SpoonTon Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 The biggest problem in my opinion is boredom. Fans are fed up playing the same teams 4 times a year. I'd go for bigger leagues. Top league of 20, maybe even a 2nd league of 20 of its possible. Should also be a regional pyramid system allowing teams the chance to get promoted. Works in Italy so can't see why it wouldn't here. Tv rights are a problem too. Just my opinion I've become less convinced by this notion over the years. I actually think it's a bit of a myth that somehow playing different teams over the course of a season would make it any more exciting. What I find most exciting as a fan, and what gets fans turning up in bigger numbers, is promotion battles. 2 years ago there was no boredom when we played Thistle 4 times - they were 4 of the most memorable occasions that season. 2 games against Montrose and 2 games against Stranraer might be slightly more interesting than 4 games against each, but not necessarily by much. And if we're fighting out promotion with Stranraer at the end of the season then the added games against a promotion rival will probably be more interesting. The best thing to happen in Scottish football in recent seasons is the addition of a potential extra relegation/promotion place between the top flight and 2nd tier. I'd far rather have that than a 20 team top flight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poet of the Macabre Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 I've become less convinced by this notion over the years. I actually think it's a bit of a myth that somehow playing different teams over the course of a season would make it any more exciting. What I find most exciting as a fan, and what gets fans turning up in bigger numbers, is promotion battles. 2 years ago there was no boredom when we played Thistle 4 times - they were 4 of the most memorable occasions that season. 2 games against Montrose and 2 games against Stranraer might be slightly more interesting than 4 games against each, but not necessarily by much. And if we're fighting out promotion with Stranraer at the end of the season then the added games against a promotion rival will probably be more interesting. The best thing to happen in Scottish football in recent seasons is the addition of a potential extra relegation/promotion place between the top flight and 2nd tier. I'd far rather have that than a 20 team top flight. Wouldn't it be true though that the games with Partick would take on even more significance if you only met twice during the season? Of course teams can always play each other in cup games or play-off matches but I really think four games against the same opponents is pretty dire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 If you're playing twice you need 18 or 20 team divisions, otherwise you don't have enough games. In such divisions, very many clubs have nothing to play for come November. That's more boring than playing people 4 times instead twice. And that's been borne-out by the experience of attendances in Scotland. As we're a small nation without a lot of 'big' clubs, sides relegated from the top level would also plunge into a wholly part-time league. 'Big' clubs also prefer small divisions as playing more often means more derbies. Smaller leagues + playoffs/splits = best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itzdrk Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 I say that the leagues are drawn at the start of each season scrap promotion, relegation & goals and turn the thing into a lottery every game is a 90 min penalty shootout make cup competitions mean the ball is replaced with a cup Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 plus Jordan White and Buchanan Neither of them are anywhere near as good as St Johnstone's players in their respective positions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poet of the Macabre Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 If you're playing twice you need 18 or 20 team divisions, otherwise you don't have enough games. In such divisions, very many clubs have nothing to play for come November. That's more boring than playing people 4 times instead twice. And that's been borne-out by the experience of attendances in Scotland. As we're a small nation without a lot of 'big' clubs, sides relegated from the top level would also plunge into a wholly part-time league. 'Big' clubs also prefer small divisions as playing more often means more derbies. Smaller leagues + playoffs/splits = best. When was the last time Scotland had bigger leagues like you mention? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 It was all changed in 74/75, from two divisions of 18/20 to three divisions of 10/14/14 (And changed on numerous occasions since) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC 1910 Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Scotland should have 2 leagues. Top 2 go up, bottom 2 go down. 3rd to 6th play offs to get a third team up. 3rd bottom to 6th bottom play offs to get a third team down. £5 admission for away fans at all grounds to encourage travelling support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Scotland should have 2 leagues. Top 2 go up, bottom 2 go down. 3rd to 6th play offs to get a third team up. 3rd bottom to 6th bottom play offs to get a third team down. £5 admission for away fans at all grounds to encourage travelling support. Is that your heid in your avatar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpoonTon Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Wouldn't it be true though