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

[coprolite]

The split is fine. 

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

[Ric]

11 minutes ago, Hibee_Hibernian said:

An 18 team league would be awful and would almost certainly see pretty much every team getting smaller crowds unless there was a stupidly large amount of teams getting relegated.

It's an oft trotted out phrase, but is there any actual evidence to back this up?

[AJF]

1 hour ago, CambieBud said:

I agree with almost all of this. The 12 team setup has made the game stale. There is no excitement because the clubs play each other far too often. I get that the big clubs don’t want an increased league but the present setup leads to stagnation in all 4 leagues, but particularly the top league. 
I have always believed increasing the top league and reducing the amount of times clubs have to play each other would encourage clubs to bring through more young players, rather than panic buy journeymen in January. It won’t happen because Rangers/Celtic need and want as many games against each other as possible

To paint the number of teams in the top flight as a Rangers/Celtic issue is a bit unfair, in my opinion.

Without wanting to go all "blue pound", I would wager that most of the clubs would vote against expanding the top flight simply because the supports brought to their stadiums x amount of times a season is beneficial to them.

Again, I want to reiterate that I am not trying to sound condescending or imply clubs should be grateful for our custom, but I believe expanding the top flight would simply be a bad economical choice for certain clubs which I don't think they'd go for.

[VincentGuerin]

5 minutes ago, AJF said:

To paint the number of teams in the top flight as a Rangers/Celtic issue is a bit unfair, in my opinion.

Without wanting to go all "blue pound", I would wager that most of the clubs would vote against expanding the top flight simply because the supports brought to their stadiums x amount of times a season is beneficial to them.

Again, I want to reiterate that I am not trying to sound condescending or imply clubs should be grateful for our custom, but I believe expanding the top flight would simply be a bad economical choice for certain clubs which I don't think they'd go for.

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.

Edited February 7, 2022 by VincentGuerin

[HibeeJibee]

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.

[AJF]

On the split itself, I really enjoy it. I think the positives it brings vastly outweighs any perceived negatives about imbalances.

I am 100% more likely to watch or keep tabs on the bottom 6 going into the final match days knowing they are all playing each other, particularly since the play offs came in to play.

The only change I'd make is to adopt transfermarkt.com's lead and brand it the "Scottish Premiership Meisterrunde". Quite catchy.

[Ric]

Just now, AJF said:

..outweighs any perceived negatives about imbalances.

OF fan in "lack of sporting integrity" shocker..

In regard to your other point, I've not made this about the OF because, while they have a lot of clout, the "provincial clubs" are as likely to nix expansion down to finances as the OF are.

 

[Jacksgranda]

1 hour ago, TheScarf said:

Isn't the whole point of the split the fact that it guarantees 4 Old Firm games?  Something Sky insist on when bidding for the TV rights.

So we're told. How true is that?

[lennyzer0]

1 hour ago, Ric said:

This came about from discussions on another thread. There will be (several) reconstruction threads, but certainly the most recent ones descended into a Budge-a-thon, so I've started a fresh one.

Ok, before people start firing in, just let me clarify that I get that loads of people love the split. I am not completely against it, as I admit further down it's probably one the best systems you could implement having to adhere to very specific requirements in regard to number of games, available calendar in which to play them, and the financial gain from playing them. I do have a couple of issues with it though..

• The possible "inconsistency" that, by the end of the league, teams in the 6th place can have less points than the 7th placed team. Now, I know, "but.. Ric, you idiot, that's because they are in their own separate leagues", however that is the point really. The split locks teams into their relative groupings, this stops late surges for European placings as much as safe guarding a team in obvious decline that scraped into the top six.
   
• The imbalance of games against rivals and/or home and away fixtures. We need to accept that the league is already manipulated so that by 33 games the idea is those who the SPFL had identified as being in the top/bottom six will have games left against their rivals. We know, however, from experience that isn't how it works out. The league does its best but if prediction was easy bookies wouldn't exist.

In some balance, the following is normally the positives given for the split:

• It creates excitement at the end of the league. In general because the teams in their separate splits are only playing each other, which leads to the classic 6 pointer. My counter to that is the league is already manipulated in that manner anyway, the split itself isn't required for those fixtures to take place.
   
