League split - good or bad ?

[VincentGuerin]

57 minutes ago, TheScarf said:

It's such a daft argument isn't it?  How can games where you can finish higher up the table, gaining more prize money, and blooding in youngsters to gain vital experience, be meaningless?

'If we win today and results go our way we can jump up 3 places and finish 7th and get an extra £400k.'

'Aye but can we qualify for Europe or avoid relegation?'

'Nah just what I mentioned.'

'Ah f**k it then, I'm not going, it's meaningless.'

It's not daft. It's just not what you like.

Lots of people, having thought clearly about it, have decided that if they are going to be paying a decent whack to go to see games regularly, would like those games to have some kind of meaningful outcome.

Small divisions with a split and play-offs for promotion and relegation give us that. There are relatively few meaningless games in all four of the SPFL divisions. Obviously, some seasons a few more, some seasons a few less. But it's not "daft" to want to maximise that, given that our league doesn't sell itself on quality and never will.

Making the divisions bigger won't suddenly make everyone play great football. Submission 1 - The EFL. And, as pointed out above, making our leagues bigger would essentially entrench the same sides in the top flight ALL THE TIME. I, and many others, think that's a very boring idea.

You obviously disagree, and that's up to you. But I think you're screaming into the wind here. Nobody (hardly anybody) is getting up in the morning thinking "I get to pay to watch our youngsters get vital experience and see us move up from 9th to 7th in the league!!".

Edited April 2 by VincentGuerin

[VictorOnopko]

3 hours ago, Ranaldo Bairn said:

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.

They are indeed, and every media outlet and official source should start showing them as two separate league tables, which would be much more logical.

I would say the uneven home/away balance is the main point against the split but in general it does liven up the tail end of the season.

[TheScarf]

5 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

It's not daft. It's just not what you like.

Lots of people, having thought clearly about it, have decided that if they are going to be paying a decent whack to go to see games regularly, would like those games to have some kind of meaningful outcome.

Small divisions with a split and play-offs for promotion and relegation give us that. There are relatively few meaningless games in all four of the SPFL divisions. Obviously, some seasons a few more, some seasons a few less. But it's not "daft" to want to maximise that, given that our league doesn't sell itself on quality and never will.

Making the divisions bigger won't suddenly make everyone play great football. Submission 1 - The EFL. And, as pointed out above, making our leagues bigger would essentially entrench the same sides in the top flight ALL THE TIME. I, and many others, think that's a very boring idea.

You obviously disagree, and that's up to you. But I think you're screaming into the wind here. Nobody (hardly anybody) is getting up in the morning thinking "I get to pay to watch our youngsters get vital experience and see us move up from 9th to 7th in the league!!".

Leaving your contrarian tendencies on this website aside for a minute, by the same token, are people getting up in the morning thinking 'Livi/County for the 4th/5th/6th time this season, YAAAAAS!!!' (cup draws dependent, of course).

 

[VincentGuerin]

Just now, TheScarf said:

Leaving your contrarian tendencies on this website aside for a minute, by the same token, are people getting up in the morning thinking 'Livi/County for the 4th/5th/6th time this season, YAAAAAS!!!' (cup draws dependent, of course).

 

Do you think folk would be much more excited if they replaced one of those Ross County games with ICT? Really?

[Dons_1988]

Just now, TheScarf said:

Leaving your contrarian tendencies on this website aside for a minute, by the same token, are people getting up in the morning thinking 'Livi/County for the 4th/5th/6th time this season, YAAAAAS!!!' (cup draws dependent, of course).

 

I’d be willing to bet you a lot of money that more games with not a lot riding on it would result in reduced attendances. I don’t think it’s a disputable fact at all. 

[DiegoDiego]

After all that tedious B team chat, it's probably worth mentioning there's a Split in Croatia.

[TheScarf]

8 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

Do you think folk would be much more excited if they replaced one of those Ross County games with ICT? Really?

If you're happy with Hearts playing the same 10/11 teams 4/5/6 times a season your whole life (usually its the two Dundee teams swapping places in the top flight) then batter in mate. Have at it.

[Dons_1988]

5 minutes ago, DiegoDiego said:

After all that tedious B team chat, it's probably worth mentioning there's a Split in Croatia.

**don’t make the obvious joke**

[VincentGuerin]

3 minutes ago, TheScarf said:

If you're happy with Hearts playing the same 10/11 teams 4/5/6 times a season your whole life (usually its the two Dundee teams swapping places in the top flight) then batter in mate. Have at it.

What you're proposing is worse.

You want me to give up two derbies a season, two games against Aberdeen a season, and games against the OF, to replace them with pretty much forever fixtures against Thistle, Raith etc.

Can you not see why I wouldn't want to do that?

