How do you solve a problem like the Scottish Premiership?

[KirkieRR]

Here's a stirrer...

 

Some American sports (I know, I know...) have league systemss but when games are complete the top four or so play-off for the Championship.  So, imagine semi-finals involving the Uglies and, say, Hearts or Aberdeen. Only needs one undercooked performance to knock out an Ugly...

 

Obviously would never happen, but fun to contemplate.

[Otis Blue]

11 hours ago, Aim Here said:

This season's figures have the average OF attendance totalling at about 107,000 out of a Scottish football average of 243,000; or only about 44%. Still top-heavy, of course, but not quite as egregious as you make out.

Thanks for providing current figures @Aim Here.  Of course that's the danger of quoting something off the internet - and I did try to allude to that very point in my OP.

Even if the OF attendance is "only" 44%, the true "total OF viewing" figures will be much higher through the various media channels - and the total OF figure will be what largely determines the SPFL media/sponsorship income and Doncaster will naturally follow that path.

[TheScarf]

35 minutes ago, DoingThe42 said:

It's only tedious in terms of the Old Firm and everyone else. The rest of the league is competitive on every level, all the way through the divisions.

Would it be less tedious if the top flight had 18 teams in it with the Old Firm still miles ahead and most teams with little to play for from about February onwards?

I don't see why. Would people really be thrilled by the prospect of watching their team play a couple of months worth of meaningless matches (at thirty quid a pop!) because they were playing more teams?

I just don't see that.

How are these matches meaningless?

[Otis Blue]

26 minutes ago, DoingThe42 said:

It's only tedious in terms of the Old Firm and everyone else. The rest of the league is competitive on every level, all the way through the divisions.

Would it be less tedious if the top flight had 18 teams in it with the Old Firm still miles ahead and most teams with little to play for from about February onwards?

I don't see why. Would people really be thrilled by the prospect of watching their team play a couple of months worth of meaningless matches (at thirty quid a pop!) because they were playing more teams?

Fair points @DoingThe42.  As you've highlighted, there are two separate factors in the debate here.  First being the duopoly of the OF and the second being the small vs bigger league structures.

For me, our game would be much more enjoyable without the OF - ie more competitive, success spread wider, less predictable and without the sad baggage that the uglies bring.  The downside would be a poorer league with less media/sponsorship income - but I'd take that as the price to pay for an ugly-free league.

As for the wee league/big league argument, I can see both sides of the argument.  All I know is that being old enough to remember having watched the big leagues, I'm sick and tired of watching only 9 other sides 4 times (or more) per season.  Plus of course, a larger top league provides an aspirational diddy side (like mine) with a realistic opportunity of attaining the top level and hopefully sustaining that for a few seasons like we did decades ago now.

[DoingThe42]

10 minutes ago, TheScarf said:

How are these matches meaningless?

Because the outcome of a lot of them wouldn't matter. I don't get your point.

If it's a Wednesday night in May and there's a meaningful game between Motherwell and St Mirren on at Fir Park, I might go along. I don't live far away. I went to that very fixture years back when it was a relegation six-pointer.

If it's 11th-place Motherwell against 8th-place St Mirren and nothing riding on it, I'm not paying to get in. Surely it's quite a simple idea.

I've talked about this with a few of my mates this season and there's a split, but do people really think our game will suddenly be much better to watch it we just make the league bigger and vary the fixtures? Based on what? What makes that better?

[TheScarf]

1 minute ago, DoingThe42 said:

Because the outcome of a lot of them wouldn't matter. I don't get your point.

If it's a Wednesday night in May and there's a meaningful game between Motherwell and St Mirren on at Fir Park, I might go along. I don't live far away. I went to that very fixture years back when it was a relegation six-pointer.

If it's 11th-place Motherwell against 8th-place St Mirren and nothing riding on it, I'm not paying to get in. Surely it's quite a simple idea.

I've talked about this with a few of my mates this season and there's a split, but do people really think our game will suddenly be much better to watch it we just make the league bigger and vary the fixtures? Based on what? What makes that better?

So increased prize money for clubs going up a place on the final day isn't meaningful?  The chance to blood youngsters into the first team isn't meaningful?

Going by your logic, the Barclays, Serie A, Bundesliga and Ligue 1 need to drop to 12 teams with a split so every team has something to play for in every game?

