League Reconstruction 20/21 season

[djchapsticks]

17 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

Attendance per capita.

Overall attendance.

That's European top flights. In terms of population, Scotland is 25th.

Clearly we're doing something wrong, crowds are shite you see.

Even removing the Old Firm attendances from that, the aggregate attendance would still be in the 1.8m-2m range and be in the 0.8% per capita range (still in top 5 or 6 in Europe)

We better than hold our own against countries a lot larger and more successful than our own.

Edited April 17, 2020 by djchapsticks

[Ric]

So here's a wonderful piece of correlation, and I touched on it yesterday...

An 18 team league was introduced in 1955/56. Here is a decade of league winners from that period:

Now contrast that to last decade of a 12 team league:

Now, obviously we have to factor in Rangers going bankrupt and coming back as a different club, so that explains their absence for a few of those years.

 

For me, I've always felt that a larger league playing each other twice negates the huge advantage the two big clubs have, even if it can mean some teams getting stuck in a position in the last weeks of a season.

I know which I would prefer.

Edited April 17, 2020 by Ric

[Sinner-to-Saint]

1 hour ago, Donathan said:

 

 

 

Not sure what you point was, I'm afraid! 

1 hour ago, Doonhamer1969 said:

That's what I was thinking .

The only snag with that is that it leaves a team idle on the last day ,perhaps sitting waiting for other results re,say ,Europa League qualification.

It does mean an even number of games though ,32 for the whole league.

English Championship clubs play 46 games a season. 

A 16 team league could play one another once home and away, which makes 30 games. They could then split into two groups of eight, and play one another home and away, which would add another 14 matches. 

The only problem with that is relegation. Premiership clubs are frightened of dropping into the abyss.  

[RandomGuy.]

9 minutes ago, Ric said:

So here's a wonderful piece of correlation, and I touched on it yesterday...

An 18 team league was introduced in 1955/56. Here is a decade of league winners from that period:

Now contrast that to last decade of a 12 team league:

Now, obviously we have to factor in Rangers going bankrupt and coming back as a different club, so that explains their absence for a few of those years.

 

For me, I've always felt that a larger league playing each other twice negates the huge advantage the two big clubs have, even if it can mean some teams getting stuck in a position in the last weeks of a season.

I know which I would prefer.

I'd say the £10m+ European money that came in every season for the top two, at the same time Rangers were massively overspending and Celtic were spending to catch up, probably has more effect on their dominance now than a larger league.

[Ray Patterson]

I used to be of the opinion of a 16 team league but the more I think about it, the more I realise it's not a great idea.

Personally, I quite like the 12 and the split. It creates some fantastic moments over the years including Rory fucking Boulding. I wouldn't be against a temporary expansion to 14 for these exceptional circumstances. But 12 has proven to be an exciting format and gives most teams something to play for come the end of the season.

For a 14 team league, I would do a 7-7 split. But ensure that the teams that are 7th and 8th at the time of split have the last round of matches as their "rest day". I would also auto relegate the bottom two, with playoffs taking place between 4th vs 3rd and the winner facing 2nd in the Championship, possibly played at a neutral venue? 

With an eventual view to move back to a 12 team Premiership and move to a 14 team (39 game) Championship, with the 10-10 below that. With the addition of auto-relegation for bottom of L2.

 

 

[Nightmare]

16 minutes ago, The Reverend said:

Not sure what you point was, I'm afraid! 

English Championship clubs play 46 games a season. 

A 16 team league could play one another once home and away, which makes 30 games. They could then split into two groups of eight, and play one another home and away, which would add another 14 matches. 

The only problem with that is relegation. Premiership clubs are frightened of dropping into the abyss.  

The English lower leagues have dispensation to play on midweek nights where UEFA events are taking place. As top tiers aren’t afforded that right, a 44-game season is a no-go.

[tree house tam]

24 minutes ago, The Reverend said:

The only problem with that is relegation. Premiership clubs are frightened of dropping into the abyss.  

