How do you solve a problem like the Scottish Premiership?

[Guest]

31 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

Depends what you want.

If you're genuinely saying you're fine with making the set-up less exciting, then I'd need a really convincing explanation of the tangible benefits of doing so.

This isn't necessarily my viewpoint more of a thought.

If the divisions are less cutthroat and clubs have time to develop players from within their own setup the country could end up with better quality players at club and international level. 

Fanciful I know but worth a mention.

Edited May 19, 2023 by HorseyGhirl

[craigkillie]

Those players would be developing in what are basically friendlies though, I don't see how that prepares them for the rigours of actual competitive football.

[realmadrid]

And as soon as any of them show any sign of being any good a 3rd tier team from England will sign them.

In a way thats another reason why the conference league is such a bad idea. it wont develop any player of note for a Scottish team. 

[Trackdaybob]

Yes, let's keep the split and 'meaningful' games with the same two teams hoovering up the silverware for evermore. 

So exciting. 

Is everyone so happy with it all as it is? 

Shouldn't we try and maybe make things better? 

If we do nothing, nothing changes. Ask yourself, is that OK? 

A lot of you seem to think it is. 

Oh well

Congratulations to bigots(green) on 'winning' 23/24. 

Unlucky bigots(blue). Second again. 

Token applause for the best of the rest a full 30 odd points back. 

Competitive as f**k

 

[kennie makevin]

3 hours ago, realmadrid said:

Lots of us

All the leagues are competitive

With 4 league you get 4 champions , 15 teams in play offs over the 4 leagues and club 42 play off 

16 or 18 will result in a lot of end of season drama and jeopardy just going away. 

 

 

Is the standard of football, the standard of home grown player, the results of our clubs in Europe and the standard of our international team better or worse to than it was when we had two leagues which everyone playing each other twice ? If so stick with what we have. Or deal in reality and accept that for whatever reason the old 18 team top flight was scrapped it has not worked. And if you think our top flight is 'competitive' , well........

 

[Guest]

It's almost like better the devil you know scenario.

You could say that every time they make changes it gets worse.

All except for you know who.

Edited May 19, 2023 by HorseyGhirl

[kennie makevin]

53 minutes ago, HorseyGhirl said:

This isn't necessarily my viewpoint more of a thought.

If the divisions are less cutthroat and clubs have time to develop players from within their own setup the country could end up with better quality players at club and international level. 

Fanciful I know but worth a mention.

Exactly this.....

[Guest]

48 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

Those players would be developing in what are basically friendlies though, I don't see how that prepares them for the rigours of actual competitive football.

I never got to any great level. But have never played a game as a friendly ever. If that's how these pros would see it. For me they should be in another profession.

Edit: never got to any level.

 

[RandomGuy.]

29 minutes ago, Trackdaybob said:

Yes, let's keep the split and 'meaningful' games with the same two teams hoovering up the silverware for evermore. 

So exciting. 

Is everyone so happy with it all as it is? 

Shouldn't we try and maybe make things better? 

If we do nothing, nothing changes. Ask yourself, is that OK? 

A lot of you seem to think it is. 

Oh well

Congratulations to bigots(green) on 'winning' 23/24. 

Unlucky bigots(blue). Second again. 

Token applause for the best of the rest a full 30 odd points back. 

Competitive as f**k

 

What do you think changes in terms of a title challenge by replacing Celtic/Rangers visiting Tynecastle/Pittodrie twice and instead giving them an away game to Morton?

The size of the division would have zero affect on who wins the league. It'll be one of Celtic/Rangers for the next 50 years.

Always felt a bigger top flight just robs sides of winning a title. A lot of teams who "yo-yo" and get to enjoy a title win every so often would instead be spending a decade bobbling about the bottom quarter of the top flight doing nothing.

[SJFCtheTeamForMe]

This bigger League comes with problems and would very likely widen the financial gap between the likes of Rangers and Celtic and the rest. 

Rangers and Celtic will still hoover up the titles due to selling thousands of tickets no matter who they're playing. 

More teams would result in the Premiership prize money being reduced, therefore playing budgets and you guessed it, the quality of the players they can sign

What does that do for the quality of football? You could argue it would force managers to give younger Scottish played a an opportunity. The reality could well be something different. 

