Classick
-
Posts
14 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Classick
-
-
I would not discard the domestic league for the Atlantic League. There would be too many games played far away from home, plus small clubs would suffer even more than now. An option would be to keep the national League and then play an Atlantic Cup (or call it a different way). A shorter domestic League with 22 or 26 games and then the top 4 teams play another tournament with the best clubs from a few other countries with similar coefficient (Ukraine, Austria, Switzerland, Czech Republic) divided into four groups of six. It would still be another European tournament, but with full immersion at the end of each season, with teams of a similar level. This or leave it as it is.
0 -
2 hours ago, HibeeJibee said:
Interesting to note Hungary won Division A playoff. They were actually 2nd-worst runner-up in Division C and were drawn to fill unoccupied places in the higher contest (alongside Bulgaria and Romania - Israel were drawn to fill unoccupied place in Division C). Iceland who they beat in Final were only Division A nation involved... Perhaps not always best to be in a higher level.
This qualification system is unfair. Excellent result for Hungary, they deserved to qualify. Division B and Division C were tough too (Serbia, Ireland, Norway, Romania etc.), but Division D playoffs (Georgia, Belarus etc) were a joke, other national teams deserved qualification more than North Macedonia0 -
Do you think Scottish clubs should play more games than they play now?
Scottish clubs are highly dependent on revenues from fans attending matches, therefore I believe that more games can be good.
A 44-match schedule had been used in the Premier League in the past, but it was considered to be too high a number of matches in a league season, therefore I consider 40 matches as the maximum amount of games for the Premier League.
Things are different in the lower leagues, since they don't play European football, I think they could potentially play 44 games per league season. More matches would lead to an increase in finances.
what's your opinion on this?
0 -
On 01/09/2020 at 09:30, Stag Nation said:
It's not the only solution.
Play 39 games, then a 40th to even out homes and aways. The additional round could be seeded, or local derbies (both would potentially give 4 OF games), or simply drawn at random.
That's a good solution! A similar system was used recently in Argentina playing the additional match against the main rival team.
I'd choose a system to give 4 OF games (derbies or seeding based on the last table).
2 -
4 hours ago, St-ow! said:
Maybe add Clyde and Clydebank to that list of potential full-time clubs. With a following wind.
It's interesting that the big Premiership clubs see playing each other x4 each season as essential to consolidating their finances, as do the full-time Championship clubs, who all play x4 so larger away supports boost their finances.
Meanwhile the part-time, non-league clubs use a regional model to corral the larger supports of more local clubs, and to cut out expensive longer away trips.
Yet the part-time clubs playing nationally do not look to their own league structure and fixtured as a way of improving their finances.
They wouldn't lose their SPFL subsidy by adopting parallel regional conferences, and would be acting rationally to seek out the larger crowds (i.e. from playing their local rivals x4 each season) in order to bolster their finances, in the same way that the other groups of clubs noted above do.
I think you'd need a 12-team Championship to promote to if there were parallel conferences at tier 3, so I'd do justice to Partick and Falkirk by adding them to the Championship, with Kelty and Brora being justly brought in to replace them.
So this season's conferences could look like:
North
Brora, Elgin, Peterhead, Cove, Montrose, Brechin, Forfar, East Fife, Kelty, Cowdenbeath.
South
Annan, Stranraer, Queen's Park, Dumbarton, Clyde, Stirling, Stenny, Airdrie, Albion, Edin City.
Each conference winner could be automatically promoted, with promotion playoffs as one-off games between 2nd North v 3rd South, 2nd South v 3rd North, with the two winners in a round-robin wîth 10th from the Championship (11th and 12th having been automatically relegated).
The bottom clubs from each conference could play off, with the loser relegated and replaced by the winner of the Highland-Lowland play off.
Or expand the conferences to 12 teams each, with no-one relegated, the Highland and Lowland champion clubs promoted, and 2nd & 3rd of the Highland and Lowland leagues playing off for the two remaining places.
And re-jig the conferences each season depending upon who from where is promoted and relegated.
It might work, but I consider the north - south system to be unbalanced, as there are more clubs in southern Scotland. Teams like Cowdenbeath or East Fife wouldn't be happy to be in the northern conference. For a regionalized third tier I prefer 3 conferences
This year it could have been like this :18 teams divided into three conferences (adding Partick and Falkirk to the Championship).
Each conference with 6 teams.NORTH
Elgin, Peterhead, Cove, Montrose, Brechin, ForfarSOUTH-EAST
East Fife, Clyde, Stirling, Stenhousemuir, Cowdenbeath, Edinburgh CitySOUTH-WEST
Annan, Stranraer, Queen's Park, Dumbarton, Albion, AirdrieIt could work using a hybrid system between full national championship and full regionalization:
Each team plays x4 against their Conference teams and once (either home or away) against the teams from the other conferences.
2 -
I think 14 teams is the ideal number for Scottish Premier, so I'd go with 14 teams.
I dislike splits, but 26 matches would be not enough and playing each team three times would bring to 39 matches, which is ok, but there is an issue who would play the third game at home. The only solution would be a split and I'd go with top 7 and bottom 7. This would solve home/away games madness, 19 home games for each team and would keep four Old Firm derbies. The main drawback is that after the split each team would have two free weekends and that would extend the season to 40 weeks rather than the current 38. Anyway a week off might help ease the strain on squads, especially on those playing european cups.
Below Premier two more divisions of 14 (14-14-14 system), but other possibilities could be considered, like 14-10-18 system. More than 3 national leagues would be useless.
Below senior football : 3 regional leagues (North, East, West) which fits well the number of teams in each part of Scotland
1 -
On 03/08/2020 at 20:17, Darren44 said:
League Reconstruction
PREMIER LEAGUE
Premier of 14 clubs playing 26 games regular season. Then split the league into top of 6 playing for the Title and European Places. The bottom 7 play for three Relegation Spots.
The championship group play a further 10 games and the bottom 7 group play additional four. the bottom two are automatically relegated and the third from bottom plays the winner of the 3,4,5,6 of the championship
SCOTTISH CHAMPIONSHIP
A league consisting of 16 clubs playing for 30 games. The top are promoted to the Premier League. 3,4,5,6 play against each other for the right to play the third from bottom of the Premier Relegation Group. Bottom 5 automatically relegated.
LEAGUE 1
Five groups of 14 clubs with the winners of each group automatically promoted.
How can you split a league of 14 in top 6 and bottom 7??? 6+7=13 !!! You need math tutoring man!
Additionally I still wonder how bottom 7 group play only four games.
Regional league with five groups seems senseless
2
League reconstruction: Let's hear your view
in Scottish Football - Fans' Views
Posted
The relegation ratio from the top division is massive (2-3 possible relegations). In a league of 10 there should be just one relegation, but then the number of promotions from the league below of 18 teams would be too low.