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

[Insert Amusing Pseudonym]

7 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.

There's a vast difference between a big game and a game between 'big' sides.  Sometimes there's crossover obviously

[Jacksgranda]

46 minutes ago, the jambo-rocker said:

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.

 

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. 

That's because they are a novelty, as they are a one off. (Or a two off if you're the New Rangers. A three off if you support Hibs FC Club.)

If you had trips to Falkirk, Airdrie, Inverness, Dunfermline, Morton , Ayr etc every season the novelty might begin to wear off. Plus, in a 16 team league, you are losing 8 matches. Do you reintroduce the sectional league cup ties to make up the difference? You're back to playing some teams 4 times a season (granted only 3 teams 4 times not 5 teams and the other 5 teams x 3 times. Have I got that right??!)

I don't think the leagues will be increased in size, at least not to 16 or 18, I'm not sure the current generation of fans would "take" to an 18/20 team league like I grew up with.

 

[Ric]

Just now, Jacksgranda said:

I don't think the leagues will be increased in size, at least not to 16 or 18, I'm not sure the current generation of fans would "take" to an 18/20 team league like I grew up with.

I should point out that I agree that it's unlikely the league will get bigger.

The old leagues of the 70s wouldn't be like a large league now, the game both on the field and especially off the field has changed drastically since then.

 

[AJF]

3 minutes ago, Ric said:

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

Did you? As far as I can see, when mentioning the positives you said the split creates excitement at the end of the league and it reduces the number of meaningless games. That literally agrees with my claim that it provides us with more big games and games with a lot more riding on them. You argued that it was wrong the league is "manipulated", not that the split didn't produce bigger games.

1 minute ago, Insert Amusing Pseudonym said:

There's a vast difference between a big game and a game between 'big' sides.  Sometimes there's crossover obviously

Of course there is, I wasn't arguing that it produced more games between big sides. I was arguing the split produced more "big" games and more games with a lot more riding on them which, in my opinion, makes things more exciting.

[tamba_trio]

Sadly, the structure of the league doesn’t really matter.

As long as Celtic and Rangers have budgets a gazillion times bigger than everyone else, the league will be garbage. The only possible scenario I could imagine where one of them doesn’t win the league would be if there were play-offs for the title (as in US and Australian sports). But, somehow, they’ve managed to convince everyone that would be unfair (but the money I balance is fine and, anyway, you can try and avoid relegation, you wee clubs enjoy that).

Sort out the finances then sort out the league. But there’s no chance of that, as was proved in 2012. The sad thing is, before Rangers got back into the top league, the gap between Aberdeen and Celtic was narrowing. Without Rangers, Celtic don’t employ Rodgers and season tickets continue to fall. There’s a fair chance that, Rangers hadn’t returned, Aberdeen would have won a Championship by now. 

[Kyle Reese]

2 minutes ago, Jacksgranda said:

That's because they are a novelty, as they are a one off. (Or a two off if you're the New Rangers. A three off if you support Hibs FC Club.)

If you had trips to Falkirk, Airdrie, Inverness, Dunfermline, Morton , Ayr etc every season the novelty might begin to wear off. Plus, in a 16 team league, you are losing 8 matches. Do you reintroduce the sectional league cup ties to make up the difference? You're back to playing some teams 4 times a season (granted only 3 teams 4 times not 5 teams and the other 5 teams x 3 times. Have I got that right??!)

I don't think the leagues will be increased in size, at least not to 16 or 18, I'm not sure the current generation of fans would "take" to an 18/20 team league like I grew up with.

 

Not really seeing a trip to those grounds as less appealing than another trip to Fir Park, St Mirren Park or The Tony Macaroni. Well, I’ll give you Airdrie actually, I’d probably rather visit Strangeways than Airdrie. Stadium isn’t too bad, but the the town it’s self… jeez.

[Ric]

14 minutes ago, AJF said:

Did you? As far as I can see, when mentioning the positives you said the split creates excitement at the end of the league and it reduces the number of meaningless games. That literally agrees with my claim that it provides us with more big games and games with a lot more riding on them. You argued that it was wrong the league is "manipulated", not that the split didn't produce bigger games.

Ok, so for a club like Rangers let's say their three big games are Celtic, Aberdeen and Hearts (just for arguments sake). Before the split was introduced, how many of those big games took place? All of them home and away, twice. With the current system, with the split, how many of those big games will take place? All of them albeit with the possibility that it's not 2x home and away and could possibly be 1x and 3x respectively. At what point has there been more big games?

As for them being important games, league manipulation. It happens now, it happened before the split, it's not a "specifically splitty thing". The most basic example, although fairly benign, is the way there are derby games scheduled for the turn of the New Year.

Edited February 7, 2022 by Ric

[D Angelo Barksdale]

42 team league. 41 random fixtures.

[coprolite]

7 minutes ago, Ric said:

Ok, so for a club like Rangers let's say their three big games are Celtic, Aberdeen and Hearts (just for arguments sake). Before the split was introduced, how many of those big games took place? All of them home and away, twice. With the current system, with the split, how many of those big games will take place? All of them albeit with the possibility that it's not 2x home and away and could possibly be 1x and 3x respectively. At what point has there been more big games?

As for them being important games, league manipulation. It happens now, it happened before the split, it's not a "specifically splitty thing". The most basic example, although fairly benign, is the way there are derby games scheduled for the turn of the New Year.

In this example, what division are Hearts in? 