• it reduces the number of meaningless games. If you define meaningless as games at the end of the league where no team would benefit regardless of the score (as in no positional changes and no rivals close enough to interfere with the position) then that still happens in the split. In fact without the 6th/7th "cross over" you add a new restriction. You can still have 7th/8th having meaningless games, you can still have 5th and 6th having meaningless games.
   
• It is required in order to get the most finances out of the available calendar. This one I can't really argue with, with 12 teams there is a limited set of implementations you can have, the current system is probably the best regarding finances/games played/calendar available. What this last one suggests is that perhaps we are not starting from the most optimum base and the idea of reconstruction should be considered.

 

I'll admit now, I have absolutely no stick-on solution to resolve the negatives I see with the split. I also accept loads of people like the split. Me? I'd like to see something like an 18 (34 games, 2x H/A, 3 relegation spots - 1 automatic, 2 playoff) premier with perhaps a couple of leagues of 14 below that (with similar promotion/relegation to the premier), then regional pyramids further down.

Before anyone immediately destroys my suggestion above, I fully accept that such a setup has it's own set of problems, even if it does remove the negatives of the split, there doesn't seem to be a silver bullet.

I'll not add a poll here, I expect the vast majority to be in favour for it, and I also accept that I am in the minority here.

 

TL;DR: The split has some issues, most are probably not bothered by them, what's your opinion?

 

 

Anything that leads to bigger leagues, with only 2 games a season against each team would get my vote. Everything else is icing (or not) on the cake.

[coprolite]

Just now, Jacksgranda said:

So we're told. How true is that?

Circumstantial evidence would suggest that Sky are almost unaware there are other clubs in Scotland 

[VincentGuerin]

In terms of a bigger league, it's not just about away numbers. It's about existing home fans.

Possibly an unpopular opinion, but I'm not sure I'd be keen to pay my current whack for a Hearts season ticket if the league was 18 teams and one home game each against Rangers, Celtic, Hibs, Aberdeen each year was replaced with Raith, Hamilton, ICT, and Dunfermline.

I like that in a small league, the big games come around often. I don't feel I'd gain as a season ticket holder from a bigger league. And I don't think Hearts would be any more likely to win it, since there'd just be more sides with few resources for the OF to blow away every week.

[lennyzer0]

1 minute ago, coprolite said:

Circumstantial evidence would suggest that Sky are almost unaware there are other clubs in Scotland 

Alex Neill certainly thinks there are only two, given his statement yesterday that it was good for Scottish football that Rangers won and kept the pressure on Celtic. Not sure how it can be good for Scottish football in general that the teams in 3rd and 4th took hidings and only two teams ever finish 1st and 2nd.

[Insert Amusing Pseudonym]

I don't like the split, I've never liked it and will continue to never like it during its inevitable march to my death.

Personally I'd like a 20 team top flight with 3 up down but I'm fully aware it's never happening.  Doesn't make the current set-up good and as for trying to turn a battle for 6th place, so you can get two post-split shoeings at the hands of Celtic and Rangers as the league tries to engineer Helicopter Sunday 7, into something desirable, no thanks.

[AJF]

9 minutes ago, Ric said:

OF fan in "lack of sporting integrity" shocker..

In regard to your other point, I've not made this about the OF because, while they have a lot of clout, the "provincial clubs" are as likely to nix expansion down to finances as the OF are.

 

Well, it doesn't lack sporting integrity if it applies to all clubs. As far as I know, every season since the split there has been teams that have had more/less home games than others and, quite simply, it's what the clubs signed up for when they voted it in.

I also agree with the point made earlier by @VincentGuerin that 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.

Edited February 7, 2022 by AJF

[Hibee_Hibernian]

14 minutes ago, sergie's no1 fan said:

Oh I know I know but to us mear mortals 5th place would have given us European football, had we not bottled it. 

 

Aye that's how I remembered it. Makes our bottle job look even worse. 

If you’d finished 5th and St Johnstone had been bottom 6 but still won the cup you weren’t qualifying for Europe so no need to worry. 

