SPFL 16-16-10

[HibeeJibee]

EL playoffs are allowed. They have them in the Netherlands, Wales, Belgium (in a decidedly odd fashion tbf) and Greece, IIRC, and quite possible you will find them elsewhere too. In effect San Marino also has one... since their league is played in 2 pools with a knockout championship, the winner gets CL slot and the runner-up EL slot.

EDIT: To be precise - in the Netherlands they have SFs & Final for last EL slot. In Wales they have a single QF (to include winner of their Bottom 6), then SFs & Final. Belgium is a system of test-matches and seems very unfair*. Greece is effectively a split involving 2nd-5th, not a playoff.

*system in Belgium is:

- 16 clubs play home-n-away for 30 games

- 'Top 6' split play home-n-away for 10 games, total 40 games

- 'Middle 8' clubs play 2 groups of 4 for 6 games, total 36 games

- 'Bottom 2' play upto 5 head-to-head matches, total 33-35 games, with the loser relegated and the winner into relegation playoffs

- winners of 'Middle 8' clubs play a SF, and winner meets 4th in the 'Top 6' in a Final, for EL slot

One difficulty would be our tradition of ending the season with the Scottish Cup Final... Until that is done you don't know who has qualified via the cup, and how many slots the league has.

I don't think the idea about having a 'proximity cut-off' for playoffs would be a goer. It would be hard for fans to understand and it would make it difficult to sell commercial rights when the number of ties wasn't known until the season had finished.

[Sergeant Wilson]

I believe play-offs should introduce a maximum points you can be behind before you are illegible.

You're writing off a few teams there.

[10menwent2mow]

At the end of the day, the league is the league. You've done well so you deserve some reward. That's why I like the set-up for the championship (Scotland) play-offs. If you finish 2nd you gain a small reward over those that finish 3rd and 4th and I might like to see this in L1 and L2 as well.

Never been a fan of the English league playoffs as there is very little advantage to finishing 3rd as to 6th, pretty much the same as I said above for what would've happened to AFC last season.

[Sergeant Wilson]

At the end of the day, the league is the league. You've done well so you deserve some reward. That's why I like the set-up for the championship (Scotland) play-offs. If you finish 2nd you gain a small reward over those that finish 3rd and 4th and I might like to see this in L1 and L2 as well.

Never been a fan of the English league playoffs as there is very little advantage to finishing 3rd as to 6th, pretty much the same as I said above for what would've happened to AFC last season.

The English version keeps more teams involved during the season for longer. It also isn't a safety net for a team who deserve to be relegated.

[10menwent2mow]

The English version keeps more teams involved during the season for longer. It also isn't a safety net for a team who deserve to be relegated.

I don't disagree with that, but I don't see why they shouldn't adopt the same system as we have. For example, in the English Championship. 6th plays 5th, winner plays 4th and winner of that plays 3rd. If you finish 5th or 6th, you have to win 3 ties, 4th you have to win 2 and 3rd you only have to win 1. They can even keep the Wembley showpiece if they want and the team that finishes 3rd just gets a bye to the play-off final.

Either that or make it 1 leg and like the NFL play offs. If you finish 3rd you are guaranteed to be at home against 6th for one game, 4th at home to 5th and the highest seeded team left plays at home in the play-off final.

Take lge 1 in England as an example, Preston have been 2nd for the last two months or so, could get pipped to the 2nd automatic slot and then have very little advantage in a play-off tie against a team they got 20 more points over the regular season against. I understand that it's the system that has been in place for years in England but I don't agree with it, folk will point to the fact that the higher placed team gets the 2nd leg at home but I really don't think that is such a big advantage.

I don't believe that it is a 'safety net' for a team 'deserves' to go down. The bottom team definitely deserves to go down, 11th I think deserves the chance to redeem themselves.

ETA - If you play a team with a far larger support in the play-off final, you essentially end up having no advantage at all, at least if the English play-off finals were 2 legs you would have home advantage once.

[Jacksgranda]

I believe play-offs should introduce a maximum points you can be behind before you are illegible.

You're writing off a few teams there.

Depends what the "maximum points behind" is...

[RedLichtie86]

I know i am late to this thread and havent read through every post so i appologise if some of what im about to post has already been mentioned.

