League expansion

[Hearts_fan]

Many clubs are skint with zero prospects of increasing their revenue, and at least one has literally begged for money from a pop star.

 

This is not a positive reflection on the game in this country.

 

Pinging ones own nipples about perceived “excitement” of the split format is totally legitimate, each to their own, but such thrills are scraps from the table, a table at which two clubs are gorging on a banquet.

[Bull's-eye]

Not one team in the SPFL can compete at European level.

 

Thats all the evidence you need that the current set up is a failure.

 

How anybody can justify the current set up is beyond me, that includes supporters of the bigots.

 

We're playing Rangers 6 times this season, 6 ****in times. An absolute joke of a league.

[Hearts_fan]

4 minutes ago, Bull's-eye said:

Not one team in the SPFL can compete at European level.

 

Thats all the evidence you need that the current set up is a failure.

 

How anybody can justify the current set up is beyond me, that includes supporters of the bigots.

 

We're playing Rangers 6 times this season, 6 ****in times. An absolute joke of a league.

 

6 times is madness. That should be 3 years-worth, not 1 season.

 

The league is designed wrongly. It’s like they’ve given the job of league planning to a work experience kid.

[Tiro]

1 hour ago, Dazo said:

How did I fail to make that connection ? 

The major cause of the disparity is that the league format only allows two teams to win the league and hence pocket the windfall from the champions league prize money. Money from our TV deal does not provide enough income, nor does it have the potential to do so. Under those circumstances how do you suggest we correct the financial imbalance?

[michael_bolton]

20 minutes ago, Hearts_fan said:

Many clubs are skint with zero prospects of increasing their revenue, and at least one has literally begged for money from a pop star.

 

This is not a positive reflection on the game in this country.

 

Pinging ones own nipples about perceived “excitement” of the split format is totally legitimate, each to their own, but such thrills are scraps from the table, a table at which two clubs are gorging on a banquet.

 

That would be no different with a bigger league.

[michael_bolton]

1 minute ago, Tiro said:

The major cause of the disparity is that the league format only allows two teams to win the league and hence pocket the windfall from the champions league prize money. Money from our TV deal does not provide enough income, nor does it have the potential to do so. Under those circumstances how do you suggest we correct the financial imbalance?

 

That's an indefensible statement right from the off.

 

The league system is not why the Old Firm win. They'd win in any league size you'd like to create in Scotland.

 

The 80s are gone and they're not coming back.

[Bickfest]

13 hours ago, Locky said:

Often find myself thinking about options to increase the league, but in a realistic way that is likely to get voted in. The tricky thing at the moment is teams aren't going to want less matches a season, or lose the prospect of 4 Old Firms etc. 

 

One idea though did just pop into my head albeit there's one slight flaw. I propose a 14-team league that still incorporates a split. Now ideally you'd split into 6-8 or 8-6 but this means less than 38 games for one group and more than 38 for the other.

 

But a 7-7 split could work. Now, the flaw is obviously that each matchday post split, a team in each group is going to have a 'bye week'. 

 

But, playing the other 13 teams home and away gives you 26 matches, then playing the other 6 teams home and away post split gives you your 38 games a season. Also protecting the prospect of 4 derbies and potentially 2 matches at home to both the Old Firm.

 

Another pioneering idea for our great footballing nation.

I'm not sure that is a flaw. Every few weeks a team would have week/round off, enabling some R&R or injury recovery.

 

This is my favoured option.

 

I would also divisionalise the league cup with home and away ties. And seed them based on the previous season's final league placings. There would be fewer meaningless games.

 

Something has to change.

[Tiro]

26 minutes ago, michael_bolton said:

 

That's an indefensible statement right from the off.

 

The league system is not why the Old Firm win. They'd win in any league size you'd like to create in Scotland.

 

The 80s are gone and they're not coming back.

Not sure if you missed previous posts but it was suggested that there would be greater opportunity to win the league if the teams in the top flight played each other only twice, home and away. The top six would then play off on a knock out basis (seeded) with the winner of the final being champions. 

I am not sure how you can argue that such a format would not create greater opportunities for others.

[Mirror]

a 20 team league could potentially mean that a team could get beat home and away against cetlic and rangers but win the other 34 games and win the league.

[michael_bolton]

1 minute ago, Tiro said:

Not sure if you missed previous posts but it was suggested that there would be greater opportunity to win the league if the teams in the top flight played each other only twice, home and away. The top six would then play off on a knock out basis (seeded) with the winner of the final being champions. 

I am not sure how you can argue that such a format would not create greater opportunities for others.

