Jump to content

SPFL 16-16-10

RabidAl

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 330
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • 2 weeks later...
RabidAl

RabidAl

Posted
  • Author
Posted

For clubs the issue with a 16-team top tier seems to be the reduced guaranteed income of having only 15 home games, as opposed to 18 or 19 under the current format.

They don’t seem to buy the argument that less is more – that fewer league games means that more supporters will be able to afford to go to the games, and also that they will have more appetite to go along to see their local team if they play less often.

Having an 8/8 split after 30 games, playing each other just once more to give 37 matches, seems difficult because some clubs would have 3 home matches, some 4 post-split. Not exactly fair either on or off the pitch.

You’d really need one round of post-split fixtures at neutral venues to ensure that all the clubs had only 3 home games after the spilt; the fixtures at neutral venues would work best against teams either geographically close (so derbies, which you couldn’t guarantee) or you could have game 31 between the closest league rivals at the split – i.e. 1st vs. 2nd, 3rd vs. 4th, 15th vs. 16th, etc.

Or you could have a 7/9 split, so that the top 7 teams each have 6 games post-split (3 homes) and the bottom 9 each have 8 games (4 homes) post-split. It looks odd initially, but would be much easier to work.

Failing that, you’d be looking at league cup sections to make up the shortfall in games/revenue. That’d work best with two top tiers of 16 teams in an SPFL of 32 clubs with the rest (senior and juniors) competing in West of Scotland, North of Scotland and East of Scotland regions.

For example: August League Cup Sections

(August) (August) (September) (October)

Round 1 Sections Quarter-Final Sections Semi-Finals Final

(32 teams) (16 teams)

Groups A to H Groups A to D

1 Q 1___________Q

2___________Q 2

3 3

4 4

So your 16 Premiership and 16 Championship teams would be drawn into 8 groups of 4 each season, with teams playing each other just once, home or away, to give 3 matches for each team, yet still keep the cup-tie feel. The top two from each group would qualify for the Quarter-Final sections, 4 groups of 4 teams, in the same format, with the 4 group winners qualifying for the Semis.

You’d be looking at Sections being pre-season, throughout August, with the Premiership and Championship (16 teams, 30 games each) beginning in September, with a January winter break of 2-3 weeks, and the usual May finish.

Each club would be guaranteed 3-6 additional matches from the League Cup Sections (so 33-36 from League and League Cup), and you’d probably be looking at sharing out all revenues equally from (at least) the Round 1 Sections to keep clubs happy.

The first round would throw up a good variety of fixtures each year, especially with a lot of promotion from the regions (see below) each season, and would be an inclusive one for fans to get about the grounds to see their teams.

The quarter-final sections would be more intense, with a place in the semis at stake, and it’d be a good incentive for teams to get through the first round to secure 3 matches with higher quality opposition. Those not making it through Round 1 could use the spare week or two before the league season began in September by playing friendlies against each other. (As an alternative, you could have the top two from each of the 4 second-stage groups qualifying for September quarter-finals, with October semis and a November Final.)

Ideally it would be part of the following set-up, with junior and senior non-leagues united:

SPFL 16-16-W/N/E:

Premiership Championship West Prem. North Prem. East Prem.

1 CL 1 PR 1 PR 1 PR 1 PR

2 EL 2 PR 2 PO 2 PO 2 PO

3 EL 3 PO 3 3 3

4 EL? 4 PO 4 4 4

5 5 PO 5 5 5

6 6 6 6 6

7 7 7 7 7

8 8 8 8 8

9 9 9 9 9

10 10 10 10 10

11 11 11 11 11

12 12 12 12 12

13 13 PO 13 13 13

14 PO 14 RL 14 RL? 14 RL? 14 RL?

15 RL 15 RL 15 RL 15 RL 15 RL

16 RL 16 RL 16 RL 16 RL 16 RL

{Teams finishing 14th might not be relegated, depending upon the numbers relegated to their region from the Championship}

It should be attractive to all part-timers because they can stay within their regions until they are ready to make the step up to play some full-timers in a subsidised second tier.

It should be attractive to everyone because of the fluidity of promotion and relegation between the tiers and national/regional leagues, with more chance of a challenge to the Old Firm in the top tier (as argued elsewhere)…

The Challenge Cup could then be for the Championship 16, plus the best 4 from each of the 3 regions. For example:

Round 1: 4 teams from West Premier, 4 from North, 4 East and 12 Championship.

(24 teams; 12 go through)

Round 2: 12 teams from Round 1, plus 4 remaining Championship teams.