I think some people will agree that the league structure of Scottish football needs to reorganised from top to bottom. And many difficult choices need to be made in order for the game to progress forward.

Firstly we need to reduce the amount of teams that play in nationwide leagues. Not this 'get rid of the diddies' attitude that some people have. Other than 4-5 of the larger teams we are all diddies compared to them. and even more so if we look at teams from the English League 1 and 2 who have teams that are much larger than many SPL teams. But more of a way to rebalance the league system.

Tier 1: I would say a top flight of 18 teams is workable. 34 games. 17 home / 17 away

There are currently 12 fulltime SPL teams, 7 in the Championship (Everyone but Alloa, Dumbarton and Cowdenbeath), and 2 in League 1 (Morton and Dunfermline).

Thats 21 full time teams in total. We could easily have 18 full time teams playing in the same top league. 3 would be in the division below but the chances of them being promoted would be much greater when playing against the smaller part time teams. A 2 up / 2 down relegation with 1 relegation playoff would be ideal.

Tier 2: 18 teams. 34 games. 17 home / 17 away.

Top 2 promoted automatically. places 3-5 enter a playoff system with the team that finishes 16th in Tier 1. Winner decides who playes in top Tier.

Bottom 3 relegated to 3 regional leagues below that. Could also add a relegation playoff spot for the team that finishes 4th bottom against 2nd place teams from the 3 regional leagues.

So far that accounts for 36 of the 42 "Senior" sides. The last 6 will drop into regional leagues.

3 regional leagues.

Highland. Lowland. Midland Leagues.

Each league has to be a minimum of 10 teams. Top team promoted. 2nd place from each region goes into a play off with 4th bottom from Tier 2. Winner plays in Tier 2 next season. I would also say that if certain teams were granted Colt teams by the SFA they should be limited to playing no higher than this level. Colt teams could be helpful in bringing extra revenue to these smaller teams outside the "Senior" setup.

No doubt there are plenty of flaws in what i have said. Just a rough idea.

[ShawfieldAggro]

I don't disagree with that, but I don't see why they shouldn't adopt the same system as we have. For example, in the English Championship. 6th plays 5th, winner plays 4th and winner of that plays 3rd. If you finish 5th or 6th, you have to win 3 ties, 4th you have to win 2 and 3rd you only have to win 1. They can even keep the Wembley showpiece if they want and the team that finishes 3rd just gets a bye to the play-off final.

Either that or make it 1 leg and like the NFL play offs. If you finish 3rd you are guaranteed to be at home against 6th for one game, 4th at home to 5th and the highest seeded team left plays at home in the play-off final.

Take lge 1 in England as an example, Preston have been 2nd for the last two months or so, could get pipped to the 2nd automatic slot and then have very little advantage in a play-off tie against a team they got 20 more points over the regular season against. I understand that it's the system that has been in place for years in England but I don't agree with it, folk will point to the fact that the higher placed team gets the 2nd leg at home but I really don't think that is such a big advantage.

I don't believe that it is a 'safety net' for a team 'deserves' to go down. The bottom team definitely deserves to go down, 11th I think deserves the chance to redeem themselves.

ETA - If you play a team with a far larger support in the play-off final, you essentially end up having no advantage at all, at least if the English play-off finals were 2 legs you would have home advantage once.

First up, English football doesn't need its ills corrected just yet.....it's thriving, financially at least, and again an absolute monotone comparison to a product which could never be attainable here. The crowd-advantage argument is also totally irrelevant. Arsenal have had the same tickets as Reading, Hull and Sheffield Utd recieved for the same match. English football isn't littered with the same bogged-down shite that leaves any club facing R or C in a final lucky if they have a quarter of the stadium. Have you never watched a playoff final, or a JP Trophy final, where the split is almost always 50/50, regardless of the stature of the clubs. I quite liked the look of the Belgian format, but much like 12-12(8-8--18 i think we've got just a little too many thick b*****ds in our country to take a gamble on it. I mean, until the current split was introduced, no one would ever have thought about teams playing uneven home and away fixtures, and in many cases three away matches to an opponent you play at home once, but the same old crud about it bring the 'best we have' is always trotted out by ths same morons who desperately need a clown in a blazer to hold their hands till the next shambles.

