mcruic

16 is a sensible number - 20 is too many and is simply a compromise for the first season. There's no drawbridge. 16 in Lowland League, 17 in Highland League, 16 in East of Scotland League, 14 in South of Scotland League. No other senior league in Scotland has 20 teams (or any league in any grade in Scotland?). So 16 is a sensible number to work towards. It's already what they have in the WoS Juniors - so nothing new... I'd imagine 2 or 3 promotion places will be in place by the time the top league goes to 16. What do you expect, 20 teams and 38 games per team forever? It's hard enough to finish the season with a 16-team league. Just that 4-team increase means 380 games per season instead of 240.

Does anybody here think that reserve teams shouldn't be allowed in the pyramid (as in England)? I'm talking about Stranraer and Caledonian Braves Reserves in the SoS and also Stirling University Reserves in the EoS. That would obviously mean SoS being down 2 clubs, but all the other senior teams manage to find meaningful games for their reserves without needing teams in senior competition.

Yeah they just went with a straightforward model, but this made the conferences unequal Numbering all clubs 1-39 as above, average strength is as follows (where 50 is average, 100 is best possible (i.e. teams 1-13) and 0 is worst (teams 27-39 in one conference). With serpentine system Conference A; 50.3 Conference B; 49.7 Conference C; 50.0 Without serpentine system (what actually happened) Conference A; 53.8 Conference B; 50.0 Conference C; 46.2 Essentially, it made Conference A 17% harder than Conference C, and 8% harder than Conference B, and made Conference B 8% harder than Conference C.

There was no application to fill the odd place in the West Juniors (meaning the bottom division ran with 15 teams last season). It's not a huge problem (though it looks untidy). Also, possibly another large youth club (Giffnock Soccer Centre, for example) could be encouraged to follow in the footsteps of Saint Cadoc's.

It won't happen but: Lowland League should really be split (or rather - Lowland League should be for East clubs, and rename itself). There are more than twice as many non-league clubs in the Lowland catchment area than there are in the Highland catchment area. It thus makes it twice as hard for any East or West club to progress through the pyramid. Three Tier 5 leagues gives East, West and North all an equal chance. The current set up gives very roughly an 80-160 affair, when a more sensible option would be an 80-80-80 affair.

CURRENT PYRAMID STATUS Highland: Tier 5: 17 clubs Tier 6: Nothing in place Potential outside pyramid: 32 North Juniors 17 Tayside Juniors 10 North Caledonian League CURRENT CLUBS: 17 POTENTIAL CLUBS: 76 (possibly 59 without Tayside) Lowland: Tier 5: 16 clubs Tier 6: West: 20 clubs, East: 18 clubs, South 15 clubs Tier 7: West: 47 clubs, East: 32 clubs Potential outside pyramid: 13 Lothian Juniors 17 Tayside Juniors CURRENT CLUBS: 148 POTENTIAL CLUBS: 161 (possibly 178 with Tayside) So, whatever way you look at it, a very lopsided pyramid. 17-148 distribution of clubs at the moment, with a best case scenario of 76-161 if all 237 clubs down to junior level get on board. A North/West/East split would be 59-88-90 with Tayside clubs in the East, or 76-88-73 with Tayside clubs in the North.

A lot of the problem has been that there have been no "visuals". So people are talking about hypothetical conferences and being put in them without knowing what that actually entails. I've divvied up the teams based on last season's Points Per Game and put them into conferences using the serpentine system (to create leagues of equal strength). At the top, I've presented what a 4-equal conferences model would look like, and at the bottom the currently proposed premier + 3 conferences below model. At least if they were presented with something like this, clubs would be able to argue about how good or bad next season would be in either situation, and have a chance to look and see what types of club they'd be likely to face. In terms of "standards": Level 1 Juniors: Much the same standard - perhaps slightly lower due to 4 extra teams Level 2 Juniors: Lower standard (playing Level 3 and 4 teams) Level 3 Juniors: Same standard - but with bigger variety in standard of opponents (Level 2 to Level 4). Level 4 Juniors: Better standard (playing Level 2 and 3 teams) Others: Better standard So, I'd say if anyone had a gripe about the conferences, it might be the Level 2 (Championship) Juniors - but it's only for one season...

It's all these little things that help fill lockdown time. I never even mentioned the missing buttons.

There's always someone going to be unhappy in any situation - if you told some in the West Juniors they'd be "as you were" next season, with no change, I bet you'd still get people swearing the goalposts had moved. The current situation is like being offered a new shirt for free, having that offer withdrawn, then being given the offer to wash/iron your current shirt, as well as the chance to win yourself a new shirt in future. The reaction is going in the huff and saying you like your dirty crumpled shirt and you don't like any of the new shirts anyway. The current offer is still better than what was there before, but the waters are muddied because of an assumption that you already had the new shirt (which was never yours anyway). Or something like that. *Note: dirty and crumpled are not used pejoratively - they reflect adherence to familiarity.