(16 teams; 8 go through)

And so on….

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HibeeJibee

HibeeJibee

Posted
Posted

I should probably start a thread in misc other fitba...but

Venturing into a new part of the world - I happen to have chanced upon the fact that Jamaica moved away from the SPL format (12 clubs playing 33 games > splitting 6/6 = total 38 games) this year, which they adopted in 2006.

They no longer split, instead after 33 games the Top 4 contest a 'Title Knockout'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RabidAl

RabidAl

Posted
  • Author
Posted

It’s terrific that we seem to have a challenge in the top tier at the moment, as we approach the point where everyone’s played each other once at home and once away – 2 rounds of fixtures, which is all you would play in any normal league.

But when the challengers have to play Celtic and each other for a third time, and then yet again for a fourth time, they’ll inevitably drop the additional points that will hand the title to Celtic, as usual.

Our small leagues played over traditional seasons preclude the possibility of a non-Old Firm winner of the top tier because too many points are dropped by challengers playing each other and the Old Firm 4 times.

Our small leagues over traditional seasons also give a weird bi-polar look to the league tables, with huge gaps in points opening up between teams often meaning a season-long grind in the same league position: a major turn-off for fans.

If you have larger leagues/traditional seasons then you get more teams packed into the spaces, and fans can see some actual progress up the league table; and you get more interest from fans where there’s more competition for league placings.

If you have smaller leagues/shorter seasons then everything starts afresh in the new year, preventing dwindling numbers of fans going to see a couple of teams cut adrift at the bottom, for example...

----------------------

P.S. – Can we agree a universal pricing structure that sees people charged £5 (adults) / £2 (concessions) / £0 bairns to watch part-timers, and £10 / £5 / £0 for any match involving full-timers?

P.P.S.S. – The pyramid won’t work properly until we stop asking part-timers to play in national leagues: there’s no incentive for non-league junior or senior clubs to join the SPFL if it immediately means greater costs and lower revenues from having the travel around the country to play whoever, whilst losing valuable local derbies – which is what both Leagues One and Two force clubs to do.

End.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EdTheDuck

EdTheDuck

Posted
Posted

It’s terrific that we seem to have a challenge in the top tier at the moment, as we approach the point where everyone’s played each other once at home and once away – 2 rounds of fixtures, which is all you would play in any normal league.

But when the challengers have to play Celtic and each other for a third time, and then yet again for a fourth time, they’ll inevitably drop the additional points that will hand the title to Celtic, as usual.

Our small leagues played over traditional seasons preclude the possibility of a non-Old Firm winner of the top tier because too many points are dropped by challengers playing each other and the Old Firm 4 times.

Our small leagues over traditional seasons also give a weird bi-polar look to the league tables, with huge gaps in points opening up between teams often meaning a season-long grind in the same league position: a major turn-off for fans.

If you have larger leagues/traditional seasons then you get more teams packed into the spaces, and fans can see some actual progress up the league table; and you get more interest from fans where there’s more competition for league placings.

If you have smaller leagues/shorter seasons then everything starts afresh in the new year, preventing dwindling numbers of fans going to see a couple of teams cut adrift at the bottom, for example...

----------------------

P.S. – Can we agree a universal pricing structure that sees people charged £5 (adults) / £2 (concessions) / £0 bairns to watch part-timers, and £10 / £5 / £0 for any match involving full-timers?

P.P.S.S. – The pyramid won’t work properly until we stop asking part-timers to play in national leagues: there’s no incentive for non-league junior or senior clubs to join the SPFL if it immediately means greater costs and lower revenues from having the travel around the country to play whoever, whilst losing valuable local derbies – which is what both Leagues One and Two force clubs to do.

End.

I can't even...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sjc

sjc

Posted
Posted

It’s terrific that we seem to have a challenge in the top tier at the moment, as we approach the point where everyone’s played each other once at home and once away – 2 rounds of fixtures, which is all you would play in any normal league.

But when the challengers have to play Celtic and each other for a third time, and then yet again for a fourth time, they’ll inevitably drop the additional points that will hand the title to Celtic, as usual.

Our small leagues played over traditional seasons preclude the possibility of a non-Old Firm winner of the top tier because too many points are dropped by challengers playing each other and the Old Firm 4 times.

Our small leagues over traditional seasons also give a weird bi-polar look to the league tables, with huge gaps in points opening up between teams often meaning a season-long grind in the same league position: a major turn-off for fans.

If you have larger leagues/traditional seasons then you get more teams packed into the spaces, and fans can see some actual progress up the league table; and you get more interest from fans where there’s more competition for league placings.