By it's very nature, a league format produces games that won't have a bearing on where a club will finish, but they're hardly meaningless.  If you want every game to 'mean something' by your definition of the term, you need to watch sport with bracket draws like Tennis, where every match has an outcome of progression or elimination.

[David1979]

17 hours ago, Otis Blue said:

However, the status quo does feck all to solve the stagnation in our top league in particular - and it never will.

I know this is the generally held opinion of many, that our top league is stagnating and that Scottish football isn't making any progress, but I wonder if that's actually true?

Only this month fans broke a Premiership attendance record, achieving the highest crowd figures for a top flight season in the SPFL’s history at 3,629,874 supporters attending matches this season.

And doesn't our league have the highest attendance per capita in European football at the moment? By quite some distance?

I think that much of that is actually down to the lack of television coverage for the smaller teams. In fact, a study conducted (a fair few years ago, admittedly) found that televised Scottish Premiership matches adversely affect attendances. 

The report claimed:

"During the interviews officials acknowledged that televised matches generate excitement for supporters and players, particularly for clubs which rarely feature on television. However, officials were also in agreement that televised matches lead to a decline in attendance (with the exception of novelty matches). Officials also felt that at present, rescheduled matches for the purpose of live television lack consideration for Scottish football supporters, and can cause a significant reduction in both gate and hospitality revenue for the home club."

So, while having a decent television deal is always a good thing, there's maybe a tipping point where too much coverage of clubs outwith the Glasgow two could become counter-productive?

One thing I absolutely believe is that the split is one of the best things we have going for our league at the moment. Sure, we're playing the same teams a bit more than we'd like, but aside from the league title race that usually involves the Glasgow clubs, we're seeing first of all the excitement as clubs play to try and avoid the bottom six/qualify for the top six, then we're seeing some really exciting stuff in the chase for third spot and European football as well as the playoffs and relegation.

I may be going against the grain here, but I think we've got a pretty good system in place at the moment. The problem we have is that our game has a natural ceiling dictated by the size of our country, but we're seeing as many fans attending games as we could possibly hope for I think, and some exciting football along with it.

To see attendances at the level per capita that they're at, we must be doing something right? Stagnation isn't the word I'd use.

[DoingThe42]

5 minutes ago, TheScarf said:

So increased prize money for clubs going up a place on the final day isn't meaningful?  The chance to blood youngsters into the first team isn't meaningful?

Going by your logic, the Barclays, Serie A, Bundesliga and Ligue 1 need to drop to 12 teams with a split so every team has something to play for in every game?

By it's very nature, a league format produces games that won't have a bearing on where a club will finish, but they're hardly meaningless.  If you want every game to 'mean something' by your definition of the term, you need to watch sport with bracket draws like Tennis, where every match has an outcome of progression or elimination.

I don't think fans will wake up in the morning excited by going to the game to see if their side can win an extra place's worth of prize money, no. I can't say that ever crosses my mind when going to a game. It's quite a depressing thought. Making the top six, a shot at Europe, a promotion play-off? That gets folk going to games.

The chance to blood players is fine, but is that worth sacrificing exciting football for? People will have their own views, but I don't see why. As I mentioned, Switzerland and Belgium produce players who do well at World Cups and Euros despite having small leagues. Why can't we? Where does this idea come from that we can only blood young players by having a big league? Hibs developed a rake of them in our small league in the 2000s. That's up to the clubs.

Your point about the bigger leagues is comparing apples with oranges. The big leagues attract a crowd and always will because they have large populations and they have glamour. There will never be a shortage of people who are keen to go to watch the Bundesliga or a Premier League match. You surely can't really think it's comparable with our football in that regard?

Those leagues have quality and they have glamour. So, they can have a club like Fulham selling out every week to be mid table as they are seeing some of the best teams and players in the world. We don't have quality and we don't have glamour. Why would you want to remove excitement as well?

[Otis Blue]

2 minutes ago, David1979 said:

I know this is the generally held opinion of many, that our top league is stagnating and that Scottish football isn't making any progress, but I wonder if that's actually true?

Only this month fans broke a Premiership attendance record, achieving the highest crowd figures for a top flight season in the SPFL’s history at 3,629,874 supporters attending matches this season.