 

It would make no difference in terms of league placing. We might pick up more points, but the Old Firm would hammer their way through the likes of Ayr, Raith, and ICT, while we'd still drop more points to these sides than they would. You'd simply make the OF dropping points become even rarer than now.

 

I'm not against the concept of play-offs to decide winners. Other sports do it all the time. But it will never happen, so there's no sense in proposing it.

[OTT]

10 minutes ago, Mirror said:

a 20 team league could potentially mean that a team could get beat home and away against cetlic and rangers but win the other 34 games and win the league.

 

This is what we need from the league structure. The OF are too big an obstacle to overcome. We need a method that minimises their impact on everyone else so that a genuine title tilt can be put in. 

 

Can anyone have imagined Leicester winning the league if they had to play Liverpool and Man City 4 times a piece ? An utterly ridiculous proposition. 

[beerbandit]

Re the split. Its not a level playing field. On some occasions teams only get 18 home games while others get 19.

Don't like the split prefer an 18 team league.  

 

[michael_bolton]

8 minutes ago, OTT said:

 

This is what we need from the league structure. The OF are too big an obstacle to overcome. We need a method that minimises their impact on everyone else so that a genuine title tilt can be put in. 

 

Can anyone have imagined Leicester winning the league if they had to play Liverpool and Man City 4 times a piece ? An utterly ridiculous proposition. 

 

Leicester had to play Man City twice, Liverpool twice, Man Utd twice, Chelsea twice, Arsenal twice, and Spurs twice. That's twelve games against sides that massively out-budget them. We only play eight.

 

The reason we don't beat the Old Firm is not the size of the league. It's amazing so many people think it is.

[upgotheheads]

5 minutes ago, beerbandit said:

Re the split. Its not a level playing field. On some occasions teams only get 18 home games while others get 19.

Don't like the split prefer an 18 team league.  

 

 

Our league is competitive at every level . There's something at stake for every team except maybe Livingstone. 

[OTT]

1 minute ago, michael_bolton said:

 

Leicester had to play Man City twice, Liverpool twice, Man Utd twice, Chelsea twice, Arsenal twice, and Spurs twice. That's twelve games against sides that massively out-budget them. We only play eight.

 

The reason we don't beat the Old Firm is not the size of the league. It's amazing so many people think it is.

 

Games against the OF account for 24 points a season assuming you finish in the top half of the league. It plays a huge role in preventing a challenger from the rest of the league. Moving to playing each other twice would half that to just 12 points. 

 

It provides something that the current structure lacks - Hope. 

 

Nobody is talking about beating the OF, we're talking about how to restructure the league in a way which could allow for a meaningful challenge to the title. When you have a league that is utterly dwarfed by two clubs that is going to be a challenge, but its exaccerbated by having to play them every 5/6 games. Putting together any kind of meaningful run of wins becomes almost impossible - You just need to look at the last time we put a run together like we did over Dec/Jan. You need to go back several years. From memory, Aberdeen started last season reasonably well under Goodwin, then they hit Rangers and Celtic on the bounce and it killed their momentum and football is extremely momentum based as a sport, a structure which effectively kills teams momentum at least every 5/6 games will basically ensure a challenge is impossible. 

 

Playing each other 4 times a season is utter shite and I'm flabergasted anyone could look at the current league structure and think this is good enough. Its pish. It creates negative football and kills any hope of a challenge at the top end of the table. 

[OTT]

11 minutes ago, upgotheheads said:

 

Our league is competitive at every level . There's something at stake for every team except maybe Livingstone. 

 

Its the wrong sort of competitive. Teams are hyper defensive and it ruins the spectacle. Managers play each other so many times that it becomes a game of nullification, than actually having a proper go. 

[upgotheheads]

The only people who support an 18-team league are the ones who never saw it.

[michael_bolton]

9 minutes ago, OTT said:

 

Games against the OF account for 24 points a season assuming you finish in the top half of the league. It plays a huge role in preventing a challenger from the rest of the league. Moving to playing each other twice would half that to just 12 points. 

 

It provides something that the current structure lacks - Hope. 

 

Nobody is talking about beating the OF, we're talking about how to restructure the league in a way which could allow for a meaningful challenge to the title. When you have a league that is utterly dwarfed by two clubs that is going to be a challenge, but its exaccerbated by having to play them every 5/6 games. Putting together any kind of meaningful run of wins becomes almost impossible - You just need to look at the last time we put a run together like we did over Dec/Jan. You need to go back several years. From memory, Aberdeen started last season reasonably well under Goodwin, then they hit Rangers and Celtic on the bounce and it killed their momentum and football is extremely momentum based as a sport, a structure which effectively kills teams momentum at least every 5/6 games will basically ensure a challenge is impossible. 