Yes it's not ideal playing the same teams so regularly. The novelty of visiting other grounds may soon well wear off though if the quality of your team is also worse than it was before. 

IMO the conversation of a bigger league isn't over and may come around again properly when the TV deal is up for renewal the next time. I read recently the SPFL have some kind of plan to get the TV deal worth I want to say 60m per season? Once they've broken that barrier maybe it could lead to clubs willing to accept splitting that money more ways. If the Old Firm just accepted an even split you could see clubs being up for agreeing to it more willingly as well. 

[Dunfermline Don]

23 minutes ago, kennie makevin said:

Is the standard of football, the standard of home grown player, the results of our clubs in Europe and the standard of our international team better or worse to than it was when we had two leagues which everyone playing each other twice ? If so stick with what we have. Or deal in reality and accept that for whatever reason the old 18 team top flight was scrapped it has not worked. And if you think our top flight is 'competitive' , well........

 

In the first 15 years after we got rid of the two leagues, Scotland qualified for 3 world cups, two Scottish club sides reached European finals and a couple of semifinals. Were it not for Albert Kidd’s two goals we would have had a situation where 3 different teams had won the league title in four seasons and none of them from Glasgow.

Football had totally changed since those days, due in part to Bosman, TV money and a general gentrification of the game particularly down south. When I went to games in the 80s you would get a better reaction from people saying that you were a drug dealer as opposed to being a football fan.

 

[LiviLion]

1 hour ago, Trackdaybob said:

Yes, let's keep the split and 'meaningful' games with the same two teams hoovering up the silverware for evermore. 

So exciting. 

Is everyone so happy with it all as it is? 

Shouldn't we try and maybe make things better? 

If we do nothing, nothing changes. Ask yourself, is that OK? 

A lot of you seem to think it is. 

Oh well

Congratulations to bigots(green) on 'winning' 23/24. 

Unlucky bigots(blue). Second again. 

Token applause for the best of the rest a full 30 odd points back. 

Competitive as f**k

 

What about a bigger league suddenly makes Celtic/Rangers less likely to win it?

Other than them fucking off.

[Jacksgranda]

7 hours ago, VincentGuerin said:

1) Is that better than what we have now? Say an 18-team league with three down. We could easily have two teams basically relegated by the spring, and likewise two promoted by spring. Is this better than what we have now? Why?

 

I remember the old 2 division set up of 18 and 19/20. I enjoyed the old system, but that was what was normal back then - everywhere, nobody played 4 times a season in the league, scottish cup and league cup games obviously upped the number of times you could play a team - nowadays the split is normal to the vast majority of fans. I thought I would look up the bottom 2 from the seasons I watched.

The seasons I saw of 2 team divisions: 1963/64  East Stirlingshire 18th with 12 points. QoS  17th with 16 points. 9 point gap to 16th (Third Lanark).

1964/65  Third Lanark 18th with 7 points (the same amount of points they had at New Year)  Airdrieonians  17th with 14 points.  7 point gap to 16th (Falkirk)

1965/66  Hamilton Academical 18th with 8 points.  Morton  17th with 21 points - a point behind 16th (St Mirren)

1966/67  Ayr United   18th with 9 points. St Mirren   17th with 15 points. 4 point gap to 16th (Stirling Albion)

1967/68  Stirling Albion   18th with 12 points.  Motherwell   17th with 19 points.  6 point gap to 16th  (Raith Rovers)

1968/69  Arbroath   18th with 16 points ( 3 off the Dons).   Falkirk 17th with 18 points.  3 point gap to 16th  (Raith Rovers)

1969/70  Partick Thistle   18th with 17 points.  Raith Rovers  17th with 21 points.  4 point gap to 16th  (Clyde)

1970/71   Cowdenbeath  18th with 17 points.  St Mirren  17th with 23 points. Relegated on goal average to 16th placed Dunfermline

1971/72  Dunfermline Athletic   18th with 23 points (which would comfortably have kept them up the previous 8 seasons).  Clyde  17th with 24 points One point gap to 16th (East Fife)

1972/73  Airdrieonians   18th with 16 points.   Kilmarnock  17th with 22 points.  One point gap to 16th  (Dumbarton)

Then I was away. However, the two division set up lasted only 2 more seasons, so here there are.

