the top two, or better. Plenty of clubs in Europe with similar resources manage to put together strong teams.

In the meantime, I think there should be a national campaign to highlight the complete embarrassment of being an OF fan, starting in primary schools.

[10menwent2mow]

54 minutes ago, CambieBud said:

I don’t get the argument that there would be meaningless games. As things stand, the risk of relegation from the top flight, coupled with the drop in revenue that follows, makes managers risk averse. Youngsters aren’t blooded as the risk is too high.  Most teams, outwith the Glasgow Mafia, have too much to lose. That, coupled with playing the same teams 4 times a season is stale. 
Look at the big leagues of Europe. In England, Germany, Spain, Italy and France, there are loads of meaningless games towards the end of every season. Clubs who are safe or cannot qualify for Europe, use these games to rotate their squads and start building for the next season. Here, clubs cannot contemplate any advance thinking until the season ends.

That's not the only reason clubs can't contemplate advance thinking. The majority of teams in the premiership will have 10-15 players out of contract every summer because they can't afford to be having players on 3-4 year deals incase they are shite and the majority operate with a tight budget, a small squad supplemented by youngsters. 

Yes these teams in England, France etc will bring in a couple of youngsters for a few minutes, a game at the end of the season, but is this going to turn them into future England internationals. I very much doubt it. If they aren't good enough to be pushing for a first team place throughout the season, then getting a game in a 12th Vs 11th match in an 18 team league isn't going to drastically improve them. 

Take young Bavidge at Aberdeen. Scored a truckload in the youth teams, has had a few minutes towards the ends of games this season. Best thing for his development next season, in my opinion, would be a loan move to maybe league 1. 

[Dons_1988]

1 hour ago, bendan said:

 

If Hearts, Hibs and Aberdeen could ever properly get their shit together they would sometimes split the top two, or better. Plenty of clubs in Europe with similar resources manage to put together strong teams.

Show your workings. 

[David1979]

1 hour ago, bendan said:

If Hearts, Hibs and Aberdeen could ever properly get their shit together they would sometimes split the top two, or better. Plenty of clubs in Europe with similar resources manage to put together strong teams.

I'm not sure that's the case to be honest. The gulf between Celtic primarily, and Rangers to a lesser extent, compared to the rest of Scottish football is huge. I'm sure I read that of 17 other leagues compared, only France had a larger spread between the top and the bottom.

Back in 2018, a report on the subject concluded, which should put the whole thing into context...

"There is considerably less of a resource gulf between Celtic and reigning Premier League champions Manchester City than between Celtic and most clubs in their own division."

"Using our GSSS numbers from this report, City players earn ‘only’ seven times as much as those at Celtic, who in turn earn around 20 times the basic paid at Motherwell, Hamilton and St Johnstone."

So I think any attempts to split the top tow or better would require gargantuan financial input of some sort.

[jamamafegan]

1 hour ago, David1979 said:

The crux of the matter is that virtually every single indicator tells us that our game is actually the opposite of stagnating. It's arguably in the best health it's been in for a long time. Those who run the game would be insane to make any kind of sweeping changes at the moment.

What are these indicators?

1 hour ago, bendan said:

 

If Hearts, Hibs and Aberdeen could ever properly get their shit together they would sometimes split the top two, or better. Plenty of clubs in Europe with similar resources manage to put together strong teams.

 

It is pure fantasy to think any of the clubs you've mentioned can win the league and it's wishful thinking to hope that they split the top two under the current set-up. I would agree that all 3 clubs are inconsistent and could be far better but an improvement on this still wouldn't be nearly enough. There is currently zero chance a 'lesser' club will win the league unless either of the following happen:

1) One or both of the Old Firm die again;

2) One of the lesser clubs is bought over by a billionaire who turns said club into a Scottish Man City;

3) Major changes from a financial perspective ie salary caps or revamps of how wealth is spread throughout the clubs.

The gulf in wealth is too large. Way, way bigger than the gulf between the likes of Leicester City and the wealthy English clubs.

[RandomGuy.]

4 minutes ago, jamamafegan said:

 

The gulf in wealth is too large. Way, way bigger than the gulf between the likes of Leicester City and the wealthy English clubs.

Its a different type of wealth gap anyway.

Leicester built a squad worth over £200m and filled with Internationalists.

Scottish clubs are signing free agents from League Two.

[Jacksgranda]

4 hours ago, Fuctifano said:

small sample size, yes they lucked out with the fixtures, and yes they have 7 European spots but I'm pretty sure every game on the last day of the 18 team Bundesliga there was at least one team with an interest in either the title, the last CL spot, the last European spot, or avoiding relegation.

Even in the 24 team English lower leagues it's normally only with a maximum 4 or 5 games to go that teams have nothing to play for, I've never got this point about having nothing to play for from February onwards about bigger leagues.