Which is why budge is suggesting this whole charade in the first place. Get fucking doon you old boot.

[EdTheDuck]

9 hours ago, Lebowski said:

18 hours ago, EdTheDuck said:

It makes no difference. Given the facts of the current structure it is more likely Aberdeen will drop points against Dundee or ICT than celtic or sevco. Kilmarnock last season demonstrated that the Ugly Sisters can be matched head-on, but raising your game against the US is pointless if you scatter points to the four winds against The Rest.
Having said that, if, for example, Kilmarnock were within 4 points of the leaders  in a 16 team league after 22 games the whole dynamic would change for the 8 game run-in. Whereas, last season, with 16 games left the smaller  squad meant injuries & suspensions played a bigger role...probably.  It needs that consistency against all teams though, not just raising your game against celtic and sevco.
I wouldn't mind giving it a go, just to see, but it is never going to happen because the 5 biggest city clubs are money grabbing twonks.

I think Hearts would have won the league in 1998 if they had even a passable record v Celtic and Rangers that season? If memory serves they picked up something like 3/24 points v them and didn't finish that far behind at all. I'm certain that Hibs took more points off Celtic and Rangers that season, and we can't have taken many given that we got relegated!

Good shout. They picked up two points more v the rest than celtic but as you say a disastrous run of results against celtic & sevco (until the cup final of course). Tragic run-in as well that season - with 6 to play Hearts were 2 off the top and then picked up 6/18

Another example of an exception to the rule was Aberdeen in season 2014/15 - picked up a point more than celtic v The Rest in the regular 33 game season but lost 3 out of 3 against them. Interesting fact, that season McInnes'  Aberdeen was the only team that lost 4 out of 4 against Ronnie's Celtic...

However, generally speaking...

 

Edited April 17, 2020 by EdTheDuck
can't count

[Ric]

38 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

I'd say the £10m+ European money that came in every season for the top two, at the same time Rangers were massively overspending and Celtic were spending to catch up, probably has more effect on their dominance now than a larger league.

That's the joys of a correlation..

[EdTheDuck]

50 minutes ago, Ric said:

So here's a wonderful piece of correlation, and I touched on it yesterday...

An 18 am league was introduced in 1955/56. Here is a decade of league winners from that period:

Now contrast that to last decade of a 12 team league:

Now, obviously we have to factor in Rangers going bankrupt and coming back as a different club, so that explains their absence for a few of those years.

 

For me, I've always felt that a larger league playing each other twice negates the huge advantage the two big clubs have, even if it can mean some teams getting stuck in a position in the last weeks of a season.

I know which I would prefer.

Yeah, but...

In the 34 seasons prior to the 'golden age' celtic and rangers won 33 out of 34 in leagues of 18 and 20 so y'know, swings and roundabouts...

The decade from 79/80 to 88/89 also saw 4 occassions when teams other than celtic or sevco won the league in a 10 team league.  The size of the league is irrelevent. As Random Guy says the massive change in finances has more to do with it.

[jamamafegan]

The Scottish Football Supporters Association league reconstruction survey is now live. We invite all supporters to participate and make their voices heard. Supporters must have a say on the future of our game.
Link: https://surveymonkey.co.uk/r/sfsa-league

Done.

[RandomGuy.]

54 minutes ago, The Reverend said:

Not sure what you point was, I'm afraid! 

English Championship clubs play 46 games a season. 

A 16 team league could play one another once home and away, which makes 30 games. They could then split into two groups of eight, and play one another home and away, which would add another 14 matches. 

The only problem with that is relegation. Premiership clubs are frightened of dropping into the abyss.  

We'll struggle to fit in a full 20/21 season as it is, even with talk of culling the Betfred and Challenge Cups entirely for a year.

Adding more games to a regular season seems irrational. 

[jamamafegan]

If we had a 16 team league they could increase the number of games played in the League Cup to make up for the lost games - such as mini leagues in late summer.

