Jastons6 Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 I have only been following Scottish football closely for a year or so. I am still undecided about the league split . It just seems so alien to me . Is it an improvement on what happened before i.e no split and teams playing each other 4 times a year ? Is there any appetite to do away with the split ? I'm expecting the response to depend heavily on wether you support a top 6 team or not . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sortmeout Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 It’s great. Delighted to not have to be grouped, even for 5 games, with dross like Aberdeen and St Johnstone. 18 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CambieBud Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 The split was designed to make sure Sky could get 4 borefests involving the Glasgow business partners. The fact that the bottom six is normally much more interesting than the top six is a happy coincidence but as TV companies usually ignore the more exciting games says it all. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tree house tam Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 7 minutes ago, Sortmeout said: It’s great. Delighted to not have to be grouped, even for 5 games, with dross like Aberdeen and St Johnstone. ^^ bums still sore from years of dry spitroasting. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oneteaminglasgow Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 It’s great, and should be replicated throughout the divisions. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mathematics Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 I was initially sceptical but I think it has been a great addition to the league. The wee mini leagues it creates at the end of the season can be very exciting. 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jastons6 Posted April 1 Author Share Posted April 1 1 minute ago, CambieBud said: The split was designed to make sure Sky could get 4 borefests involving the Glasgow business partners. Wouldn't the rangers and celtic play each other 4 times anyway, without the split ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santheman Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 Great 5 games especially if it's close at the top and bottom Pity the other 30 odd are usually utter shite. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 5 minutes ago, CambieBud said: The split was designed to make sure Sky could get 4 borefests involving the Glasgow business partners. The fact that the bottom six is normally much more interesting than the top six is a happy coincidence but as TV companies usually ignore the more exciting games says it all. They used to play each other 4 times when we had a 10-team league before the split was introduced. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CambieBud Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 3 minutes ago, Jastons6 said: Wouldn't the rangers and celtic play each other 4 times anyway, without the split ? Only if you assume that they would accept a 44 game season, which they wouldn’t. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 3 minutes ago, Jastons6 said: Wouldn't the rangers and celtic play each other 4 times anyway, without the split ? Aye but so would everyone else, meaning a 44 game season. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Stiles Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 It's generally good apart from the issue with teams not playing each other the same number of times home and away. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tarapoa Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 It's nonsensical in many ways, but makes sense for us due to the peculiarities of the game up here. Looking forward to only our second season in a decade in this "bottom six" thing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jastons6 Posted April 1 Author Share Posted April 1 5 minutes ago, CambieBud said: Only if you assume that they would accept a 44 game season, which they wouldn’t. Ok. So the alternative - a 44 game season - isn't something that most clubs / fans want ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfha Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 10 minutes ago, Jastons6 said: Ok. So the alternative - a 44 game season - isn't something that most clubs / fans want ? There were a couple of 44 match seasons (late 80s?) and they weren't popular. The split is a compromise for having a 12 team division. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ropy Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 It is excellent for the bottom six, play everyone 3 times then a five match play off with your peers. It’s never quite as interesting in the top six but the principle is the same. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilbur Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 10 minutes ago, Jastons6 said: Ok. So the alternative - a 44 game season - isn't something that most clubs / fans want ? No it isn't. Playing the same 11 opponents 4 times in a league season can become tedious. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NFL12 Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 46 minutes ago, Jastons6 said: I have only been following Scottish football closely for a year or so. I am still undecided about the league split . It just seems so alien to me . Is it an improvement on what happened before i.e no split and teams playing each other 4 times a year ? Is there any appetite to do away with the split ? I'm expecting the response to depend heavily on wether you support a top 6 team or not . It’s good. Adds extra excitement and meaning to the league. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djchapsticks Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 14 minutes ago, Jastons6 said: Ok. So the alternative - a 44 game season - isn't something that most clubs / fans want ? Nope. Plenty of supporters would be happy with, say, an 18 team division playing each other home and away or 16 teams and playoffs but broadcasters simply won't accept two less Old Firms a season. A 44 game season with the size of squad and budget most teams in Scotland run with wouldht be at all feasible IMO. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caledonian1 Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 21 minutes ago, sfha said: There were a couple of 44 match seasons (late 80s?) and they weren't popular. The split is a compromise for having a 12 team division. Was there? I can't recall that at all......far too many games (I also think 38 is too many and would be happier with say a 14 team division with a 6-8 split......resulting in either 31 or 36 games (play all twice then once or twice post split.) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.