The more valid counter argument to bigger leagues pertaining to Scotland is the potential drop off income wise with a bigger top division into a second tier with maybe 4 or 5 full time clubs and then lots of part time clubs.

I posted this earlier on in the thread:

I remember the old 2 division set up of 18 and 19/20. I enjoyed the old system, but that was what was normal back then - everywhere, nobody played 4 times a season in the league, scottish cup and league cup games obviously upped the number of times you could play a team - nowadays the split is normal to the vast majority of fans. I thought I would look up the bottom 2 from the seasons I watched.

The seasons I saw of 2 team divisions: 1963/64  East Stirlingshire 18th with 12 points. QoS  17th with 16 points. 9 point gap to 16th (Third Lanark).

1964/65  Third Lanark 18th with 7 points (the same amount of points they had at New Year)  Airdrieonians  17th with 14 points.  7 point gap to 16th (Falkirk)

1965/66  Hamilton Academical 18th with 8 points.  Morton  17th with 21 points - a point behind 16th (St Mirren)

1966/67  Ayr United   18th with 9 points. St Mirren   17th with 15 points. 4 point gap to 16th (Stirling Albion)

1967/68  Stirling Albion   18th with 12 points.  Motherwell   17th with 19 points.  6 point gap to 16th  (Raith Rovers)

1968/69  Arbroath   18th with 16 points ( 3 off the Dons).   Falkirk 17th with 18 points.  3 point gap to 16th  (Raith Rovers)

1969/70  Partick Thistle   18th with 17 points.  Raith Rovers  17th with 21 points.  4 point gap to 16th  (Clyde)

1970/71   Cowdenbeath  18th with 17 points.  St Mirren  17th with 23 points. Relegated on goal average to 16th placed Dunfermline

1971/72  Dunfermline Athletic   18th with 23 points (which would comfortably have kept them up the previous 8 seasons).  Clyde  17th with 24 points One point gap to 16th (East Fife)

1972/73  Airdrieonians   18th with 16 points.   Kilmarnock  17th with 22 points.  One point gap to 16th  (Dumbarton)

Then I was away. However, the two division set up lasted only 2 more seasons, so here there are.

1973/74  Falkirk   18th with 22 points.  East Fife  17th with 24 points. Relegated on goal difference  to 16th placed Dunfermline 

1974/75  Arbroath and Morton were 18th and 17th but the leagues were reorganised and (in descending order from 11th), Airdrieonians, Kilmarnock, Partick Thistle, Dumbarton, Dunfermline and Clyde were also relegated.

A lot of seasons the bottom team were gone by Christmas. I particularly remember 1968/69 as the Dons were involved in the relegation struggle, but after defeating Falkirk at Pittodrie at Christmas were practically safe. 2 points for a win back then.

So a lot of the time the bottom team was stranded, if not by Christmas, by late March/early April.

[Otis Blue]

2 hours ago, David1979 said:

The crux of the matter is that virtually every single indicator tells us that our game is actually the opposite of stagnating. It's arguably in the best health it's been in for a long time. Those who run the game would be insane to make any kind of sweeping changes at the moment.

It's all about perspective though isn't it?  If you're lucky enough to support one of the favoured top league sides (which I think you do) then you're going to think everything in the garden is rosy.  If you've supported an aspirational diddy side like I have for 50 years, and you're on the wrong end of the statistics, then you're not going to hold your breath in the hope that magnanimous residents of the promised land will suddenly be open to how things look from the desert and/or will countenance change.

Statistics are crude devices on their own - we do have more spectators now than when I first started watching, but then the OF attendances are larger now than what they were back then.  Yes, for a small country we have some of the best spectator to population ratios in Europe - but most of that is driven by the unsavoury OF masses - remove them and its a different story.

I've acknowledged in my posts that in the light of the viewing figures (and in particular the high OF figures) Doncaster isn't going to alienate his public, that's his job on the line and he'd be daft to do so - hence the status quo will continue ... at least until the day when UEFA finally offers cash-laden super leagues for the rich and entitled - at which point the OF will be off pronto and we'll not see their tail lights for dust and nor will they cast a glance in the rear view mirror.

[Stag Nation]

12 minutes ago, Otis Blue said:

 If you've supported an aspirational diddy side like I have for 50 years, and you're on the wrong end of the statistics, then you're not going to hold your breath in the hope that magnanimous residents of the promised land will suddenly be open to how things look from the desert and/or will countenance change.

What evidence is there that QOS are "aspirational"?

[Trackdaybob]

6 hours ago, annan4eva said:

Know when you post and at the point of pressed you just know the answer is going to be utter pish.

Aye. Thanks for reminding me