League Cup 2023-24

[vikingTON]

30 minutes ago, Owsley 2 said:

It was so much simpler when you turned up on the day and you knew you'd be either through or out. 

All the teams who aren't utter shite turned up on Saturday and knew that they were through.

[Skyline Drifter]

4 hours ago, StewartyMac said:

Mad to think if we had drawn at Perth and won the shootout, it wouldn't have been enough, despite being unbeaten in the group. 

Good job we thrashed them then 

 

4 hours ago, DG.Roma said:

Queen of the South were knocked out unbeaten (in 90 mins.) Would've went through if they'd won the 2 shootouts.

Hamilton went out unbeaten too.

[DG.Roma]

5 hours ago, Ranaldo Bairn said:

It's 11 from 40 getting through!

Correct, thanks, which of course makes it even worse

Edited August 1, 2023 by DG.Roma

[Skyline Drifter]

6 hours ago, DG.Roma said:

Correct, thanks, which of course makes it even worse

Again, what's the alternative? To play an extra round you'd need an extra 16 teams. So 2 teams per group. Which means from 8 groups of 5 the top 3 get through plus the best 3 4th places. Groups become almost utterly pointless, prize money needs rejigged and they have to find an extra week to play an extra round.

Or you put 22 teams through to play 11 eliminators to reduce to 11 and join the Euro sides (who then still have 4 games to win it). 22 means top 2 from each group and 6 best 3rd teams from 8. Groups are still near pointless. 

If you're going to have groups then the present system seems best to me. 

[StewartyMac]

Personally, I like the group system as it is. Prior to the reintroduction of the group stages, diddy clubs like mine would be lucky to have a couple of games in the tournament, now we're guaranteed at least four every season, including one against a Prem side on most occasions. Also, there's the excitement like there was at the weekend with all the different permutations for getting through. Gets a thumbs up from me. 

[craigkillie]

It used to be 11 from 37 via two knock-out games, I don't see why 11 from 40 via groups is somehow massively unfair.

[DG.Roma]

1 hour ago, Skyline Drifter said:

Again, what's the alternative?

Yeah admittedly I hadn't thought of an alternative. As Stewarty says the current format serves it's purpose for smaller teams and can be a very enjoyable way to start the season. It's the big clubs winning the whole thing after just 4 games that irks me the most. 

[StewartyMac]

10 minutes ago, DG.Roma said:

 It's the big clubs winning the whole thing after just 4 games that irks me the most. 

That is annoying, but putting the big teams into the group stages would mean far less chance of a smaller side like ourselves progressing once in a while. 

That said, I don't really get the European angle as to why the top sides get a bye into the knockout stages. This year, for example, only Hibs have been involved in Europe during the group stages, and even then, it was only their first leg. But I do like the way it is at the moment, despite how comfortable it is for the sides in Europe. 

[Skyline Drifter]

9 minutes ago, StewartyMac said:

Personally, I like the group system as it is. Prior to the reintroduction of the group stages, diddy clubs like mine would be lucky to have a couple of games in the tournament, now we're guaranteed at least four every season, including one against a Prem side on most occasions. Also, there's the excitement like there was at the weekend with all the different permutations for getting through. Gets a thumbs up from me. 

Me too. And yet you see regular moaning from lower division fans that they want knock out ties instead. I had this debate on the Dumbarton thread a week or so back. I appreciate that most League Two sides are playing dead rubbers by the 3rd game but they still get four matches in a tournament they'd normally get one or two in at most, far bigger prize money, and the opportunity to play a few teams / at a few grounds/ they normally wouldn't do. It's a win all round for me.

5 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

It used to be 11 from 37 via two knock-out games, I don't see why 11 from 40 via groups is somehow massively unfair.