[HibeeJibee]

Clubs played uneven home & away fixtures in the lower tiers from 1974 until 1994. It was one of the complaints behind the move to 4 divisions.

I don't mind splits - Belgium's 'Top 6' seems fine, providing 4x playing and 2H/2A for all involved, although 40 games is a long old season.

Their 'Middle 8', 'Bottom 2' and 'EL Testmatch' systems are just bizarre and to a degree unfair, though. Bordering on crackers.

Although plenty people still moan about it, our current split is about as conservative as you can get.

Some 87% of the league season is pre-split; clubs carry-over all points; everyone gets 38 games; and everyone generally plays all opponents in their split 2H/2A and get 19H/19A.

Contrast that with Belgium... where pre-split points are halved in the 'Top 6', and completely scrubbed in the 'Middle 8'; the number of games can vary anywhere between 33-35 and 40 (plus EL 'Testmatches') depending where a club finishes; and there is no automatic relegation, instead the 'Bottom 2' play each other up to 5 times in a row (and therefore 7 times in the league competition alone!!), with 15th getting the extra home game and a head start of 3pts. Plus their EL playoff means it's actually better to finish 7th or 8th than it is 5th or 6th.

It would be hard enough to explain to people here, let alone make them accept it, IMO.

[ShawfieldAggro]

I was mainly referring to the top division when mentioning discrepancies with the number of fixtures, which was why we ended up very often with 44 game seasons, and lot of chopping and changing over the top 24 clubs in a short space of that time. The Second was the only one which always had the uneven number, and since when did anyone bother what the little guys had to do?? My suggestion offers at least an advancement of what place your in at week 26 having an impact on your 'final' or 'closing' season. The pillock who came up with the current split, which in the format has only thrown up the much-vaunted 'so much to play for' on final weekends outwith OF title wrestles in less than half the seasons its existed, at least had the balls and gumption to offer a solution....even if he scarpered at the first attempt. Within a 12 club league, the best solution always should have been 44 games, if that wasn't attainable within the Uefa-enforced timescale, then its ckearly the number thats the problem.

[10menwent2mow]

Not wanting this to turn I to an attendance debate but the crowd at the league 2 playoff final last year was 14,000 and league 1 was 43,000. Leyton Orient were in that final and as a London club, I'd guess they had a few more fans than Rotherham.

I'm not suggesting English football has 'ills'. Just that I believe their playoff system is ridiculously unfair and that I prefer the one in place in the SPFL championship that rewards teams for their league performance over the season.

The Belgian formula looks nuts as it essentially means you can finish 14th pre-split and still make Europe and if you are sitting 6th and 15 points off 4th, you are as well losing to get into the middle 8. Absolutely crazy system.

[ShawfieldAggro]

Guesswork never gives lie to attention, does it. I watched that L1 final, and there wasn't much between the numbers. Rotherham finished level on points with Orient in the table (joint 3rd), with an aggregate of 2-2 from their league fixtures. They also went on to win against the London team, in London. It's us, who have short leagues, stockpiling shit games and rewarding more than a third of the dreadful teams with prospective promotion, who have it palpably wrong.

[10menwent2mow]

I wasn't suggesting that as an example of the teams finishing far apart. Look, I simply believe that a club should be advantaged in some way for finishing higher up the league than another in any playoff system and I believe that the Scottish Championship system does that better than any other playoff system.

Yes the English playoffs are exciting but I don't believe they are inherently fair and there is zero reward for finishing 3 places ahead of another team. Same goes for the L1 and L2 playoffs in Scotland. You could even argue that the most advantaged team in the Scottish L1 and L2 playoffs is the team finishing 4th as they get to play a team that's been getting pumped all season in the semi.

Up to 2013, the team finishing 6th in the English Championship had been promoted more often than the team finishing 4th, might just be a statistical anomaly but I'd bet on it not continuing if the playoffs were restructured so they had to play more playoff games.

