People's opinions of the split (..and possible reconstruction?)

[Ric]

1 minute ago, VincentGuerin said:

The big games wouldn't be big games if they were the only games we played. So, that doesn't make any sense.

That's a bit of a contradiction. It's suggesting they are only big games because the league has been cut down to 6 teams, but they are not big games if the league was originally 6 teams.

Either way, it's a minor point, just expanding on the "preferring big games" comment.

[VincentGuerin]

2 minutes ago, Ric said:

That's a bit of a contradiction. It's suggesting they are only big games because the league has been cut down to 6 teams, but they are not big games if the league was originally 6 teams.

Either way, it's a minor point, just expanding on the "preferring big games" comment.

This post hurts my head. My point was very simple.

I pay to watch Hearts and I'd like to see them play big games more often. A big league gives us fewer big games.

[Ric]

13 minutes ago, AJF said:

...everyone knows the split happens after 33 games, so if you happen to be bottom 6 at that point, then that's that. Tough. To claim that lacks sporting integrity or it artificially creates competition is false, in my opinion. I may regret bringing it up, but did you oppose Hearts/Partick etc being relegated before all league games were played? If not, it is a very similar issue you are now opposing.

As stated above, I'm not suggesting we change mid competition, the caveat that everyone knows the rules at the start is not mutually exclusive to teams deciding it works differently the next year. The split itself doesn't determine that.

As for bringing up the curtailed 19/20 season, it's pretty irrelevant in regard to the split though. It's also leaning towards the "well other things were bad, so this bad thing is ok in comparison", which may be true but isn't really progressing the issue.

 

[Ric]

1 minute ago, VincentGuerin said:

A big league gives us fewer big games.

Ispo facto, a smaller league includes more big games.

[oneteaminglasgow]

27 minutes ago, HibeeJibee said:

Now we've 5 places in Europe and last is for Conference League you could add a playoff for 4th-7th (or 5th-8th depending on cup final outcome) with single legs i.e. SFs 4th v 7th and 5th v 6th.

That would resolve the only real weakness of the split which is that clubs at the top end of the 'Bottom 6' can have little to play for over last 5 games.

Alternatively you could split into 'Top 4', 'Middle 4' and 'Bottom 4' albeit would mean 36 games and might see more critical imbalances.


Beyond that the split does a job. It allows a manageable program of 38 games... produces a lot of big matches in the run-in... and involves minimal imbalances (certainly compared to 33 games).

Only viable alternatives are 10-teams playing 36 games, or 14-teams splitting 6/8 for 36/40 games... but latter means splitting after 26 games not 33 and you'd definitely need 4th-7th playoff.

I’d be up for playoffs for one of the European places - top 3 and cup winner get a spot, and then 7th, 6th, 5th and 4th playoff for the final one with some sort of advantage for finishing higher in the league.

The three splits of 4 would be absolutely shite though.

[VincentGuerin]

3 minutes ago, Ric said:

Ispo facto, a smaller league includes more big games.

What's your point?

I'm not sure if you're implying I might enjoy a 6-team league. This is a very silly point to try to make.

[AJF]

5 minutes ago, Ric said:

As stated above, I'm not suggesting we change mid competition, the caveat that everyone knows the rules at the start is not mutually exclusive to teams deciding it works differently the next year. The split itself doesn't determine that.

As for bringing up the curtailed 19/20 season, it's pretty irrelevant in regard to the split though. It's also leaning towards the "well other things were bad, so this bad thing is ok in comparison", which may be true but isn't really progressing the issue.

 

My question about the curtailed season is entirely relevant, well, I believe it is anyway

You are arguing that the competition splitting after 33 games lacks sporting integrity by limiting where teams can finish. An opposing opinion has been given that all clubs know that the league splits after 33 games so if you are in the bottom half at that point you get what you deserve. So, my question is simple really: do you believe Hearts/Partick got what they deserved when the 19/20 season ended?

I'm also not arguing the "other things are bad" opinion you are trying to paint out. I like the split, I think it is positive. I am just asking for your opinion on the 19/20 curtailed season because if you supported how that ended then I don't understand why you believe a split after 33 games in unfair. I don't know how you can argue against clubs deserving to be bottom 6 after 33 games if you support teams being relegated after the season ended shortly. (please note, I am not arguing for or against the league ending early, I am just pointing out there may be contradictory stances if that's how you felt about it).