that the games with Partick would take on even more significance if you only met twice during the season? Of course teams can always play each other in cup games or play-off matches but I really think four games against the same opponents is pretty dire. I'm not sure they would have. It would also depend on when the games were during the season, if the second game was Jan/Feb it wouldn't have been as significant as the 4th game in the April (which went a long way in being a title decider). An added game against any other team wouldn't have attracted the interest or excitement as one of the games against Thistle. The attendances at those games were 3445, 4955, 5647, and 8875. Interest in the fixture only increased as the season went on. In the home game after getting over 5000 for the Thistle game we had 1962 against Falkirk, a couple of weeks later 1533 against Cowdenbeath. I don't think there would have been any difference if it was Ayr and Alloa instead of Falkirk and Cowdenbeath - the big games are the things that matter most (and our proximity also helped in this case). While I agree that playing the same opposition so many times can be dire, I don't think it would make things that much more interesting to have more variety. And more importantly, I suspect there's more to lose than gain in terms of competition (which is more important than variety itself). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlbionMan Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 No it wouldn't. It would look like the St Johnstone team with maybe 1 or 2 Falkirk players. Both of you are wrong, St Johnstone would be part of the Tay Valley set up along with the Dundee clubs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 If you're playing twice you need 18 or 20 team divisions, otherwise you don't have enough games. In such divisions, very many clubs have nothing to play for come November. That's more boring than playing people 4 times instead twice. An entirely subjective claim passed off as fact, and one that regular attendees of the Dutch, English, French, Spanish and Italian leagues would almost certainly point and laugh at anyway. Standard HibeeJibee fail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itzdrk Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 An entirely subjective claim passed off as fact, and one that regular attendees of the Dutch, English, French, Spanish and Italian leagues would almost certainly point and laugh at anyway. Standard HibeeJibee fail. Playing 16/17 of the same clubs every year is a more boring idea than playing 5/7 for me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Young Eddie Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 All the OP has done is come up with an idea to try and reinvigorate the game. No need to ridicule the guy. For some reason in Scotland we are spectacularly parochial. The idea of mergers is now virtually taboo, even though the team i follow was created by one. We also have the bizarre scenario that in Dundee there are two 10,000(ish) seater football stadiums built next door to each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 When the Ayr FC and Ayr Parkhouse clubs merged: [1] both clubs were only about 30yrs old, and [2] it was seen as necessary to Ayr having any chance of top-tier football when it was decided by election. Also, vitally, they're from one town. Nowadays most clubs have a century of history and generations of supporters behind them. Outwith the cities only lowly East Stirlingshire are a "second town" outfit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 it was seen as necessary to Ayr having any chance of top-tier football when it was decided by election. Oooft, comedy gold. Imagine forming a franchise that specifically aims to be a competitive club: and you wash up with a trophyless, out of the top flight since the 1970s permadiddy like Ayr United instead. That must smart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elixir Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 Surely Hibs and Hearts would join to form Edinburgh FC? Both clubs are hardly taking the world by storm on their own are they now? lol wut Hearts are continuing to average the third highest crowds in the country by a proverbial mile, so no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFTD Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 This again? At least we aren't trying to move St Johnstone to Ayrshire this time. Only if Celtic and Rangers are forced to combine too. The rage and infighting would possibly be the most entertaining thing ever to happen. Then the rest of us could all carry on like normal; they'd be too furious with themselves to notice who their team was playing anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Phoenix Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 All the OP has done is come up with an idea to see if anyone would be stupid enough to post a serious response. Somewhat unsurprisingly he's been successful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Young Eddie Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 When the Ayr FC and Ayr Parkhouse clubs merged: [1] both clubs were only about 30yrs old, and [2] it was seen as necessary to Ayr having any chance of top-tier football when it was decided by election. Also, vitally, they're from one town. Nowadays most clubs have a century of history and generations of supporters behind them. Outwith the cities only lowly East Stirlingshire are a "second town" outfit. Fair enough mate, good points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.