Guest Posted January 30, 2013 Report Share Posted January 30, 2013 What's fundamentally wrong is as follows The split. The split means that we don't play each team an equal number of times. The split also means that the SPL has to guess who will be in the top 6 next season to try and make the schedule 'fair' 'Fair' ends up meaning the OF teams get the advantage when it comes to fixtures. Playoffs are also fundamentally unfair in a league situation. The premise behind a league is that a team accumulates a number of points over the course of a season. If I finish 2nd in the First Division, I have proved that I am a better team than the team that finished 4th. Why should I then be subjected to the lottery of a play-off to prove that again? One dodgy refereeing decision, or one unlucky break in a playoff final and, despite the fact I may have finished 20 points ahead of 4th place, I'm out of luck. Playoffs were created purely for the purposes of television. Exciting they may be. Fair they are not. Weird gripe. The split provides a better ending to the season as the best teams play the best teams a contest for Europe. The worst teams play the worst teams in order to battle against relegation. Re: Playoffs: If you've been good enough over a season you should be good enough over 90 minutes. It isn't like you've been unaware of what is coming at the end of it. One off games can be no different for 'refereeing decisions' or 'unlucky breaks', they can come at any point in any season and can shape a minute of single game or a dozen after it. Celtic lost a title at Fir Park because of a couple of lucky Motherwell breaks, why is that any different to a playoff game? Was that unfair? There are teams in the First Division that pay transfer fees for players. We even used to do it ourselves when we were down there. Lack of TV does not equate to zero cash. If the current proposals succeed, amateur football might be all we have left in a couple of years. Citation needed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
claretband Posted January 30, 2013 Report Share Posted January 30, 2013 Re: Playoffs: If you've been good enough over a season you should be good enough over 90 minutes. It isn't like you've been unaware of what is coming at the end of it. One off games can be no different for 'refereeing decisions' or 'unlucky breaks', they can come at any point in any season and can shape a minute of single game or a dozen after it. Celtic lost a title at Fir Park because of a couple of lucky Motherwell breaks, why is that any different to a playoff game? Was that unfair? Citation needed. Playoffs between e.g. 2nd bottom in one league vs 2nd top in the lower league to decide promotion I regard as fair. There is logic to the system. Playoffs between e.g. 2nd top in one league vs 4th top(who may be as was said 20 points behind) to decide anything is just plain wrong. Celtic didn't lose the title just because of a couple of unlucky(for them) breaks - they lost it because they weren't good enough over a whole season. That's the difference. If playoffs are so great, why not include the table-topping team in them, wow that would be so exciting. Playoffs - ludicrous... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 30, 2013 Report Share Posted January 30, 2013 Playoffs between e.g. 2nd bottom in one league vs 2nd top in the lower league to decide promotion I regard as fair. There is logic to the system. Playoffs between e.g. 2nd top in one league vs 4th top(who may be as was said 20 points behind) to decide anything is just plain wrong. Celtic didn't lose the title just because of a couple of unlucky(for them) breaks - they lost it because they weren't good enough over a whole season. That's the difference. If playoffs are so great, why not include the table-topping team in them, wow that would be so exciting. Playoffs - ludicrous... Fair enough then, I simply stuck four teams in because that's how the rest of the SFL operates with them. Second bottom, second top, done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muzz Posted January 30, 2013 Report Share Posted January 30, 2013 While I'm no fan of the proposed structure, this thread proves one thing - no one can think of solution that everyone agrees on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.Pepper Posted January 30, 2013 Report Share Posted January 30, 2013 What did our Chief Exec say on the radio last night exactly? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kmmfc Posted January 30, 2013 Report Share Posted January 30, 2013 If all the points ,i.e. Top 8 and Bottom 8, were reset after 22 games, would we all not look more favourably on this ridiculous plan? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted January 30, 2013 Report Share Posted January 30, 2013 If all the points ,i.e. Top 8 and Bottom 8, were reset after 22 games, would we all not look more favourably on this ridiculous plan? the best team over the course of the season should be champions, it's not a handicap competition. anything else devalues the title. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
another number Posted January 30, 2013 Report Share Posted January 30, 2013 What did our Chief Exec say on the radio last night exactly? She's on the Scottish football podcast on the BBC from latt night. Can't get the link to work, sorry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juan Kerse Posted January 30, 2013 Report Share Posted January 30, 2013 The thing that I can't get my head round, is that every single decision they make revolves around getting as good a TV deal as they can possibly get for the games, and then if we stay at home and watch them, we're in the wrong. The whole thing's fucking mental. Spot on. Every argument for small leagues /status quo is about money and tv deals. Small leagues/status quo STIFLE COMPETITION and create BOREDOM. If we had a bigger league and played everyone twice BOTH those problems would be helped. There will of course be less money as sky want more 'big' games 4 times a season so will pay less and there are of course more mouths to feed. But everyone will be in the SAME boat. It will still be 11 v 11. So every team cuts a couple of overpaid journeymen from