30 Game Season?

[marshall2012]

Crowds aren't turning up though, and your club is one club.

Do you know what generally means? The majority of clubs are haemmorhagin supporters, whether you accept that fact or not and I encourage you to do a bit of research if you think otherwise.

Scotland does indeed have that, or so is commonly claimed. I've never actually seen statistics backing up the claim.



Are you really comparing the Rangers situation (still play the same teams 4 times a season by the way, even if it is different teams each season) to a top flight with more teams that encountered each other less times a season?

Seriously?

[Ludo*1]

Yes.

[ArabFC]

Crowds aren't turning up though, and your club is one club.

Do you know what generally means? The majority of clubs are haemmorhagin supporters, whether you accept that fact or not and I encourage you to do a bit of research if you think otherwise.

Scotland does indeed have that, or so is commonly claimed. I've never actually seen statistics backing up the claim.

Are you really comparing the Rangers situation (still play the same teams 4 times a season by the way, even if it is different teams each season) to a top flight with more teams that encountered each other less times a season?

Seriously?

Seriously indeed.

You still have provided no evidence that your 'long term plan' would work, though others have pointed out its faults.

Anyway, crowds. If we consider 1967 to be a highpoint in Scottish football, lets look at some crowd figures...

Hibernian - 11,475 - compared to 11,027 last year with one of their worst ever sides.

Hearts - 11,136 - compared to 14,123 last year when they were relegated before the season even started.

Aberdeen - 10,056 - compared to 12,918 last year

Dundee Utd - 6,268 - well, you know already we're pretty steady, but higher than back then obvs.

Now it's widely acknowledged football is far more expensive these days, there is a much more diverse range of things people can spend their money on, and we have to compete with the vast riches of English football. Been playing these same teams for a fair while now btw!

[marshall2012]

How exactly can you provide evidence that a long term plan such as this WILL work?

It's funny because in 1967 we had an 18 team top tier.

You've given an example of 4 teams, that is not an adequate amount to draw that conclusion from, as I said for AT LEAST 20 YEARS average crowds have been declining for the MAJORITY of teams in Scotland.


If you search statistics out you will find this to be true.



All anybody has pointed out is that teams will be worse off financially initially, which I acknowledged.

I never once said, this will CERTAINLY work and certainly increase crowds for all teams.


I just said I believe it would, it seems to be what most fans on the street want to see.

[Ludo*1]

Our average is 8,710 this season so far. So count Dundee as a club who's attendances on average have increased.

[marshall2012]

Yep, one of the few.

[HibeeJibee]

I was going to wade with a blistering array of myth-busting, stat attacks and counter-arguments; but frankly I think Marshall2012 is either a troll/wind-up merchant, a numpty or more likely both, so I can't be bothered. I must be losing my attendance virility.

Interestingly, his proposal to scrap the LC and adopt a 30-game season would hand clubs their fewest guaranteed home games since 1906 . EDIT: Even including the wars !! EDIT AGAIN: they'd still Supplementary Leagues in 1906 so you probably must go back to Victorian times !!

[marshall2012]

Interesting, we had an 18 team top tier right up until 1975.

Seems like the beginning of the general downward trend in attendances for the majority of clubs would seem to roughly coincide with the move to a 10 and later 12 team top tier in 1976.

[lionel hutz]

Interesting, we had an 18 team top tier right up until 1975.

Seems like the beginning of the general downward trend in attendances for the majority of clubs would seem to roughly coincide with the move to a 10 and later 12 team top tier in 1976.

There were too many meaningless games under that system though. As for Attendances, Live TV games do account for a lot of fans having CBA syndrome and not turning up to United vs Killie on Wed Night, when they could watch Barcelona vs Man Utd in their own home.

[DiegoDiego]

Scotland does indeed have that, or so is commonly claimed. I've never actually seen statistics backing up the claim.

You tell other posters to look up the stats regarding your claims but you obviously can't be arsed doing it yourself with the claims of others. Like you say, the stats are out there, it's not our fault that you're either too lazy or too stupid to have them at your disposal.

[marshall2012]

I didn't refute the claim though, I acknowledged it and merely said I've never seen it actually confirmed.

[marshall2012]

There were too many meaningless games under that system though.

A meaningless game is highly subjective though, clearly the fans seem to disagree with you.

I'd consider a meaningless game to be one against Celtic for example, which it's almost a certainty to lose.

I'd consider any game which my team could realistically win and gain points on the board to be extremely meaningful.

I'd consider any League Cup game to be completely meaningless.

Remember when Celtic and Rangers are back in the top flight and teams are playing them 4 times each it's often the case of 24 points dropped as opposed to 12.

That's why for example Motherwell achieved their record points total that season when they finished 2nd and actually didn't finish an embarassingly high number of points behind Celtic.