[AJF]

1 minute ago, Ric said:

Ok, so for a club like Rangers let's say their three big games are Celtic, Aberdeen and Hearts (just for arguments sake). Before the split was introduced, how many of those big games took place? All of them home and away, twice. With the current system, with the split, how many of those big games will take place? All of them albeit with the possibility that it's not 2x home and away and could possibly be 1x and 3x respectively. At what point has there been more big games?

As for them being big games, league manipulation. It happens now, it happened before the split, it's not a "specifically splitty thing". The most basic example, although fairly benign, is the way there are derby games scheduled for the turn of the New Year.

I think you are maybe mistaking what I mean by "big game". I don't necessarily mean games against historic rivals (although they would also be included).

I mean that due to the split and the fact that teams are directly competing with other teams in and around them, the games naturally carry more importance. For example, I would argue that a game on matchday 34 between teams sitting in 9th and 10th place just above the relegation/play off spots carries much more importance than if it took place on matchday 22 and instead the matchday 34 fixtures were replaced with 9th v 3rd or 10th v 5th, just as a completely hypothetical example.

[Spikethedee]

If we keep the split (my preference would be for a 20 team top league, but that ain't going to happen), then I would just suggest two changes:

Teams play the five other teams in their post-split groups home or away based on what the first three fixtures were, regardless of whether you get 5 home or no home games. 

If the team in 7th at the end of the season has more points than whichever team would qualify for Europe via the lowest league position (as opposed to winning a cup), there is a one-off playoff at the higher-placed team's ground for that spot.

[craigkillie]

1 hour ago, kennie makevin said:

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 !!!

Do you think Kenny Dalglish would have ended up jobbing around for Albion Rovers if we had a smaller league back then?

It's factually inaccurate too, since Dalglish's third and fourth games for Celtic were a League Cup semi-final and replay, and his eighth was a Scottish Cup semi-final.

[the jambo-rocker]

https://twitter.com/Alan_Burrows/status/1490668371985276930?s=20&t=K8OSAat05v5F4tVuEI7hcA

There's Alan Burrows stating that less Motherwell fans show up to attend OF games. I am curious to see what that is like around the rest of the division, but I'd imagine it wouldn't be too far off the same.

Obviously the the OF bring a good gate, but maybe that's to the detriment of the home attendance? I know Motherwell have their highest ST for certain reasons over keeping them to one stand, but the idealist in me reckons having it once a season might mean more clubs showing up for just the one match could lead to having better gates over time with novelty and dare I say more even playing field.

Edited February 7, 2022 by the jambo-rocker

[Kyle Reese]

59 minutes ago, coprolite said:

In this example, what division are Hearts in? 

Just you concentrate on the battle for top six m9.

[topcat(The most tip top)]

2 hours ago, Kyle Reese said:

Two divisions of 18 and 20.

That's going to be one hell of an adjustment to make when clubs get relegated or promoted.

 

Edited February 7, 2022 by topcat(The most tip top)

[Kyle Reese]

Just now, topcat(The most tip top) said:

That's going to be one hell of an adjustment to make when clubs get relegated or promoted.

 

The biggest issue would be the fully professional part. Clubs would need time to organise. 

[invergowrie arab]

10 minutes ago, the jambo-rocker said:

https://twitter.com/Alan_Burrows/status/1490668371985276930?s=20&t=K8OSAat05v5F4tVuEI7hcA

There's Alan Burrows stating that less Motherwell fans show up to attend OF games. I am curious to see what that is like around the rest of the division, but I'd imagine it wouldn't be too far off the same.

Obviously the the OF bring a good gate, but maybe that's to the detriment of the home attendance? I know Motherwell have their highest ST for certain reasons over keeping them to one stand, but the idealist in me reckons having it once a season might mean more clubs showing up for just the one match could lead to having better gates over time with novelty and dare I say more even playing field.

Uniteds biggest crowds this season have been Dundee, Aberdeen, Hearts and Celtic in that order. Of we hadn't had Xmas lock down I would imagine you could have placed Hibs above the Celtic game too.

If you take off the 3000 odd Celtic fans then the Utd crowd would be roughly similar to who might turn up v Ross County. Obviously the Celtic one is better as its 3000 additional tickets sold.

 

[Lex]

The structure and format are fine, makes for meaningful games throughout the season. Please leave them well alone. A 16 or 18 team leagues would be a complete disaster, IMO.

I don't sense any real appetite for change anyway. I know Budge was desperate for it a couple of years ago for the 'good of Scottish football', but she seems to have went quiet on it recently. Funny that. 

[lennyzer0]

2 hours ago, VincentGuerin said:

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.

Derby games are great (and very different to playing either half of the Old Firm, both in terms of a relatively level playing field and a better atmosphere), but they're not enough to make up for the other drawbacks of the current system.

Bring back the East of Scotland Shield and make it for first teams again. Used to love that back in the day!

[Kyle Reese]

10 minutes ago, Lex said:

The structure and format are fine, makes for meaningful games throughout the season. Please leave them well alone. A 16 or 18 team leagues would be a complete disaster, IMO.

I don't sense any real appetite for change anyway. I know Budge was desperate for it a couple of years ago for the 'good of Scottish football', but she seems to have went quiet on it recently. Funny that. 

Always amuses me when fans of non-OF clubs fail to see who the real enemy are. Never mind m9, I’m sure the nefarious Mrs Budge is working on her latest sinister plot to destroy Scottish football.