their squads and replaces them with 17 year olds from the youth team. (hardly a bad thing!) And will we really notice a difference? Like I said every team will have to do it. The pay off from cloth cutting anyway is you have less games against the old firm and 'bigger' spl teams stop playing each other every other week which just cuts each others throats leading to no chance of a title challenge. Teams with good youth set ups like us, Hibs, etc.. will still have enough about them to accrue points against the smaller clubs and get closet to Celtic. Also it would add excitement to each game as it is the only time that fixture will be played for a year, maybe almost 2! And if Sky don't like then apples they can ram it. They are the problem anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NottsMFC Posted January 30, 2013 Report Share Posted January 30, 2013 She's on the Scottish football podcast on the BBC from latt night. Can't get the link to work, sorry Here's the link, around 12:55 in. Dempster Sportsound Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoshi-1991 Posted January 30, 2013 Report Share Posted January 30, 2013 As we have seen, different teams peak at different points of the season, resetting half way through will be an advantage to some and a kick in the stones to others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted January 30, 2013 Report Share Posted January 30, 2013 9 points separate 2nd to 11th with 3 months of the season remaining and every club should be aiming for a european place. however in the spl's world hearts, ross county and st mirren would be fighting relegation with zero points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Diggle Posted January 30, 2013 Report Share Posted January 30, 2013 9 points separate 2nd to 11th with 3 months of the season remaining and every club should be aiming for a european place. however in the spl's world hearts, ross county and st mirren would be fighting relegation with zero points. Concise, spot on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alls well in Stirling Posted January 30, 2013 Report Share Posted January 30, 2013 I've had a wee think about what I would like to see happen with the leagues. They are very rough thoughts but I reckon something like this would work. Top league of 202nd league of 22 4 up 4 down with a playoff system in the second league between 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th place teams. Below that we have a conference system with a conference premier league and regional leagues below that. For example, use the highland league, east of Scotland league etc for promotion/relegation to/from the conference premier! It's very much in the mould of the English system but that seems to work so why not. That gives the top league 19 home games with no split. It would be one home and one away game rather than the monotonous four games against each other each season. I accept that there may be meaningless games as the season progresses but the 4 relegation spots would hold some interest. I think this would work and personally see it as the most workable solution at the moment. Feel free to add bits or just rip it apart! Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 30, 2013 Report Share Posted January 30, 2013 Spot on. Every argument for small leagues /status quo is about money and tv deals. Small leagues/status quo STIFLE COMPETITION and create BOREDOM. If we had a bigger league and played everyone twice BOTH those problems would be helped. You're aware this has been done, and was abandoned because it wasn't competitive, and ended up with a whole raft of pointless games? Competitive? There will of course be less money as sky want more 'big' games 4 times a season so will pay less and there are of course more mouths to feed. But everyone will be in the SAME boat. It will still be 11 v 11. So every team cuts a couple of overpaid journeymen from their squads and replaces them with 17 year olds from the youth team. (hardly a bad thing!) And will we really notice a difference? Like I said every team will have to do it. The pay off from cloth cutting anyway is you have less games against the old firm and 'bigger' spl teams stop playing each other every other week which just cuts each others throats leading to no chance of a title challenge. Teams with good youth set ups like us, Hibs, etc.. will still have enough about them to accrue points against the smaller clubs and get closet to Celtic. Also it would add excitement to each game as it is the only time that fixture will be played for a year, maybe almost 2! And if Sky don't like then apples they can ram it. They are the problem anyway. While I agree entirely on the Sky point, and the fact that we should not in any way be relying on television money to keep us afloat, I can't agree with the rest of it. What about Scottish football possibly suggests the idea that more 'beatable' teams will bring clubs like ourselves closer to Celtic? The SPL has been so competitive this season for the simple reason that everyone is capable of beating everyone else. No-one can string together a game or two of form together, so why would more teams at that level (or a touch below) make any difference? Add in another unpredictable element to every club with '17 year olds from the youth team' and teams become even less consistent. The 'overpaid journeymen' schtick is a bit tired as well. We've got one, and I'd be amazed if he's overpaid. No-one can afford to overpay anyone, let alone a journeyman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLip69 Posted January 30, 2013 Report Share Posted January 30, 2013 As usual you are letting your blind hatred for the current custodians run away with you. Back in the summer it was obvious the club didnt want to vote Rangers out, yet the 'well society told them which way to go. I have yet to see anything to suggest this situation will be any different. Firstly, I'm neither blind nor do I hate the current custodians of the club, I dont hold them in much regard granted, but it's not hate that's too strong an emotion, indifference is nearer the mark. Secondly, no-one voted Rangers out they got liquidated they needed votes to get back in. I was going to add a "thirdly" but I cant be arsed. I will say this though. I read the club's statement and I gave my opinion, which is still a legitimate excercise on these boards I am led to believe. The club have said they have given their backing to the proposals and will outline why it's best for the club to the Well Society. The club aren't going to put the proposals on the table in front of the Society and ask them what they think of them. No, the club are going to sell this to the Society. That's what that statement says. No more, no less. Good luck with your letters to Santa by the way. