League split - good or bad ?

[sfha]

IIRC it was late 80s, I kept records at the time but they're  in a box upstairs!

EDIT!

Just looked there coz it was bothering me, it was 1986-1988

Edited April 1 by sfha

[VincentGuerin]

44 game seasons came back in the 90s. 93-94 was the last.

38 is about right and the split is a good thing.

[ropy]

You could argue that someone coming on to a game in matches 30-33 could be abruptly cut off from the riches of playing the top teams but the target is there from the start of the season.  Play everyone 3 times then fight for final places in the last 5 matches.

[HibeeJibee]

We initially had 12 teams playing 4 times - hence 44 games - in 1986-87 and 1987-88. Clubs felt 10 team Premier Division playing 36 games with 2 relegation places too cut-throat... it was agreed to temporarily run with 12 for 2 years then revert to 10 but with only 1 relegation place. There was also financial and vote reform (4-2-1 weighting Premier-First-Second). Dundee United equalled all-time European record in 1986-87: playing 70 competitive games (despite not reaching League Cup Final and only having 2 replays in Scottish Cup).

However clubs got unhappy with only 1-up-1-down so from 1991-92 reverted to 12 teams and 2-up-2-down... 44 games was back.

However clubs felt that was still too cut-throat so from 1994-95 reverted to 10 teams with 1-up-1-down and 9th v 2nd playoff. Also introduced Third Division and 3pts-for-a-win.

However clubs got greedy and SPL broke away for 1998-99 (plus abolished playoff). To avoid serving 24 months notice they agreed to revert to 12 teams after 2 years. 'Split' was introduced to allow manageable 38 games.

Since become the most enduring top division format in our history (having now clocked-up quarter of a century and counting) - plus splits are increasingly common Europe-wide.

Edited April 1 by HibeeJibee

[CoF]

Sporting fairness is slightly off, but creates more meaningful games so on balance it's good. 

[Black_and_White_Stripes]

2 hours ago, djchapsticks said:

 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.

 

I have to say that I used to be one of them, but now I'm utterly won over. For the last few weeks I have been looking at our fixtures and the other clubs' run-ins and following all the results as they happen. I was checking my phone every ten minutes at Fir Park to see how Hibs and Dundee were getting on. 

It absolutely makes sense for the bottom six to play other teams involved in the relegation battle and creates lots of 'six-pointer' games. If we finish top-six, and I'm taking nothing for granted, we will have to play Killie and Hibs/Dundee, which will potentially be massive, especially if it's the final game of the season and has gone to the wire. 

I'm 100% in favour of the split now.

[Boo Khaki]

A load of contrived nonsense that adds nothing to the league. As mentioned, the only reason for its existence is so the TV can still show 4 festivals of hate every season despite having a 12 team top flight.

[GordonS]

Top leagues in western and central European countries with populations between 2 million and 15 million, from largest to smallest:

1) Belgium - 16 teams split after playing each other twice, then they half their points. The top 6 play each other twice more, the next 6 do the same but there's a European spot for the winner, and the bottom 4 play each other twice to avoid relegation (2 down, 1 in a play-off, 1 safe). Total of 40 matches for the top 12, 36 matches for the bottom 4.

2) Sweden (summer) - 16 teams, no split. They used to play even fewer games (see Norway below)

3) Czechia - 16 teams split after playing each other twice, into 6, 4 and 6 clubs. The top and bottom groups play each other once more, for a total of 35 matches. The middle four play a set of semis and finals over two legs. When the Czechia coefficient is good this group get a European place; otherwise it's pretty much a waste of time.

4) Portugal - 18 teams, play each other once, no split, 34 matches.

5) Hungary - 12 teams, play each other 3 times, no split. 33 matches.

6) Austria - 12 teams, split after two rounds, play two more rounds, 32 matches.

7) Switzerland - is moving to exactly our system, 12 teams play three rounds before splitting for another round, 38 matches.

Denmark - 12 teams, split after two rounds, play two more rounds for 32 matches. 

9) Slovakia - 12 teams split after two rounds of matches, then play two further rounds, for a total of 32 matches.

10) Finland (summer) - 12 teams, split after two rounds then play one more round. 27 matches.

11) Norway (summer)- 16 teams, no split. But only 30 league games. They've never played many games - 1963 to 1971 they played just 18, 1972  to 1994 they played 22, 1995 to 2008 they played 26 and only since 2009 have they played 30.

12) Scotland - 12 teams, split after three rounds for one more round, 38 matches.

 

So of these 12, three are summer and play short seasons (though one has a split), and nine are winter. Of those nine winter leagues, only two play without a split; Portugal, who are by far the strongest league of this bunch and Hungary, who have 12 teams playing 3 rounds.

Having and 18-20 team league playing two rounds may seem like the gold standard, but the reality is for smaller countries that there isn't the depth to justify it. In our neighbourhood nobody with a population under 10 million does it, and below the Dutch only Portugal does.