11 minutes ago, Ric said:

It's an oft trotted out phrase, but is there any actual evidence to back this up?

Because there would be more meaningless games. The sides most likely to be in the top 6 get derbies and games against the other big teams which pull in bigger crowds, as well as the games just before the split that might attract a bigger crowd than normal. Teams in the bottom half have big games against each other and there’s usually at least  3/4 teams involved until late on with the addition of the playoff now. 
 

From a Hibs point of view if we were mid table in an 18 team league then the last 2 months of the season playing nothing games against the likes of Ayr and Partick Thistle would be boring and I’d probably find something better to do with my weekends. 

[Ric]

2 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

In terms of a bigger league, it's not just about away numbers. It's about existing home fans.

Possibly an unpopular opinion, but I'm not sure I'd be keen to pay my current whack for a Hearts season ticket if the league was 18 teams and one home game each against Rangers, Celtic, Hibs, Aberdeen each year was replaced with Raith, Hamilton, ICT, and Dunfermline.

I like that in a small league, the big games come around often. I don't feel I'd gain as a season ticket holder from a bigger league. And I don't think Hearts would be any more likely to win it, since there'd just be more sides with few resources for the OF to blow away every week.

I can see your point, but that logic would stretch to a 6 team Premiership. Obviously a totally stupid idea and but if you wanted only the big games then at which point do you decide what games are not big. When Hibs Hearts and Rangers were in the Championship, were there still big game in the Premiership?

You could perhaps also suggest that the lesser teams are lesser because they have become that in this current structure.

Not that any of that is invalidating your point, merely expanding on it.

[VincentGuerin]

3 minutes ago, Hibee_Hibernian said:

From a Hibs point of view if we were mid table in an 18 team league then the last 2 months of the season playing nothing games against the likes of Ayr and Partick Thistle would be boring and I’d probably find something better to do with my weekends. 

This is how I feel. At risk of losing superfan points, but I travel quite far to watch Hearts, and I can't honestly say I'd be jumping out of bed for an early morning train to watch us play a smaller team in the spring when sitting mid-table in a bigger league. At the moment we have a derby or the Old Firm every few weeks, and that's simply quite good fun. I look forward to those games. I wouldn't want them replaced.

[VincentGuerin]

5 minutes ago, Ric said:

I can see your point, but that logic would stretch to a 6 team Premiership. Obviously a totally stupid idea and but if you wanted only the big games then at which point do you decide what games are not big. When Hibs Hearts and Rangers were in the Championship, were there still big game in the Premiership?

You could perhaps also suggest that the lesser teams are lesser because they have become that in this current structure.

Not that any of that is invalidating your point, merely expanding on it.

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

[Ric]

1 minute ago, Hibee_Hibernian said:

Because there would be more meaningless games. The sides most likely to be in the top 6 get derbies and games against the other big teams which pull in bigger crowds, as well as the games just before the split that might attract a bigger crowd than normal. Teams in the bottom half have big games against each other and there’s usually at least  3/4 teams involved until late on with the addition of the playoff now.

Would there? It's all supposition. Look at the top 6 last year, St Johnstone and Livingston, with all due respect, are not brining bigger crowds than some of the teams below them in the bottom 6.

I've already addressed the "but they are all six pointers, so there's your excitement" suggestion because the league fixtures are already manipulated in order to support the split. Take away the split those same "exciting fixtures" will happen, the league just needs to schedule the games so that those likely to be near the bottom of the league play their respective games in the latter fixtures of the season. After all, that is how it is set up just now, the only difference is those 5 games don't get announced until game 33 at present.

[Jacksgranda]

51 minutes ago, Hibee_Hibernian said:

An 18 team league would be awful and would almost certainly see pretty much every team getting smaller crowds unless there was a stupidly large amount of teams getting relegated. The only possible change that wouldn’t make the league worse would be 14 teams with an 8/6 split and more relegation - maybe something like 2 down automatically and a third via playoffs. 

A stupidly large 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.

Edited February 7, 2022 by Jacksgranda
Sleppnig