[ShawfieldAggro]

Those are fair analytical points, regarding the way our playoffs line up, which is largely to assist the second bottom club, given that they host both second-leg ties should they win their semi. Suggesting that its better to finish 4th, and not 2nd where you might have a decent shot at the title, surely equates to the same issue you raise about Belgium....i don't believe for a minute teams would try to finish anywhere other than their highest possible place, unless you get a good but lackadaisical 'big' team who are either distracted from league form by Cups or Europe, or just take their success for granted and almost f**k it right up. I guess that one advantage of finishing 3rd or 4th is an increased likelihood that a slightly different set of results in the last three or four games could yield automatic promotion. I don't envisage any club throwin the towel in once 4th as a minimum is assured, we kinda didn't go all out to beat Stirling last sew

ason after sealing our spot in our penultimate fixture, but players were rested to ensure fitness in the midweek tie v East Fife three days later....i'd have had a different opinion had we chucked four or five games instead just to 'peak' later on. Bigger leagues would have made sure it wasn't an option for us to b*****dise the league at all, being so bang-average and unworthy of promotion contention whatsoever.

[10menwent2mow]

I'm not suggesting a team would chuck it in order to finish 4th at all, once they have sealed playoff football.

The Championship playoffs do stack up in favour of the team that finishes 11th but I really don't have much issue with that. Under the old play off system, ie the one we were involved in vs Dunfermline in 1995, the 2nd bottom team only had to win 1 tie to stay up, the same as it is now.

It could be argued from a statistical point of view that in the current L1 and L2 playoffs, there is a hellish high chance of the 9th place team getting relegated. Bare stats say a 75% chance although the reasons you state may actually make it less. I guarantee you that you won't find a bookie offering 10/11 the 9th place team and 10/11 any one of 2nd, 3rd and 4th though.

[ShawfieldAggro]

That depends on the clubs......what price were Hibs to stay up last year?? The playoffs were probably introduced in good faith of keeping alive flagging seasons, but to play devil's advocate and kid on we're back at two up two down between all the leagues, only the ups from L2 are definite. Ayr and Stenny are scrapping it out to stay up with Stirling long gone, any of three could still win from Morton Stranraer and Forfar, likewise any from Livi Cowden and Alloa will go down tomorrow. Hibs and Rangers fighting it out to kiddy-on go up with Hertz, while Motherwell and County get an extra fortnight to sort out their issues. Euro spots in the Premier i've no interest in whatsoever, but they're an irrelevance seeing as tbey don't involve playoffs. Succesful model or not, i'd think the season would still map out the way the clubs have performed anyway. You can't engineer an entire season.

[10menwent2mow]

I'm not suggesting an entire season is engineered.

Yes Hibs would have been strong favourites to stay up last year, as will Motherwell/county be this year, that's the nature of the Championship playoffs.

I was referring to L1&2, hence why I said 9th and not 2nd bottom.

[ShawfieldAggro]

And your right. There is a slight imbalance, but not wishing to.sound like HJ for a minute, the extension you're looking for would require an extra week, which for our level, would be elongating an already overlong monotonous season, in my opinion anyway. I always thought 2nd should play 4th and 9th play 3rd, but within the same machine-gun-fire format of successive Wed-Sat-Wed-Sat which generates a bit of the instant-hit kind of interest which may or may not attract interested outsiders who might get picked up by going along to them, yet could bore the arse off if you stretched the thing to a month. It certainly would bore me to tears, watching another three weeks of that, after yet another season of garbage in L2. The playoffs haven't really changed a lot within the game, just opened up the middle of leagues a bit (if such s thing exists) but without them we'd have arguably more excitement, especially today, rather than all the fuss being whether Kinning Park or Leith Shamrock can get second place.....if only one went up, then i'd be bothered. Same goes the further down the leagues.

[10menwent2mow]

I take your point about elongating the season. That could maybe then make the case for 3rd v 4th (one leg) winner away to 2nd (one leg) and 2 legged final. Keeps the rapid fire interest although I guess if you finish 4th and have two long road trips it might not. I like my NFL and there is always something great about the 5th or 6th place team in a conference having to win three away games to reach the Super Bowl.

I've no idea so am not gonna comment but have crowds for the L1 and L2 playoffs been any increase on those during the regular season in the last couple of years??

[ShawfieldAggro]

I don't know myself, but i'd imagine more would be going to watch the top three finishers in L2 over the last two months if there were only two spots available, i very much doubt Annan, Elgin or EF have had any sharp.increase while on the prowl for 4th. Its not something thats really going to get the juices flowing, is it??