[10menwent2mow]

f**k sake, another almost league reconstruction thread. 

[Lurkst]

8 hours ago, VincentGuerin said:

44 game seasons came back in the 90s. 93-94 was the last.

That was Killie's first season up in a decade. 3 from 12 relegated was brutal after 44 games.

[Handsome_Devil]

I didn't like it initially and I would still prefer an alternative linked to bigger changes in our league system - but when you rule out everyone's fantasy ideas like that and accept the pre-existing boxes you need to tick, I think it's as good as we can possibly do. The split might be artificial excitement but it's excitement nonetheless and in the years there are true relegation/European fights there's no doubt it's cracking. Ultimately there's a reason why it has barely changed in 20-plus years and that's because there's no viable better option.

[RandomGuy.]

I like it, as it gives the middle group something to play for most seasons when the league could otherwise be dead by March for half the clubs. The split in the bottom half can be absolute carnage too if the leagues tight.

I'm very much against a bigger top flight too as I don't think there's enough teams to justify it.

[hk blues]

10 minutes ago, Handsome_Devil said:

I didn't like it initially and I would still prefer an alternative linked to bigger changes in our league system - but when you rule out everyone's fantasy ideas like that and accept the pre-existing boxes you need to tick, I think it's as good as we can possibly do. The split might be artificial excitement but it's excitement nonetheless and in the years there are true relegation/European fights there's no doubt it's cracking. Ultimately there's a reason why it has barely changed in 20-plus years and that's because there's no viable better option.

I'm not sure why it's artificial excitement rather than just excitement (which you yourself say it provides). 

[Handsome_Devil]

2 minutes ago, hk blues said:

I'm not sure why it's artificial excitement rather than just excitement (which you yourself say it provides). 

It's definitely changed with fifth basically guaranteed Europe but there were times in the early days when being sixth and miles from Europe in third or fourth was hailed as an outstanding success compared to being seventh...which I just didn't get, midtable nothingness is midtable nothingness for me, whether you're above or below the dotted line after 33 games is irrelevant (sporting wise I mean here, clearly cash yada yada).

[Ranaldo Bairn]

Happy to see that no da's have been bemoaning the fact that 7th can end up with more points than 6th, while forgetting that the two sections are essentially separate leagues.

[Dons_1988]

It’s objectively a good thing for keeping engagement throughout the league and it still bemuses me why removing it and increasing the size of the league is seen as such a boost. 

However, the only criticism you could aim at it is that it could be seen as an acceptance of the financial disparity at the top of the pyramid and it’s an attempt to keep as many of the 40 clubs engaged throughout the season as possible, while two clubs compete to actually win the thing. From that perspective you could say the existence of the split disincentivises truly addressing that problem. 

 

[crazylegsjoe_mfc]

It's certainly a good thing compared to the ten team, play everyone four times league that went before it, particularly with playoffs added. You find that most teams in the league at this stage of the season have just about got something to play for. In the old format, really the two main things to play for were a third place finish and avoiding bottom. Those are probably the only two final positions that you'd say are nailed on at the moment, which would mean there would be a lot of teams going through the motions (I know we now have more European slots than we did then, but still).

 

 

[hk blues]

20 minutes ago, Handsome_Devil said:

It's definitely changed with fifth basically guaranteed Europe but there were times in the early days when being sixth and miles from Europe in third or fourth was hailed as an outstanding success compared to being seventh...which I just didn't get, midtable nothingness is midtable nothingness for me, whether you're above or below the dotted line after 33 games is irrelevant (sporting wise I mean here, clearly cash yada yada).

Cash...and safety from relegation guaranteed.  

[RandomGuy.]

17 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

It’s objectively a good thing for keeping engagement throughout the league and it still bemuses me why removing it and increasing the size of the league is seen as such a boost. 

Because apparently having 2 more teams in the league would make everyone play youth players and they'd all flourish into International class superstars.

It definitely wouldn't be boring as f**k by the end and see plenty folk deciding that paying £23+ every week for 2 months, to watch dead rubbers, isn't worth it.

[oneteaminglasgow]

39 minutes ago, Handsome_Devil said:

It's definitely changed with fifth basically guaranteed Europe but there were times in the early days when being sixth and miles from Europe in third or fourth was hailed as an outstanding success compared to being seventh...which I just didn't get, midtable nothingness is midtable nothingness for me, whether you're above or below the dotted line after 33 games is irrelevant (sporting wise I mean here, clearly cash yada yada).

I guess it depends how much of a novelty it is - Motherwell are obviously used to finishing in the top 6 (and above) whereas others (like ourselves) it’s a once in a blue moon occurrence. It felt quite prestigious for some reason.

It’s also the fact that top 6 means you know, a few weeks early, that you definitely can’t be dragged into a relegation battle.