If you have smaller leagues/shorter seasons then everything starts afresh in the new year, preventing dwindling numbers of fans going to see a couple of teams cut adrift at the bottom, for example...

----------------------

P.S. – Can we agree a universal pricing structure that sees people charged £5 (adults) / £2 (concessions) / £0 bairns to watch part-timers, and £10 / £5 / £0 for any match involving full-timers?

P.P.S.S. – The pyramid won’t work properly until we stop asking part-timers to play in national leagues: there’s no incentive for non-league junior or senior clubs to join the SPFL if it immediately means greater costs and lower revenues from having the travel around the country to play whoever, whilst losing valuable local derbies – which is what both Leagues One and Two force clubs to do.

End.

What the actual fcuk?! :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
effeffsee_the2nd

effeffsee_the2nd

Posted
Posted

I know everyone would prefer larger leagues but there is a reason small countries tend not to have them. we do not have enough strong teams.

Take the epl for example, most seasons 2 maybe 3 teams fight it out for the tittle. another 4 or so are chasing the champions league spots. all the way down to 7th spot means something and of coarse the bottom 3 go down. all that in a league were teams are closer together in terms of ability.

Now lets apply that to scotland with our 3 european slots. as a crude example the current top 20 teams in scotland would contain dumbarton and cowdenbeath - 2 part time sides with crowds of less than a thousand. now once the games get underway and cetlic and aberdeen start pumping these diddys 5 or 6 nil every week they become routed in the drop zone. at the other end celtic will pull away and maybe have a chasing team close to them. beyond that you would have as many as 15 sides who cant win the league or get relagated by christmas. they are then left going through the motions fulfilling weeks of meaningles fixtures

but thats ok becuase there not playing the same team 4 times a season? big leagues work in big countrys. in england 10 of the 20 league positions have a consiquence. in scotland it would be 5 or 6 at best.

i think bigger leagues is something to be aspired to but im not sure how to go about phasing it in. problem with the 16 team is the short 30 game season. i think its the best model but the clubs just dont want to go for it, but then i think the majority of our clubs need draged into this century. 18 or 20 ? nah too many diddys and a bloated mid table

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheLip69

TheLip69

Posted
Posted

I see that the SPFL, in their wisdom, are looking at re-instating group stages to the League Cup but making it regional.

Is this a way of getting two OF matches a season if Rangers do not come up next season, or a way of keeping the 4 OF matches (and re-instating the home matches lost by reverting to a 16 team top division) if Rangers do not come up via the play-offs but finish in the top 4?

Discuss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nowhereman

Nowhereman

Posted
Posted

I know everyone would prefer larger leagues but there is a reason small countries tend not to have them. we do not have enough strong teams.

Take the epl for example, most seasons 2 maybe 3 teams fight it out for the tittle. another 4 or so are chasing the champions league spots. all the way down to 7th spot means something and of coarse the bottom 3 go down. all that in a league were teams are closer together in terms of ability.

Now lets apply that to scotland with our 3 european slots. as a crude example the current top 20 teams in scotland would contain dumbarton and cowdenbeath - 2 part time sides with crowds of less than a thousand. now once the games get underway and cetlic and aberdeen start pumping these diddys 5 or 6 nil every week they become routed in the drop zone. at the other end celtic will pull away and maybe have a chasing team close to them. beyond that you would have as many as 15 sides who cant win the league or get relagated by christmas. they are then left going through the motions fulfilling weeks of meaningles fixtures

but thats ok becuase there not playing the same team 4 times a season? big leagues work in big countrys. in england 10 of the 20 league positions have a consiquence. in scotland it would be 5 or 6 at best.

i think bigger leagues is something to be aspired to but im not sure how to go about phasing it in. problem with the 16 team is the short 30 game season. i think its the best model but the clubs just dont want to go for it, but then i think the majority of our clubs need draged into this century. 18 or 20 ? nah too many diddys and a bloated mid table

That would be the Dumbarton that have won four and drawn two of the nine matches played against Falkirk since we came up

Link to comment
Share on other sites
craigkillie

craigkillie

Posted
Posted

I see that the SPFL, in their wisdom, are looking at re-instating group stages to the League Cup but making it regional.

Is this a way of getting two OF matches a season if Rangers do not come up next season, or a way of keeping the 4 OF matches (and re-instating the home matches lost by reverting to a 16 team top division) if Rangers do not come up via the play-offs but finish in the top 4?

Discuss.

It's neither of these things given that it isn't going to happen until 2016 until the earliest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...