I do think the latest announcement is about as fair as is possible to all clubs. Someone said it was unfair to Drumchapel United and St. Cadoc's - I'm not sure if they were being sarcastic (and what about Glasgow University)? *Note: what I say below is conditional on next season actually happening. POSITIVES 1) - The top level junior teams (16) from last season preserve their status, earned on merit. 2) - The 3 clubs from Level 2 in the juniors most likely to have won promotion are promoted to Tier 6. 3) - Bonnyton Thistle preserve their Tier 6 status 4) - All other clubs are at or above the level they were already at (3 conferences at level 2, with the chance to get into Level 1 after 1 year). Bottom 3 teams at Level 2 are offered a reprieve from relegation, and will remain notionally at Level 2 next season. NEGATIVES What the smaller clubs (Levels 2-4 in West Juniors + 3 new amateur teams) are missing: 1) - In 4 balanced conferences - 1 season with a maximum of 4 top level junior teams in their league - so, essentially, 4 potentially big crowds (but bear in mind - the 4 top division clubs in each division probably would have been selected using a serpentine system (1/8/9/16, 2/7/10/15, 3/6/11/14, 4/5/12/13) - so each conference would only have 2 "top top" clubs and 2 lower half premier clubs in it. Note also, last season's Level 1 clubs in the West Juniors would be losing out on bigger crowds, as they'd have to play 12 or 13 non-Level 1 clubs in the conferences. *I think this is what the "this is not what we signed up for" is about - but really, it would have been a "waste" of a season for many of the Top clubs, when the West Juniors has, technically, already decided the pecking order through the recent almost-completed season (and all other previous seasons leading to the current divisions). What they are gaining 1) - Fast-tracking - the chance for Level 3 and 4 Junior clubs (and amateur clubs) to be promoted to the top flight in 1 season rather than 2 or 3 seasons. 2) - Level 3 and 4 junior clubs (and amateur clubs) get to play 4 current Level 2 junior clubs - so, 4 potentially "bigger" crowds than if they had stayed in the juniors. What stays the same 1) - Potentially 3-up, 3-down - 20-team top league allows for more relegation places, which should ensure that the 3 conference winners are promoted. Same as current setup in West Juniors (3-up, 3-down). 2) - After season 1 of the conferences, teams will probably end up at a similar level to what they would have been at anyway (somewhere between levels 2-4 of the juniors - i.e. somewhere between Tiers 7 and 9 of the seniors). What they are losing 1) - Clubs at levels 2-4 potentially miss out on 3 or 4 big crowds for 1 season only (which they wouldn't have had if they had stayed in the juniors anyway).

It's not meaningless if you understand the context, which you clearly don't. I am talking about where Tayside clubs fit in all of this. So my hypothetical distance matrix is not meant to be for next season. Just because this thread purports to be about next season, next season is the first of many future seasons, where the question of where Tayside clubs fit will need to be addressed. I didn't deliberately or conveniently remove any teams - I took out those that are coincidentally in the bottom positions and therefore least likely to be in the LL by the time any Tayside team might get in. Anyway, the distance is still less for Lochee in the LL, even if we put Dalbeattie and Gretna back in AND add Annan for good measure.

The Lowland League comparison is not meaningless. All I've done is replaced the bottom teams by the top teams from the existing feeders (WoS and EoS) and added 2 Tayside teams instead of SoS. The system is already there apart from Tayside. If I had just put 2 Tayside teams into the current Lowland League, the distances would have been similar.

I deliberately put 2 Ayrshire teams into my LL model, and there are already 6 Glasgow/Lanarkshire teams in there too. Theres no guarantee that there would be any more than half of the HL made up of former juniors. In my model, I've already got 6 Tay/north junior teams in, as well as the many HL teams from Aberdeenshire.

I decided to test how the travelling would pan out for one team if they reached Tier 5. Lochee United With current system: Lochee United in Highland League Replacing bottom 7 Highland League clubs with Top 3 of both North and Tayside Juniors Average travel distance for LU: 105.2 miles Lochee United in Lowland League Replacing Bottom 6 Lowland League teams with Top 2 of East, West Juniors and EoS League Average travel distance for LU: 65.0 miles With 3 Tier 5 leagues (North/West/East) East League made up of current Lowland League teams in East, plus EoS teams + 3 Tayside teams. Average travel distance for LU: 58.4 miles So Lochee United (and other Dundee area teams) face travelling 40 miles extra per match being placed in the Highland rather than the Lowland League. I didn't make the figures up. I can see why Tayside teams would be against going north. And this kind of distribution of teams would be likely for at least 4 or 5 seasons, so a Tayside team going up to the HL would face lengthy travel unless it could win it at the first attempt. The alternative much reduces their travel, and only increases travel of other teams in the LL marginally, as there may not be any more than 1 or 2 Tayside teams good enough for the LL. For Carnoustie, 91.8 for HL, 78.4 for LL, 71.8 for Tier 5 East

I know what you're saying, but should all the top Tayside clubs be forced to travel further just because their road infrastructure might not be great? The Borders should be South rather than east, but they're not.