This way we get big games, we get a competitive league (in its own way), we get a bit of a churn in teams, and we rarely get a team that's laughably bad.

Your idea is worse.

Edited April 2 by VincentGuerin

[TheScarf]

1 minute ago, VincentGuerin said:

What you're proposing is worse.

You want me to give up two derbies a season, two games against Aberdeen a season, and games against the OF, to replace them with pretty much forever fixtures against Thistle, Raith etc.

Can you not see why I wouldn't want to do that?

I'd rather variety, you'd rather more of the same. 

 

[VincentGuerin]

Just now, TheScarf said:

I'd rather variety, you'd rather more of the same. 

 

Variety doesn't always mean better.

Replacing interesting games with boring games is worse, not better.

I speak here as a fan of a team that has spent time in the second tier. When you're away, nobody is missing you. Nobody is sitting looking out the window saying "I wish ICT were back up". "I wish Thistle were back".

When you come back, you'll replace someone else, and they'll not be missed either. I think some folk massively over-estimate what the clubs outside the top flight bring to the party when they're up. It's just another fixture. It honestly makes no odds to me whether we play Ross County three times, or Ross County twice and Raith twice. Not arsed in the slightest.

If you tell me I need to lose two derbies to play Raith twice instead of Ross County three times, then I need you to explain what's in it for me.

[bennett]

It's ridiculous,  bring in an 16 or 18 team league and play each other twice a season. 

[Sortmeout]

3 hours ago, RandomGuy. said:

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.

You seem to flip flop quite a lot on this issue.

[kennie makevin]

30 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

What you're proposing is worse.

You want me to give up two derbies a season, two games against Aberdeen a season, and games against the OF, to replace them with pretty much forever fixtures against Thistle, Raith etc.

Can you not see why I wouldn't want to do that?

This way we get big games, we get a competitive league (in its own way), we get a bit of a churn in teams, and we rarely get a team that's laughably bad.

Your idea is worse.

The Scottish top flight is not competitive..... indeed it scarcely qualifies as 'a competition' considering only one entity can ever win it. The idea that something/anything can 'be worse' than the tedious, predictable, repetitive, low quality product we have at the moment is a strange one.

[VincentGuerin]

1 minute ago, kennie makevin said:

The Scottish top flight is not competitive..... indeed it scarcely qualifies as 'a competition' considering only one entity can ever win it. The idea that something/anything can 'be worse' than the tedious, predictable, repetitive, low quality product we have at the moment is a strange one.

That would be a great point if changing the league make-up would have any impact on who can win the league. But it wouldn't.

The league is competitive in every other way and in every other area of the table most seasons. That's success.

[Busta Nut]

16 hours 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 .

League split is brilliant, no idea why people ask this question every 4 months.

[Caledonian1]

1 hour ago, Dons_1988 said:

**don’t make the obvious joke**

I assumed he already had........

[Red Kite]

The current setup is all I know, as someone who now attends games.  It's definitely different and was baffling, at first.  If you follow a Championship team, it provides loads of interest in what must be the most competitive division in European football.  Playing each other more than once, home and away, is good for folk like me who come up for games when we can.  Self-centred, I know!  I don't care about the EPL playoffs at all, but the Scottish playoff system holds the interest.

[HibeeJibee]

3 hours ago, TheScarf said:

It's such a daft argument isn't it?  How can games where you can finish higher up the table, gaining more prize money, and blooding in youngsters to gain vital experience, be meaningless?

'If we win today and results go our way we can jump up 3 places and finish 7th and get an extra £400k.'

'Aye but can we qualify for Europe or avoid relegation?'

'Nah just what I mentioned.'

'Ah f**k it then, I'm not going, it's meaningless.'

Unfortunately the general consensus, based on past experience, is that this argument won't be reflected in top division supporters decisions... that fans will vote with their feet, rather than pay full whack to see youth players or chase some extra % on prize pot, as you hope.

Clubs certainly don't think they would and for somebody like Hibs also don't want to swap 2nd visits from some/all of Rangers, Celtic, Hearts and Aberdeen for current Championship clubs.

It's telling that since the current format - now comfortably the most enduring in history - was introduced quarter of a century ago the only proposals to replace it that gained any traction were:
* 10 teams playing 4 times (36 games)
* 14 teams playing 4 times with 6/8 split (36/40 games)
* 12 teams playing 4 times with 8/8/8 split (36 games)
or put another way: all are simply variations on the same general theme.

Edited April 2 by HibeeJibee

[GreenGray]

I like it to an extent, if you are a fan of the club that finishes seventh with no prospect of relegation it results in five meaningless games, but them's the breaks.

Looks like Hibs might do that for the second time in three seasons, unfortunately.

Would prefer a larger top league, but that'll never happen with our current TV deal.