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

[coprolite]

2 minutes ago, SuperSaints1877 said:

Scotland had the Premier league before England. 

Yes, i remember the premier division (i think) and the SPL. 

We never called it the Premiership though (although England isn't officially that anymore either) and we certainly didn't have a championship with league 1 under it. 

Partly it's shit for marketing the "product" ,  partly it's bad for our collective self esteem to be copycatting the bigger neighbour, but mainly it betrays a lack of imagination in the running of our game. 

[Ric]

17 minutes ago, AJF said:

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.

What else could you do? I mean even in the round, just about everyone has handled the pandemic badly, across all business sectors, and through the corridors of power, everyone both overestimated and underestimated how things would turn out. All in all, it's a big fucking asterisk next to that league, much I presume like leagues won during war times, but ultimately a significant number of games had been played. Not that I'm a big defender of SFA/SPFL decisions, but they were damned if they did, and damned if they didn't.

Edit: btw, I wasn't suggesting you were up to no good with a gotcha, if anything I mentioned it because it seems like a fair thing to ask of me, "If I am keen for reconstruction, why not support it the last time(s)"

Edited February 7, 2022 by Ric

[the jambo-rocker]

8 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

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.

We're probably not going to know until we try it. Home supports could lessen, but for us the chances are we'll win more games, and I've rarely seen a teams attendance get smaller through winning more often. I take your point about Hibs X2, but that is one game. You could also argue that playing them once away would make these games mean all the more.

 

4 minutes ago, Ric said:

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!

Winning definitely helps. Personal opinion, I'd say there are far better away days in the championship than in the top league. Would happily embrace more of those trips and I think would encourage bigger away gates. 

[kennie makevin]

14 minutes ago, oneteaminglasgow said:

What the f**k is European class footballer?

 

Someone regarded as the best in his position in Europe, or f***k*** Europe if you prefer.

[topcat(The most tip top)]

2 hours ago, Dons_1988 said:

Enjoyed it more when we debated relegating teams with 8 games to go. 

Puts having to go to Paisley 3 times instead of 2 into perspective 

[Tannadeechee]

I've never been a fan of the split from day one, its not the imbalance in home/away because lets be honest, some teams will play better away from home fans depending on how the season is going, its more the fact that, as has been mentioned before, it can stop teams in form from pushing up the league towards the end of the season & protect those not doing so well come the sharp end.

This is going to be a very unpopular opinion. I'm not a fan of the play-offs here or in England. I know folk talk about the excitement they bring but its the unfairness of them. How we can justify letting a team who finished 4th in Championship, for example, be promoted instead of the team that finished 2nd is unfair. There have been 36 games played, if you've finished 3rd or 4th you've failed and don't deserve the chance. By all means a playoff between 2nd top & 2nd bottom I'm all for that.

I would love a league where we only play each other twice as this would, in my opinion, allow more of a potential challange at the top. Down side to this is the amount of teams required to make it financially viable, could potentially bring in too mmany"meaningless" games. This was the same problem that brought about the Scottish Premier League back in the mid seventies. We are never going to get a consensus on something that will work financially, sponser wise, or supporter wise, it allways feels a bit that'll do as a compromise no matter what we do, sadly.

Edited February 7, 2022 by Tannadeechee

[Kyle Reese]

Two divisions of 18 and 20.

Pyramid below.

Top division fully professional.

Cap on away supporters at 10% of home average.

No loans between clubs in same division.

Play once home and once away.

Two automatic relegations and a play of for third and third bottom.

That would be my preference. Realise many won’t like it.

[Ric]

10 minutes ago, the jambo-rocker said:

Winning definitely helps. Personal opinion, I'd say there are far better away days in the championship than in the top league.

It's synonymous with Yogi's "guid honest laddies".

Sure, that's being unfair to some of the good players in the league, but there is definitely a different spirit with games in the lower leagues. Plus there are some cracking old-school stadiums, where the Premiership ones all feel a bit sanitised, Greenhill Road included.

[oneteaminglasgow]

14 minutes ago, kennie makevin said:

Someone regarded as the best in his position in Europe, or f***k*** Europe if you prefer.

Ok, well by that definition we have a European class footballer playing right now who came through the Scottish league system about nine years ago. 

[paranoid android]

Why now?

[topcat(The most tip top)]

2 hours ago, VincentGuerin said:

I don't see the positive outcome we'd get if we removed the split.

We'd lose good fixtures at the end of the season that add to the excitement. We'd lose an easy model for a 38-game season. We'd lose semi-interesting games as clubs scramble for the last top six place in the spring.

What exactly would we gain?

We'd gain more places in the top flight so it would be harder for clubs like St Mirren to get stuck in the Championship for years on end.

We'd be spared the terrible boredom of a second visit from Aberdeen in favour of the red hot excitement of playing someone like Hamilton Accies again

He's really only thinking about what's good for Scottish football as a whole
 

[TheScarf]

12 minutes ago, Tannadeechee said:

I've never been a fan of the split from day one, its not the imbalance in home/away because letss be honest, somenteams will play better away from home fans depending on how the season is going, its more the fact that, as has been mentioned before, it can stop teams in form from pushing up the league towards the end of the season & protect those not doing so well come the sharp end.