And doesn't our league have the highest attendance per capita in European football at the moment? By quite some distance?

I think that much of that is actually down to the lack of television coverage for the smaller teams. In fact, a study conducted (a fair few years ago, admittedly) found that televised Scottish Premiership matches adversely affect attendances. 

The report claimed:

"During the interviews officials acknowledged that televised matches generate excitement for supporters and players, particularly for clubs which rarely feature on television. However, officials were also in agreement that televised matches lead to a decline in attendance (with the exception of novelty matches). Officials also felt that at present, rescheduled matches for the purpose of live television lack consideration for Scottish football supporters, and can cause a significant reduction in both gate and hospitality revenue for the home club."

So, while having a decent television deal is always a good thing, there's maybe a tipping point where too much coverage of clubs outwith the Glasgow two could become counter-productive?

One thing I absolutely believe is that the split is one of the best things we have going for our league at the moment. Sure, we're playing the same teams a bit more than we'd like, but aside from the league title race that usually involves the Glasgow clubs, we're seeing first of all the excitement as clubs play to try and avoid the bottom six/qualify for the top six, then we're seeing some really exciting stuff in the chase for third spot and European football as well as the playoffs and relegation.

I may be going against the grain here, but I think we've got a pretty good system in place at the moment. The problem we have is that our game has a natural ceiling dictated by the size of our country, but we're seeing as many fans attending games as we could possibly hope for I think, and some exciting football along with it.

To see attendances at the level per capita that they're at, we must be doing something right? Stagnation isn't the word I'd use.

Depends what you mean by "stagnation".  I've used the word to relate to the facts that:

- only two clubs can realistically ever win the league with everyone else chasing a possible 3rd at best

- that the top league is essentially forbidden ground to most of the aspirational diddy clubs below due to the heavily biased bottom play-off structure

- that change is effectively prevented due to the voting structure

As you say, we are indeed a football loving country and that shows through the figures you mention and that's to be applauded.

 

 

 

[TheScarf]

3 minutes ago, DoingThe42 said:

I don't think fans will wake up in the morning excited by going to the game to see if their side can win an extra place's worth of prize money, no. I can't say that ever crosses my mind when going to a game. It's quite a depressing thought. Making the top six, a shot at Europe, a promotion play-off? That gets folk going to games.

The chance to blood players is fine, but is that worth sacrificing exciting football for? People will have their own views, but I don't see why. As I mentioned, Switzerland and Belgium produce players who do well at World Cups and Euros despite having small leagues. Why can't we? Where does this idea come from that we can only blood young players by having a big league? Hibs developed a rake of them in our small league in the 2000s. That's up to the clubs.

Your point about the bigger leagues is comparing apples with oranges. The big leagues attract a crowd and always will because they have large populations and they have glamour. There will never be a shortage of people who are keen to go to watch the Bundesliga or a Premier League match. You surely can't really think it's comparable with our football in that regard?

Those leagues have quality and they have glamour. So, they can have a club like Fulham selling out every week to be mid table as they are seeing some of the best teams and players in the world. We don't have quality and we don't have glamour. Why would you want to remove excitement as well?

Oh I dunno, I quite like the idea of my team winning a game and finishing higher up the league because of it.  Maybe that's just me, of course. For example, if Raith were a place above The Caley, going into the last game, and we fuck them, as we quite often do, and finish above them, maybe not in the playoffs, but we've overtaken them, do you think I come away from the game disappointed? 

You sound exactly like someone who supports an English team and watched every Barclays game on tv and is just a fairweather supporter of Scottish football who goes to the odd random game.  Who do you support by the way?

[bobbydazzler]

1 hour ago, KirkieRR said:

Here's a stirrer...

 

Some American sports (I know, I know...) have league systemss but when games are complete the top four or so play-off for the Championship.  So, imagine semi-finals involving the Uglies and, say, Hearts or Aberdeen. Only needs one undercooked performance to knock out an Ugly...

 

Obviously would never happen, but fun to contemplate.

can get right behind a best of 7 series between St Mirren and Motherwell for the final european spot tbf

[DoingThe42]

17 minutes ago, TheScarf said:

Oh I dunno, I quite like the idea of my team winning a game and finishing higher up the league because of it.  Maybe that's just me, of course. For example, if Raith were a place above The Caley, going into the last game, and we f**k them, as we quite often do, and finish above them, maybe not in the playoffs, but we've overtaken them, do you think I come away from the game disappointed? 