1973/74  Falkirk   18th with 22 points.  East Fife  17th with 24 points. Relegated on goal difference  to 16th placed Dunfermline 

1974/75  Arbroath and Morton were 18th and 17th but the leagues were reorganised and (in descending order from 11th), Airdrieonians, Kilmarnock, Partick Thistle, Dumbarton, Dunfermline and Clyde were also relegated.

A lot of seasons the bottom team were gone by Christmas. I particularly remember 1968/69 as the Dons were involved in the relegation struggle, but after defeating Falkirk at Pittodrie at Christmas were practically safe. 2 points for a win back then.

[VincentGuerin]

1 hour ago, Trackdaybob said:

Yes, let's keep the split and 'meaningful' games with the same two teams hoovering up the silverware for evermore. 

So exciting. 

Is everyone so happy with it all as it is? 

Shouldn't we try and maybe make things better? 

If we do nothing, nothing changes. Ask yourself, is that OK? 

A lot of you seem to think it is. 

Oh well

Congratulations to bigots(green) on 'winning' 23/24. 

Unlucky bigots(blue). Second again. 

Token applause for the best of the rest a full 30 odd points back. 

Competitive as f**k

 

You're going to need to explain how a bigger league improves this.

The negatives I see are: Fewer 'big games' (as a Hearts fan), more meaningless games, less reason to bother your arse getting up and going to a game at the end of the season.

What are the pros other than variety? And why is variety in and of itself a good thing? I'd rather 8 games against Aberdeen and Hibs than replace four of those with ICT and Queens Park, to be honest.

[HibeeJibee]

Sadly there's no evidence a large top tier playing twice would end OF hegemony. Quite the opposite: potential challengers would feel the financial hit more, and are more likely to drop points against current Championship clubs than OF would be... whilst also losing half their opportunities to make-up that differential by beating OF in head-to-heads (which is ultimately the only - remote - chance anybody has of ever doing it since OF are too consistent v everybody else).

Even ignoring all the ways football has evolved - CL era, Bosman, TV ££, etc. - history furnishes little succour to the argument either... OF won every title bar 1 from 1905 to 1948 using large top tier... 1980s & 1990s were strong for WC/Euros qualification and our clubs in Europe, as well as New Firm winning 4 titles, using small top tier... etc.

Only real chance of breaking dominance is not to be more traditional but more radical e.g. title playoffs, or NFL format, or 2 seasons of 18/22 games a year each lasting 5/6-months.

Edited May 19, 2023 by HibeeJibee

[Trackdaybob]

1 hour ago, RandomGuy. said:

What do you think changes in terms of a title challenge by replacing Celtic/Rangers visiting Tynecastle/Pittodrie twice and instead giving them an away game to Morton?

It's not about that. It's the fact that for the rest, who are all pretty much all as good/bad as each other, any points won over two fixtures agains a team are likely negated again on the third occurrence of that fixture. Whilst the terrible twins just keep on winning. Hence a massive points gap and a league table that's just embarrassing come the end of the season. Guess I'm just bored of it. 

In a way I'm glad I'm out of it. I was never one who went every Saturday when I did live there but even if I hadn't moved down here, I'd not be going every week. f**k pumping money in to what a a competition is a foregone conclusion every year. 

Yes, yes, no a true fan etc etc. I may be home next weekend. Will I go? We'll it's either that or knockhill, I'll decide on the day. If we're safe it'll be pretty meaningless and I'll likely no bother

 

 

 

[Trackdaybob]

41 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

You're going to need to explain how a bigger league improves this.

I don't really need to do anything. 

But see above. 

[TheScarf]

‘Meaningless games’ is such a shite argument. No game is meaningless, no matter how big or small a league is. There’s 3 points at stake and a chance to finish higher up the league and earn more prize money. 
 

How is that meaningless? Every league game doesn’t have to be a relegation or championship decider ffs.

Edited May 19, 2023 by TheScarf

[TheScarf]

Get the leagues expanded for more variety of opponents. Playing clubs 4 times in the league is fucking mental. 

[Dons_1988]

I think it’s a myth that a bigger league = more competitive. 

If you’re serious about making it more competitive then you have to address the fundamental issue of financial disparity.