Less teams = less competition as well.

[HibeeJibee]

He's talking nonsense... Small leagues were introduced to halt falling crowds and some of the best crowds in our history were delivered by small leagues during the 1990s.

We currently have 5 clubs averaging over 10k, which has only been exceeded in 5 seasons in the last half-century (1971-72, 1987-90, & 1998-99).

In recent season's we've seen 16 clubs averaging over 3k, a common 'threshold' for "big" clubs, something not seen for over 40yrs.

Plus the highest tier 2 averages since the post-war boom were witnessed 2007-2011.

[marshall2012]

If Dundee United for example are only playing Rangers and Celtic twice each season, they could realistically (although it would still be unlikely) win the league if the dominate other teams.

If they're playing them 4 times each they're almost certain to finish around 20 points behind them.


If we had had the 16/30 game setup when Romanov first took over Hearts they would have won the title. They could dominate the lesser teams but they still couldn't compete with Celtic and Rangers when playing them that many times in a single season.

[marshall2012]

Small leagues were introduced to halt falling crowds and some of the best crowds in our history

Lol, no and no.

Small league was "officially" introduced because the current format was considered "stale" having been used for decades (since pre-war years at least)

Our record crowds IN FACT actually come during a time when we had a 20 team top tier, during the post-war years.

What does this tell us? Crowds will rise and fall fairly signficantly regardless of league size and that the "official reasons" given for reducing the size of the league was complete bullshit.

The reason for the small league was and always has been so that Celtic and Rangers play each other more times each season, increasing revenue and average attendance drastically.

Playing the same team 4 times is boring, that's a majority opinion amongst fans in Scotland.

People are turned off playing the same team so many times each season.

That isn't cherry picking statistics, that's real fans echoing these statements time and time again.

Attendances have been dropping for 20 years in general, you're right other factors may be at play also, but fans are bored of small league.

16 has to surely be minimum.

[HibeeJibee]

If Dundee United for example are only playing Rangers and Celtic twice each season, they could realistically (although it would still be unlikely) win the league if the dominate other teams.

If they're playing them 4 times each they're almost certain to finish around 20 points behind them.

Myth - albeit one which other posters specialise in busting (cue EdtheDuck). Clubs traditionally finished behind OF after dropping more points v smaller clubs... you can argue playing x4 actually gives an opportunity to compensate for that.

During x2 playing only 1 OF club won the title 1904 - 1948 (44yrs)!!

[marshall2012]

Maybe when we finally surpass that record in a few decades despite not ever increasing the size of the league.
Then you will finally realize what an ignorant little scrotum you are.


The OF did win the league throughout that period BUT very few seasons did teams finish more than 10 points behind them and when they rarely did it was during periods of OF exceptionalism (Lisbon Lions and so forth..).

Leagues were generally a lot more balanced back then, OF always seemed to find a way to just clinch it by 5 or so points.
But teams would always push them.


Look at the historic tables and see for yourself, you little scrotum.


Fact is OF will always dominate, barring periods of exceptionalism from non-OF teams like Aberdeen and Dundee United a while back (had nothing to do with league size, in fact if leagues had been larger they would have won more titles over this period).



Scrotums like you, however, will continue to handicap the Scottish game and keep it as boring and paltry as it has been since the great reduction of the league.

[ArabFC]

Then you will finally realize what an ignorant little scrotum you are.

Well played. Everyone, who disagrees with you, that funnily enough seems to be everyone, will now realise you are right. lol

I hope for your sake that you are indeed a troll.

[EdTheDuck]

Statistically speaking it appears a 16 team/30 game set-up was the most competitive period in Scottish footballing history.

The least competitive has, without a doubt, been since the league was reduced to 10 and 12.

The difference is quite shocking.

And you think that was because of the league structure?

In the first ten years of the 10 team SPD 4 different teams won the title and smaller teams like Hibs and St Mirren regularly put in a challenge.

Clearly a ten team league would be more competitive...

[HibeeJibee]

Exactly, people are happy to reel-off the competitive periods of 'big' leagues while ignoring the competitive periods of the 'small' ones. Plus Rangers & Celtic's dominance was cemented by their construction of large stadia with an encouragement to buy STs; the Bosman ruling; and the reform of the UEFA competitions in tandem with satellite TV.

It also ignores 1 non-OF winner in 44 years (1904-1948) and Celtic's 9-in-a-row.

There are many 'big' top flights in Europe but those tend to be in the large countries with more clubs of any given stature. Smaller countries tend to have smaller leagues and their trend is downward - there's an ongoing spate of moves to 10s, and 12s or 14s with splits. We should pride ourselves on having 'trail-blazed' this, IMO.