Also, when it comes to OF games a season and tv deals I still say that if a company - for example BT wins the league rights then the loser, for example Sky, could get the cup derby rights. Obviously there’s no guarantee but the OF regularly meet in the cups anyway.

[Doonhamer1969]

1 hour ago, The Reverend said:

Not sure what you point was, I'm afraid! 

English Championship clubs play 46 games a season. 

A 16 team league could play one another once home and away, which makes 30 games. They could then split into two groups of eight, and play one another home and away, which would add another 14 matches. 

The only problem with that is relegation. Premiership clubs are frightened of dropping into the abyss.  

Celtic played 9 games in December  in Scottish weather, far too many. 46 games per season is far too many IMHO.

[NorthBank]

1 hour ago, Ric said:

So here's a wonderful piece of correlation, and I touched on it yesterday...

An 18 team league was introduced in 1955/56. Here is a decade of league winners from that period:

Now contrast that to last decade of a 12 team league:

Now, obviously we have to factor in Rangers going bankrupt and coming back as a different club, so that explains their absence for a few of those years.

 

For me, I've always felt that a larger league playing each other twice negates the huge advantage the two big clubs have, even if it can mean some teams getting stuck in a position in the last weeks of a season.

I know which I would prefer.

You are comparing onions with grapes here Ric. It was a different era with a completely different set of circumstances.

1. Player wage limit therefore diddy Clubs could afford better players.

2. No Bosman so teams could find a good young player and keep them on a 12 year contract.

3. Virtually no sponsorship money thereby not giving the big Clubs greater finance.

18 Club League is shite. With 10 games to go and both Accies and ICT are safe how many fans would turn up for a game? Meaningless games drives crowds away. The only possible way to make the Premiership more competitive is redistribution of wealth (no guarantees of course - look at Hearts) and that isn't going to happen.

[Ric]

7 minutes ago, EdTheDuck said:

Yeah, but...

In the 34 seasons prior to the 'golden age' celtic and rangers won 33 out of 34 in leagues of 18 and 20 so y'know, swings and roundabouts...

The decade from 79/80 to 88/89 also saw 4 occassions when teams other than celtic or sevco won the league in a 10 team league.  The size of the league is irrelevent. As Random Guy says the massive change in finances has more to do with it.

Yeah, I'm not sure you can be so absolutist with such a claim.

As I said already, just putting out a lovely bit of correlation.

 

[RandomGuy.]

2 minutes ago, Ric said:

Yeah, I'm not sure you can be so absolutist with such a claim.

As I said already, just putting out a lovely bit of correlation.

 

How did the second decade of an 18 team league go?

[Ric]

Just now, RandomGuy. said:

How did the second decade of an 18 team league go?

Why don't you post that to demonstrate, rather than go a bit passive aggressive about it..

I think people are not understanding the idea of what a correlation is, here let me show you all another example..

That shows a correlation between deaths and Nicolas Cage films.

Clearly there is no link, but it's fun bit of data analysis.

My post is not cause and effect, I honestly thought people could see that.

[RandomGuy.]

1 minute ago, Ric said:

Why don't you post that to demonstrate, rather than go a bit passive aggressive about it..

FWIW the most diverse amount of top two finishers seems to be in a 10 team division, but you're back over 100 years for that.

No matter what league set up, Celtic and Rangers have comfortably dominated in terms of titles, over the entire history of Scottish football, yet you still have folk on here claiming a 16 team division is the answer and their dominance will be ended.

[Ric]

Just now, RandomGuy. said:

FWIW the most diverse amount of top two finishers seems to be in a 10 team division, but you're back over 100 years for that.

No matter what league set up, Celtic and Rangers have comfortably dominated in terms of titles, over the entire history of Scottish football, yet you still have folk on here claiming a 16 team division is the answer and their dominance will be ended.

Yeah, they always have dominated, and likely always will.

Now in a more serious note, I do believe that playing 2 times rather than 4 has to increase the chances of them not being so dominant and if I had the time I'd maybe present statistical data to back that up.