You sound exactly like someone who supports an English team and watched every Barclays game on tv and is just a fairweather supporter of Scottish football who goes to the odd random game.  Who do you support by the way?

Haha! Calm down!

For the record, I have barely watched an English (top flight) game in years, haven't seen a Champions League game in about a decade, and have just finished visiting all 42 SPFL clubs for a game in a single season, one where my other football viewing apart from the SPFL has been the WosFL top three flights, the SWPL, the Scottish Youth Cup, and the English National League. I go to 70+ games a season in Scotland right through the system. Fair weather, indeed. How many do you go to?

I grew up watching Hearts and Clyde, but watch Clyde more these days. So, frankly my friend, you can shove your Barclays fanboi pish up your arse.

I think you maybe just need to accept that some people see things differently. You may find the idea of watching your team finish above Raith very exciting, but I don't think this will be replicated in the public at large.

Does your average Killie supporter, for example, get up and go to Tannadice on a Saturday in March to see a game between 10th and 7th with nothing competitive riding on it? Do they wake up thinking about the prize money and jump in the car? I doubt it. But if it's a big game to get into the top 6 and have a shot at Europe, or if it's a relegation battle, then they may well. I don't think this is a difficult point to make.

And for all the talk of developing players, it's just guesswork. And, yet again, how come Denmark and Switzerland can do it in their wee leagues of 12?

 

Edited May 31, 2023 by DoingThe42

[TheScarf]

8 minutes ago, DoingThe42 said:

Haha! Calm down!

For the record, I have barely watched an English (top flight) game in years, haven't seen a Champions League game in about a decade, and have just finished visiting all 42 SPFL clubs for a game in a single season, one where my other football viewing apart from the SPFL has been the WosFL top three flights, the SWPL, the Scottish Youth Cup, and the English National League. I go to 70+ games a season in Scotland. Fair weather, indeed.

I grew up watching Hearts and Clyde, but watch Clyde more these days. So, frankly my friend, you can shove your Barclays fanboi pish up your arse.

I think you maybe just need to accept that some people see things differently. You may find the idea of watching your team finish above Raith very exciting, but I don't think this will be replicated in the public at large.

Does your average Killie supporter, for example, get up and go to Tannadice on a Saturday in March to see a game between 10th and 7th with nothing competitive riding on it? Do they wake up thinking about the prize money and jump in the car? I doubt it. But if it's a big game to get into the top 6 and have a shot at Europe, or if it's a relegation battle, then they may well. I don't think this is a difficult point to make.

And for all the talk of developing players, it's just guesswork. And, yet again, how come Denmark and Switzerland can do it in their wee leagues of 12?

 

A strange response to a levelled reply.

Your overall point is completely wild.  'Meaningless games', in your interpretation of the phrase, are impossible to avoid.  No matter if it's a 42 team league, or a 12 team league.

Why does every game have to 'mean something'?  Just go to the fucking game to support your team.  It's borderline gloryhunting just picking and choosing random games at all levels of the pyramid just to see some team get promoted or relegated.

[DoingThe42]

12 minutes ago, TheScarf said:

A strange response to a levelled reply.

Your overall point is completely wild.  'Meaningless games', in your interpretation of the phrase, are impossible to avoid.  No matter if it's a 42 team league, or a 12 team league.

Why does every game have to 'mean something'?  Just to to the fucking game to support your team.  It's borderline gloryhunting just picking and choosing random games at all levels of the pyramid just to see some team get promoted or relegated.

 

We're just not going to agree, and I don't really mind that because there is pretty much no chance the leagues will get bigger, so its a moot point.

I've got to say, I'm very impressed by your framing of people who enjoy watching lots of games at different levels as borderline gloryhunting. Football is a competition. It's supposed to be competitive. Generally I'll go to watch the teams I support. More often Clyde these days, but occasionally Hearts. But I'll also go to interesting games in other leagues or involving other teams because I like football and I like watching matches that matter. I don't see what's unusual about that. As long as I'm finished work on time (you can see I'm very busy), I'll probably go to Carnoustie tonight to see a cup semi.