Agreed, it's not. There are elements from the group set up I don't like. I don't like that 8 clubs have finished their games before the final day so can't affect it (I do think it should be ensured that it's the 5th seed that sits out the last game as that's least likely to matter, but that's not what they do clearly as the likes of Dundee United were idle this time). I especially don't like the nonsense of having a live game on the Sunday after everyone else has played so someone knows what they need to do. Dundee this year, Raith last year, knew what they needed. Neither managed it, but it's an unfair advantage. I don't particularly like the fact that groups are imbalanced in strength when there is a "best runner up" criteria as it then becomes easier to achieve in weaker groups, but I doubt there's any realistic way to improve that.

Personally I like the bonus point aspect but appreciate there are some who would prefer that if there are groups then a draw is a draw and not a winning or losing draw.

2 minutes ago, DG.Roma said:

Yeah admittedly I hadn't thought of an alternative. As Stewarty says the current format serves it's purpose for smaller teams and can be a very enjoyable way to start the season. It's the big clubs winning the whole thing after just 4 games that irks me the most. 

But as @craigkillie says that hasn't changed. Even before groups, the European qualified teams came in at the last 16. Such is the nature of the League Cup. In theory, assuming they are still seeded, bring European level sides in a round earlier shouldn't change anything much anyway. If they played in a last 32 they are playing a bottom half Championship or League One side anyway.

Personally I like the format as it currently sits and I think it's better than previous alternatives. Like Craig i don't think removing three quarters of the participants in the groups stages is particularly excessive. I appreciate there might be some tweaks to improve it. Like I said above there's an argument that they should ensure 5th seeds miss the final fixture. I appreciate as Marvin Bartley put forward on Saturday after the game (a game we won lest he gets accused of sour grapes) that asking clubs to play 4 games in 11 days at this stage of the season when squads are small and they are still working on fitness after ever shorter pre-seasons may make sense commercially but it's not fair on players. He was suggesting they should play three rounds pre-season and another couple of rounds as midweek games 2 or 3 weeks into the season. I'm not sure how much better this is but I'd guess he knows better than me! I think doing that would detract a bit from the tournament though. I accept there is a debate to be had about whether Trialists should be allowed in the group stages too. It's a time of season when clubs are struggling to complete squads and looking at players. Forcing them to sign people for at least 6 months in order to play a cup tie is contrary to economic sense. Equally I appreciate the whole thing becomes farcical if you allow clubs to field 4 or 5 trialists per game and decent players might parachute in for a game here and there.

[Skyline Drifter]

10 minutes ago, StewartyMac said:

That is annoying, but putting the big teams into the group stages would mean far less chance of a smaller side like ourselves progressing once in a while. 

That said, I don't really get the European angle as to why the top sides get a bye into the knockout stages. This year, for example, only Hibs have been involved in Europe during the group stages, and even then, it was only their first leg. But I do like the way it is at the moment, despite how comfortable it is for the sides in Europe. 

That's mainly because our co-efficient has shot up recently though. In past years we've had 3 out of 4 playing through the groups.

[Fuctifano]

I think the trialists in the group stages idea is good as long as it's capped per game to avoid the 15 trialists scenario. 

I think it's harsh on clubs to try and have a squad ready to go at the beginning of July. 

[realmadrid]

The only small tweak that could possibly be made would be to use this midweek as a play off round for the runners up

it would have worked best when we only have 4 teams in Europe and would have the 4 "best runners up" at home to the other 4 runners up

Now 2 runners up would be eliminated automatically so its probably best left as it is.

[Ranaldo Bairn]

I fully admit I was dead against groups initially, being old enough to remember them in the early 80s, where you were in groups of 4 teams, and played home and away. So after the 6 matches it was basically 99% certain the big seeded team would progress.

However I have been converted. I really like the penalties for a bonus point angle, and have been pleasantly surprised by just how many times top flight teams have either been given a bloody nose in one match, or have been eliminated altogether. St Johnstone's implosion this season has been particularly rib-shattering, but it's not the first time.

The SPFL maintaining tradition by only just penalising Hearts, as a Big Club, enough to let them stay in the competition a couple of years ago was heartwarming to see too.