This is going to be a very unpopular opinion. I'm not a fan of the play-offs here or in England. I know folk talk about the excitement they bring but its the unfairness of them. How we can justify letting a team who finished 4th in Championship, for example, be promoted instead of the team that finished 2nd is unfair. There have been 36 games played, if you've finished 3rd or 4th you've failed and don't deserve the chance. By all means a playoff between 2nd top & 2nd bottom I'm all for that.

I would love a league where we only play each other twice as this would, in my opinion, allow more of a potential challange at the top. Down side to this is the amount of teams required to makenit financially viable, could potentially bring in too many meaningless games. This was the same problem that brought about the Scottish Premier League back in the mid seventies. We are never going to get a consensus on something that will work financially, sponser wise, or supporter wise, it allways feels a bit that'll do as a compromise no matter what we do, sadly.

I agree with this.  4th in the Championship, League One and League Two is mid-table and it's ludicrous that they then get the chance to be promoted.  They could be 20 fucking points behind 2nd place after 36 games.

 

[lennyzer0]

1 hour ago, VincentGuerin said:

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.

Obviously it's all personal, but I'm far more likely to get out of bed early to see Hearts play Falkirk or Patrick than I am to do the same for a game against either side of the Old Firm, or the fifth game of the season against Aberdeen.

Never really understood the 'meaningless game' tag - I go to watch Hearts play and (hopefully) win - any meaning beyond that is nice, but not even slightly essential.

And generally speaking, a large proportion of games every season are basically meaningless for most teams.

[lennyzer0]

18 minutes ago, Kyle Reese said:

Two divisions of 18 and 20.

Pyramid below.

Top division fully professional.

Cap on away supporters at 10% of home average.

No loans between clubs in same division.

Play once home and once away.

Two automatic relegations and a play of for third and third bottom.

That would be my preference. Realise many won’t like it.

Now there's a setup I can get behind (with the addition of an 'and no fucking B teams' proviso).

[VincentGuerin]

3 minutes ago, lennyzer0 said:

Obviously it's all personal, but I'm far more likely to get out of bed early to see Hearts play Falkirk or Patrick than I am to do the same for a game against either side of the Old Firm, or the fifth game of the season against Aberdeen.

Never really understood the 'meaningless game' tag - I go to watch Hearts play and (hopefully) win - any meaning beyond that is nice, but not even slightly essential.

And generally speaking, a large proportion of games every season are basically meaningless for most teams.

This is true, but I don't think anyone would deny that derby week, for example, is just more exciting. I wouldn't want to cut them in half for extra games against smaller sides. I think it would just make the season less fun and interesting.

[TheScarf]

1 minute ago, lennyzer0 said:

Obviously it's all personal, but I'm far more likely to get out of bed early to see Hearts play Falkirk or Patrick than I am to do the same for a game against either side of the Old Firm, or the fifth game of the season against Aberdeen.

Never really understood the 'meaningless game' tag - I go to watch Hearts play and (hopefully) win - any meaning beyond that is nice, but not even slightly essential.

And generally speaking, a large proportion of games every season are basically meaningless for most teams.

I couldn't put it any better.  Well, the games are not meaningless in the grand scheme of things as the they are a means to an end, the ultimate end of course is winning the league you're in.  If you are 10th in a 16/18 team league and have 4 game left against side in an around you who cares?  They aren't meaningless, there's prize money at stake.  Every game of football doesn't have to be a matter of staying up or not, or winning the league or not, or qualifying for Europe or not.  It's a fucking nonsense to suggest every game has to be a 'cup final'.

[ATLIS]

1 hour ago, sergie's no1 fan said:

Not that I want to remind myself of this but StMirren (our best team in 30 years) last season. We were on the same level of points with the greatest StJohnstone team ever but they beat us with better GD (2 goals ). 

StJohnstone then leap frogged Livi into 5th place which earned a European spot. Pretty sure it did anyway. Like 99% sure. 

They drew with us on the last day to hold on to 5th I think. They definitely went above us during the split but that wouldn't have qualified them for Europe. 5th place is only a European spot if someone in the top 4 wins the cup. It was just coincidence that it was St Johnstone that won the cup that meant that they got into Europe, if Hibs had won the Scottish Cup then 5th would've qualified for Europe (St Johnstone again).

If Hibs won the cup and Livi finished 5th we would've qualified for Europe (albeit without a European license due to no academy at the time)

[AJF]

13 minutes ago, TheScarf said:

It's a fucking nonsense to suggest every game has to be a 'cup final'.

I don't think that anyone is suggesting that though. However, the split undeniably gives us more "big" games and games with a lot more riding on them. I don't really think that can be disputed.

Edited February 7, 2022 by AJF

[Kyle Reese]

4 minutes ago, AJF said:

I don't think that anyone is suggesting that though. However, the split undeniably gives us more "big" games and games with a lot more riding on them. I don't really think that can be disputed.

Conversely the “big games” would become bigger, if everyone played each other once at home and once away.

[Ric]

4 minutes ago, AJF said:

However, the split undeniably gives us more "big" games and games with a lot more riding on them. I don't really think that can be disputed.

I think you'll find I disputed that in my OP.