Edited February 7, 2022 by AJF

[SuperSaints1877]

40 minutes ago, coprolite said:

The split is fine. 

The problem with our structure is copying the English names. We can do better than that. 

Scotland had the Premier league before England. 

[the jambo-rocker]

29 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

Agree it's not just the OF.

Looking at the top 6 clubs in the second tier at the moment, I doubt Hearts would be keen to swap a second game with Celtic, Rangers, Hibs, and Aberdeen with home games against Arbroath, Killie, ICT, and Raith. Then maybe swapping a game with United with Partick Thislte and Motherwell with Accies. Good for Hearts' pocket in terms of away numbers?

And to be perfectly honest, I like playing the teams we dislike more often.

I absolutely would. OF away days which are utter shite for Inverness or Arbroath day out in return? Sign me up.

I would like to see us try again with 18. 16 league & 30 games /or that plus add another split feels like too much effort to make a 16 team fit. 

Plenty of good teams coming into the pyramid now that can easily fit the lower league standard and look likely to go on and fill the gap in the championship (Kelty, Cove, Queens Park have changed up as a consequence) so the quality is not diminished.

I've always said if you want to try adding another potential 3rd OF game and another trophy because who doesn't like winning a trophy, add a bloody super cup to fill the gap. 

[Ric]

1 minute ago, VincentGuerin said:

What's your point?

I'm not sure if you're implying I might enjoy a 6-team league. This is a very silly point to try to make.

I'm not saying you would enjoy it, I'm saying if you are basing the size of league on the determination of what you call a big game then 12 is perhaps not your preferred structure either.

[kennie makevin]

2 minutes ago, Jacksgranda said:

A stupidlyl arge amount of teams getting relegated wouldn't increase crowds much. Say 4 (or even 6) teams were to be relegated each season. 2 (or 3) would be stranded before Christmas, fixtures against them would hardly attract the fair weather fan - unless they thought there was going to be a goal spree - and their replacements the following season would just go straight back down.

I remember the old 18 team top flight. I thought it was fine, but then I didn't know anything else.

Inevitably one of the promoted sides was relegated, one of the relegated sides was promoted back up (see post from Partick Thistle fan above). Sometimes both relegated sides came back up.

Some teams just bounced back and forward between the two divisions, e.g Stirling Albion, late 50s early 60s Clyde. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Usually come Christmas one side was stranded at the bottom. I remember Aberdeen being involved in a "relegation" battle in 1968/69. We beat Falkirk at Pittodrie before Christmas and that more or less meant we (probably) wouldn't be relegated, We finished 4th bottom but were never in any serious danger of being caught by the teams below.

If you're not battling the drop - which, in my experience, seldom went to the last day - or chasing the title/European spots there were quite a lot of (fairly) meaningless games for the rest.

This crazed obsession with eliminating 'meaningless' games baffles me. Is our game better, our players better, our 'product' better than it was in the old 18 team Division One that was in place when I first saw football ? Course it's not. It really is no coincidence that the last truly European class footballer we produced , Kenny Dalglish, came through gradually at Celtic with the benefit of these vile meaningless games to ease him in....and not to mention playing reserve team football with the likes of Bobby Murdoch etc but that's another bugbear !!!

[VincentGuerin]

2 minutes ago, Ric said:

I'm not saying you would enjoy it, I'm saying if you are basing the size of league on the determination of what you call a big game then 12 is perhaps not your preferred structure either.

This is very silly. As I explained when I first responded to this point.

I'm happy with 12.

[VincentGuerin]

5 minutes ago, the jambo-rocker said:

I absolutely would. OF away days which are utter shite for Inverness or Arbroath day out in return? Sign me up.

I agree on the general point about away days. More variety would be good.

But I'm not sure Hearts would make that swap given the relative away supports, and given that most fans don't go to away games, I'm not sure we'd gain by replacing big home games with small home games. In fact, I'm certain we'd lose out.

I'm not sure it's ever been done. But I think a survey of Hearts season ticket holders would show a preference for Hibs x2 rathen than Hibs x1 and Raith x1.

Edited February 7, 2022 by VincentGuerin

[invergowrie arab]

I would rather we played each other twice a season.