[StewartyMac]

The biggest positive change has been the removal of the regionalisation aspect, as this was making it quite stale, given we were drawing a few of the same teams year after year. It also irked me that we were included in the Northern section, although I understand why. 

Playing against Ayr this year, for example, was a refreshing change. 

[The Master]

5 hours ago, Skyline Drifter said:

I especially don't like the nonsense of having a live game on the Sunday after everyone else has played so someone knows what they need to do. Dundee this year, Raith last year, knew what they needed. Neither managed it, but it's an unfair advantage.

What makes it worse is that Viaplay (and Premier and BT before them, and whoever after them) don't even need to move a game from the final round.

The blackout doesn't kick in until the league season starts, so they could have kept Dundee v Inverness at Saturday 3pm and still shown it. Or even shown another game - they wouldn't have had to pick until after the penultimate round of games. 

That would also work in the broadcaster's favour - Dundee v Inverness was Hamilton bonus point away from being an effective dead rubber (although their production made it seem like they thought it was meaningless - they only had five cameras at Dens on Sunday. Even non-live Premiership games have six...). 

[Dunning1874]

The imbalance from group to group warping the best runners-up spot was definitely an issue in the first few years, but now they've binned regionalisation (which has also stopped it being so stale) and extended seeding so there are five pots rather than two with one big unseeded bracket beyond them, it's as balanced as it's ever going to be. There'll always be one group that has two Championship teams which is unfortunate, but that's unavoidable unless we somehow ever end up with six clubs in Europe.

A change that still hasn't been made and really should be is relegated clubs retaining a higher seeding. Hamilton being second seeds while Dunfermline are third seeds is a nonsense, as was Dunfermline being seeded above Cove last season, and all the times the relegated top flight club were seeded and the promoted Championship side weren't when we only had four European qualifiers. Fix that and it's fine, assuming they also put an actual system in place for Highland/Lowland qualifiers rather than the joke decision that was inviting Cowdenbeath.

[realmadrid]

On 01/08/2023 at 17:21, Dunning1874 said:

A change that still hasn't been made and really should be is relegated clubs retaining a higher seeding. Hamilton being second seeds while Dunfermline are third seeds is a nonsense, as was Dunfermline being seeded above Cove last season, and all the times the relegated top flight club were seeded and the promoted Championship side weren't when we only had four European qualifiers. Fix that and it's fine, assuming they also put an actual system in place for Highland/Lowland qualifiers rather than the joke decision that was inviting Cowdenbeath.

its been that way since the 1980's when the groups were binned the last time and in my eyes its correct.

The seeding for the first phase is based on the season that has just finished final placings, so the ranking at the time of the draw, the new league positions are nothing to do with that seasons cup draw.

 

[craigkillie]

The whole "knowing what you need to be a best runner-up" thing doesn't seem like a huge deal to me - even major tournaments like the Euros finals and all the qualifying campaigns have the same sort of thing. There's an argument for having each group finishing at the same time though.

[craigkillie]

On 01/08/2023 at 15:23, The Master said:

What makes it worse is that Viaplay (and Premier and BT before them, and whoever after them) don't even need to move a game from the final round.

The blackout doesn't kick in until the league season starts, so they could have kept Dundee v Inverness at Saturday 3pm and still shown it. Or even shown another game - they wouldn't have had to pick until after the penultimate round of games. 

That would also work in the broadcaster's favour - Dundee v Inverness was Hamilton bonus point away from being an effective dead rubber (although their production made it seem like they thought it was meaningless - they only had five cameras at Dens on Sunday. Even non-live Premiership games have six...). 

Showing a game at 3pm would mean all the fans who are at those games would be lost from their viewership, and presumably the majority of people who tune in to Dundee v Bonnyrigg Rose are exactly that sort of fan.

[HibeeJibee]

4 hours ago, realmadrid said:

the new league positions are nothing to do with that seasons cup draw.

Scottish Cup entry points use this season.