The SPFL this season was amazing. Apart from Celtic obviously winning the Premiership from early doors, the only other issue that was really settled relatively early was Dunfermline winning League One. Everything else went to the wire. I find it really strange that people would look at that and think we need to change it to remove some pressure.

Edited May 31, 2023 by DoingThe42

[TheScarf]

3 minutes ago, DoingThe42 said:

We're just not going to agree, and I don't really mind that because there is pretty much no chance the leagues will get bigger, so its a moot point.

I've got to say, I'm very impressed by your framing of people who enjoy watching lots of games at different levels as borderline gloryhunting. Football is a competition. It's supposed to be competitive. Generally I'll go to watch the teams I support. More often Clyde these days, but occasionally Hearts. But I'll also go to interesting games in other leagues or involving other teams because I like football and I like watching matches that matter. I don't see what's unusual about that. As long as I'm finished work on time (you can see I'm very busy), I'll probably go to Carnoustie tonight to see a cup semi.

The SPFL this season was amazing. Apart from Celtic obviously winning the Premiership from early doors, the only other issue that was really settled relatively early was Dunfermline winning League One. Everything else went to the wire. I find it really strange that people would look at that and think we need to change it to remove some pressure.

If you want to traipse about the country looking for a game to mean something, you batter on mate.  All the power to you.

[DoingThe42]

14 minutes ago, TheScarf said:

If you want to traipse about the country looking for a game to mean something, you batter on mate.  All the power to you.

I've been a season ticket holder since I was at school. I know fine well what it is to watch my team home and away year-in, year-out. It does your position no favour to try and falsely paint me as some kind of footballing travelling salesman.

You tried the Barclays fanboi swing and it missed. Upon learning that I watch Scottish football at all levels all the time, you've adjusted your position to 'not a real fan can't be listened to', and, again, you've missed.

Maybe, just maybe, your view isn't the only legitimate view a Scottish football fan can have.

Edited May 31, 2023 by DoingThe42

[Swello]

1 hour ago, KirkieRR said:

Here's a stirrer...

 

Some American sports (I know, I know...) have league systemss but when games are complete the top four or so play-off for the Championship.  So, imagine semi-finals involving the Uglies and, say, Hearts or Aberdeen. Only needs one undercooked performance to knock out an Ugly...

 

Obviously would never happen, but fun to contemplate.

Clearly this system isn't without it's problems (as Rangers and Celtic in the short term at least would have qualified for the end of season playoffs by Christmas) - but I'd personally love to see something radical like this at least tried out for a few years as it's the only way that anyone else could have a chance to win the Championship (and the OF would continue to win it 9 out of 10 times which is fine I guess). 

[TheScarf]

14 minutes ago, DoingThe42 said:

I've been a season ticket holder since I was at school. I know fine well what it is to watch my team home and away year-in, year-out. It does your position no favour to try and falsely paint me as some kind of footballing travelling salesman.

You tried the Barclays fanboi swing and it missed. Upon learning that I watch Scottish football at all levels all the time, you've adjusted your position to 'not a real fan can't be listened to', and, again, you've missed.

Maybe, just maybe, your view isn't the only legitimate view a Scottish football fan can have.

It's certainly more realistic.

[PrestersKTID]

https://spfl.co.uk/news/brendan-napier-named-commercial-director-of-scot

Suppose at least they're trying to get some more cash in the door. 

[craigkillie]

9 hours ago, Otis Blue said:

- that the top league is essentially forbidden ground to most of the aspirational diddy clubs below due to the heavily biased bottom play-off structure

The Championship clubs have won these play-offs three out of eight seasons which is not really far off 50-50, and every single one of the five beaten finalists have played in the Premiership in the last decade anyway.

I don't see which "aspirational diddy clubs" are being discussed here - since the play-offs started, there have been 6 clubs who have taken part in them who haven't been in the top flight this century (Queen of the South, Raith, Morton, Ayr, Arbroath and Queen's Park). Across those clubs, only one has even won a tie in the play-offs (Raith in the QF in 2020/21), so regardless of the play-off structure it's unlikely any of them would have been promoted.

Edited May 31, 2023 by craigkillie