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tweed Posted January 30, 2013 Report Share Posted January 30, 2013 Been thinking a bit more about the debate and I've got to say the more I think about it the more it makes sense why they have done it: - criticism of split presently is that there is an inequality of fixtures - this eradicates it. - the TV companies will gobble it as there will be loads of crunch games - it maintains the number of home games the clubs want for match day profit This doesn't change the fact there are a couple of major flaws namely: - the barking resetting of points in the middle of the season - splitting a league at this time of year is mental - we have seen Ross County and Motherwell lose games due to the weather and Dundee Utd almost lose one. Only two years ago there were three rounds of fixtures decimated in December - how would we ever catch up in time for a split? The second reason above is the big one as that is what gives fans huge uncertainty and should be the big decision breaker in my opinion. The actual size of the league, is in my opinion, the least significant change that is required. The number of promotion and relegation spots, the distribution of wealth, if TV is a necessary evil push for earlier rearranging of games, try and get a consistent pricing structure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Grew Posted January 31, 2013 Report Share Posted January 31, 2013 "We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams, we would be reorganized. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization." Gaius Petronius (AD 27 - 66AD) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santheman Posted January 31, 2013 Report Share Posted January 31, 2013 No points for a 0-0 draw 4 points for a win 1 point for a scoring draw No loan signings allowed At least 7 home grown players in the starting 11 15 minute sin bins for yellow cards Standing areas with a bar Maximum £15 entry Who needs League re-organisation 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Posted January 31, 2013 Report Share Posted January 31, 2013 No points for a 0-0 draw 4 points for a win 1 point for a scoring draw No loan signings allowed At least 7 home grown players in the starting 11 15 minute sin bins for yellow cards Standing areas with a bar Maximum £15 entry Who needs League re-organisation Your on crack! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GazzyB Posted January 31, 2013 Report Share Posted January 31, 2013 Agreed, that sounds dire Santheman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santheman Posted January 31, 2013 Report Share Posted January 31, 2013 Agreed, that sounds dire Santheman. To be fair a was a bit pissed when I wrote it Plus I,d just read 22 pages on P&B about reconstruction and my brain was hurtin 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steelmen Posted February 1, 2013 Report Share Posted February 1, 2013 I have always liked 20 and 22 set up with promotion play offs only. One of the problems in Scottish football is boredom, we play the same teams too many times, even OF fans were moaning at 7 games against each other. We need to cut the times we play each other down to twice and to give teams the amount of home games they need we need a big league, 16 isn't big enough. meaningless games will happen but i bet you if you offered Dundee meaningless game til the end of the season and they get to stay up they will bite your hand off for them. we may not like English football very much but their league set up works and works well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted February 1, 2013 Report Share Posted February 1, 2013 I'm keen to extend the league but I think this boredom line is being peddled far too much. Whether the league is 12, 14, 16, 18 or 20, we're still going to play Aberdeen, Dundee United, Celtic, Hearts, Hibs, Killie, St Johnstone, etc. If we had a top league of 20, what's left? Do we even have 20 full-time teams in Scotland? Which teams in Scotland have the genuine potential to be a top-flight team? If they're all thrown together in the same league, the boredom factor will just kick in again as there will be no genuine potential replacements. 16 teams for me is about the right balance. It'll freshen things up for those who have only ever known the current top 10/12. Three relegation spots should also ensure plenty movement in and out of the top flight so that there's always a ground or two that hasn't been visited in the previous 12 months at the very least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatcalf Posted February 1, 2013 Report Share Posted February 1, 2013 We don't have enough quality teams to make a 20 team league interesting probably, but that's because we elected to bring in an elite structure which would benefit just a few clubs. If we opened it out more teams would benefit from an even financial spread and catch up fairly quickly so in a few years we could well have enough teams to make the league more interesting. Personally I'm more interested in Motherwell and watching us play the same teams over and over and over and over is not as attractive as watching us play the same teams over and over. The smaller set-up is boring so what's the difference of bringing in a boring bigger set-up? Answer is simply those with the money want to keep it. That's wrong so I'm still of the opinion 2 leagues of 18 or 20 to protect those who are capable of running a full time set-up and help them to catch up with the rest and give us a decent league in a few years time. 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.