I get that can't happen as the money lost to the game would mean we couldn't  bring star quality like Ian Harkes or Imari Niskanen to the league and would have to rely on Scottish players.

The split in a 12 team league is the least worst option and I don't care about the fixture imbalance.

Edited February 7, 2022 by invergowrie arab

[oneteaminglasgow]

1 minute ago, kennie makevin said:

the last truly European class footballer we produced , Kenny Dalglish

What the f**k is European class footballer?

 

[Ric]

7 minutes ago, AJF said:

My question about the curtailed season is entirely relevant, well, I believe it is anyway

You are arguing that the competition splitting after 33 games lacks sporting integrity by limiting where teams can finish. An opposing opinion has been given that all clubs know that the league splits after 33 games so if you are in the bottom half at that point you get what you deserve. So, my question is simple really: do you believe Hearts/Partick got what they deserved when the 19/20 season ended?

 

The first part we agree on, clubs know the current structure. When we changed to the split there was not a single argument made that we shouldn't do so because the teams knew the current (non-split) setup. The reason for that is it's not really relevant. Of course clubs know the requirements now, that's not in doubt. However, that's not an argument to keep the split.

As for Hearts/Partick, I don't know is the honest answer. I was a lot more in their favour until Budge went on one though. I have sympathy for their position, but if that then leads onto a gotcha of why didn't you support Budge's reconstruction plans, I think we all know why, and that was they were intended to benefit Hearts specifically and not an attempt to properly reconstruct the leagues, I'll ignore the whole colts add on nonsense.

Edited February 7, 2022 by Ric

[AJF]

2 minutes ago, Ric said:

 

The first part we agree on, clubs know the current structure. When we changed to the split there was not a single argument made that we shouldn't do so because the teams knew the current (non-split) setup. The reason for that is it's not really relevant. Of course club know the requirements now, that's not in doubt.

As for Hearts/Partick, I don't know is the honest answer. I was a lot more in their favour until Budge went on one though. I have sympathy for their position, though. Of course, if that then leads onto a gotcha of why didn't you support Budge's reconstruction plans, I think we all know why, and that was they were intended to benefit Hearts specifically and not an attempt to properly reconstruct the leagues, I'll ignore the whole colts add on nonsense.

That's fair. I'm not trying to lead into a gotcha, I was happy Budge's reconstruction plans were booted out and it wasn't really part of my thinking. More so I was just gauging your opinion on how fair/unfair you thought the season ended if you feel the split after 33 matches is unfair.

[Ric]

8 minutes ago, the jambo-rocker said:

I absolutely would. OF away days which are utter shite for Inverness or Arbroath day out in return? Sign me up.

I think almost every team that gets relegated, and St Mirren are of course no strangers to such events, the one thing to look forward to is no OF games and a bunch of grounds you hadn't visited in ages.

Plus, if you are a decent side, the promotion push back up is always fun!

[Donathan]

16 team league with a 4 way split is my preferred solution

 

Play 30 games then split into:

Group A - 1-2-3-4 

Group B - 5-8-9-12

Group C - 6-7-10-11

Group D - 13-14-15-16

 

In each case, the points are reset to 6-3-1-0 and then you play Home and Away for a total of 36 games.

 

Group A are playing for the title.

Group D are playing for survival.

Groups B and C are playing for European spots, with the two group winners then going into a knockout playoff with the teams who finish 3rd and 4th in group A.

 

Gives everyone something to play for at the end of the season and basically guarantees four old firm games. The main problem I see with it is that the back end of the regular season might become a bit meaningless for teams where it's obvious which section they are going to fall into plus the Police may not be keen on two OF games so late in the season.

[Dundee Hibernian]

For totally selfish reasons, I'd prefer a bigger league, as I enjoy going to different grounds and surrounding pu cafes. 

From a sporting point of view, the split is always unfair in terms of home/away balance for on overall numbers and some sides having 3 H, 1 A, or vice versa, against another team. 

I accept this is very much a minority view, but factually, it can't be knocked.

If we have to have a split in the present 12 team system, it could be a 6-6 after 22 games which gives ten more games in each section = 32, which would be 2, 3 or 4 too few home games for some chairmen. But they don't pay for their drinks.