Compared to the more important subject of reorganising the entire national football pyramid so that it's as fair as possible for everyone, travelling twice to Carnoustie in midweek really is a small price to pay. Everyone has to make certain small sacrifices to gain collectively. The EoS league might just have a more accommodating fixture scheduling setup so it would avoid this type of thing.

I suggested it would be a sensible solution. Licensing can happen later, as is happening now in the EoS with a clear pathway in sight. So please don't be condescending - I don't prattle. The only way to challenge self-serving organisations Is to raise support for alternatives - it has to start somewhere, even on a discussion forum. Clubs in Tayside would be moving from East Juniors to a hypothetical Tier 6 Tayside - a sideways move. They'd only move up to the Highland league if they were promoted. The initial move is sideways, not upwards.

Because they don't like their wives calling them when they are oot on the peeve? As you said - people of a certain generation. I'm not ridiculing, I asked valid questions which were met with invalid questions in return. There's no logic behind why people prefer what they are used to, even if it's worse. But it certainly deserves to be questioned when the future of football clubs does not rest in their hands...

I've only ever been to junior games (and amateur games) and I like spreadsheets. You can't generalise... The analogy of co-op/Tesco is not valid. A better analogy would be people refusing to go to Tesco because they preferred it when it was called Willie Low's. It's just a label. It's really not a different thing! Also, every level has its own characteristics - this is true in the pyramid also. It's nothing to do with junior senior amateur labels. The characteristics are the players (and how good or bad they are), the stadium/pitch and how it affects the football being played, the weather, the fans. None of these things is changed by affixing an arbitrary label like "junior" to it.

But you're picking outliers. Carnoustie to Wick is twice Carnoustie to Coldstream. There's only a handful of Borders teams in the EoS and they don't all play in the same division. I realise the line had to be drawn somewhere, but it should have been two lines, not one. Carnoustie managed just fine in the East Juniors when Lothian and Fife teams were in it. It's shorter from Carnoustie to West Lothian than it is from Carnoustie to most towns in Aberdeenshire/Moray.

None of the teams who've jumped ship have applied to go back yet... A genuine question to the original poster - just what is it about being "our Juniors" that will be lost if a Junior club moves to the EoS League? What parts of going to games and supporting the team will be different? How does beating Whitburn to win the EoS League differ from beating them to win the east juniors super league south? At which point in the trip from Bathgate to Whitburn do you expect fans will say "oh bugger, lets not bother going to this "senior" match - a match between the same sets of players on the same pitch can't possibly be as good If the word Juniors isn't involved."

10 to 15 minutes is hardly worth arguing about. No bridges necessary - go up the M90 to Perth then take the A90 to Dundee. 1 hr 15. In any case, travel issues are for clubs in peripheral Locations, who have to make more trips to the "centre" than those like Falkirk, with easy access to Edinburgh, west Lothian, Fife, etc., who might only have to make 3 or 4 "long" trips a season, and might not actually have much more travelling to do than some amateur teams... And if travel distances are a problem, then more geographical divisions makes sense, hence why I suggested 3 Tier 5 leagues. Trying to crowbar teams into a 2-pronged pyramid who were used to playing in a 3-pronged structure (and even then travel issues came up) is not eminently sensible.

There's the 5 team summer league on the Isle of Arran, which is technically Ayrshire.

Falkirk to Hawick is the same as Falkirk to Carnoustie. Falkirk to Dundee is the same as Falkirk to Dunbar, or Falkirk to Auchinleck. Falkirk to Dalbeattie is further than any of these. One can argue about the exact dividing up of teams, but 3 Tier 5 leagues makes more sense, especially with regard to number of teams instead of trying to cram 150 teams below the Lowland League and only 60 below the Highland, especially when there's more quality in the bigger group. 3 divisions is just more sensible. Tayside teams can go North or East. It's a better choice than North or South.

They are not moving "upwards". They are moving sideways to another structure that is connected to the main body of teams. Any team in East Juniors moving sideways will have pretty much the same travel, apart from the odd Borders team. In terms of geography, EoS league covers East Juniors + Borders and - most of Tayside. Pretty much no difference, so that's a common misconception that's unbelievably still being bandied about.