 

Playing each other 4 times a season is utter shite and I'm flabergasted anyone could look at the current league structure and think this is good enough. Its pish. It creates negative football and kills any hope of a challenge at the top end of the table. 

 

Aberdeen fell away last season because they were a terrible team who had won games against teams who kept going down to ten men. It had nothing to do with playing the OF. They got pumped 4-0 at Tannadice too.

 

Restructure the league any way you like. The Old Firm will win. At least this way there are other things to play for.

[OTT]

7 minutes ago, upgotheheads said:

The only people who support an 18-team league are the ones who never saw it.

 

Maybe the younger generation are bored of watching the same stale and boring league. 

 

Playing each other 4 times is utter shite and most other countries having 16+ team leagues suggests its pretty accepted its a poor format. 

[Hearts_fan]

18 minutes ago, michael_bolton said:

 

Leicester had to play Man City twice, Liverpool twice, Man Utd twice, Chelsea twice, Arsenal twice, and Spurs twice. That's twelve games against sides that massively out-budget them. We only play eight.

 

The reason we don't beat the Old Firm is not the size of the league. It's amazing so many people think it is.

 

You apparently believe very deeply in what you are saying about league size having no bearing on the points gap in the final table. 

 

I think it would be useful if you could demonstrate how Hearts, for example, playing 4 games against the likes of Morton or Dunfermline instead of 4 games against Celtic and rangers would not result in us, or other teams such as Aberdeen and Hibs, accruing more points, thus narrowing the gap.

 

 

[Boozyuzi]

16 minutes ago, upgotheheads said:

The only people who support an 18-team league are the ones who never saw it.

 

 

Nobody has seen an large league with 3 points for a win and play-offs, we've never tried it.

 

My choice would be a 16 team league + make everyone play group stage of the League Cup (90 mins + penalties if required) plus the Scottish Cup (90mins + Extra Time + penalities if required) 

Edited April 3 by Boozyuzi

[Hearts_fan]

7 minutes ago, michael_bolton said:

 

Aberdeen fell away last season because they were a terrible team who had won games against teams who kept going down to ten men. It had nothing to do with playing the OF. They got pumped 4-0 at Tannadice too.

 

Restructure the league any way you like. The Old Firm will win. At least this way there are other things to play for.

 

Again you seem to think restructuring the league is about manipulating it so Celtic and rangers won’t win.

 

Nobody is suggesting a bigger league will corrupt things so rangers and Celtic will stop winning. They’ll always be up there. But mathematically, 3rd, 4th and 5th will be closer and in a much more frequent opportunity to do a Leicester – and win fairly – because the gap is inevitably smaller.

[GorgieFifeLife]

There’s not many ways to change the league to make it more interesting.  If the premise for changing the league is to break Old Firm dominance then that won’t happen.  I think relegating 2 teams automatically and 3rd bottom being involved in a playoff would help to keep it fresher with different teams coming up every year. 

[Hearts_fan]

We could do with a statistician to come on and show why 2-games is fairer than 4 when you have two giant clubs in the league. 

 

I’d enjoy seeing the “it’s the same either ways argument” absolutely torpedoed out of the water here.

 

Edited April 3 by Hearts_fan

[Dazo]

13 minutes ago, Hearts_fan said:

We could do with a statistician to come on and show why 2-games is fairer than 4 when you have two giant clubs in the league. 

 

I’d enjoy seeing the “it’s the same either ways argument” absolutely torpedoed out of the water here.

 

It would be the same in the sense the same two would compete for the championship. You don’t get any prizes for being closer. Think your torpedo is more of a used condom floating about. 

[Nookie Bear]

22 minutes ago, Hearts_fan said:

We could do with a statistician to come on and show why 2-games is fairer than 4 when you have two giant clubs in the league. 

 

I’d enjoy seeing the “it’s the same either ways argument” absolutely torpedoed out of the water here.

 

 

Would the Portuguese league be what you're looking for?

 

Only 4 teams have won that since 1934 (and one of those - Boavista - won it once)

 

Edit: Belenenses won it in 1946 as well.

Edited April 3 by Nookie Bear

[Randy Marsh]

4 minutes ago, Nookie Bear said:

 

Would the Portuguese league be what you're looking for?

 

Only 4 teams have won that since 1934 (and one of those - Boavista - won it once)

 

Edit: Belenenses won it in 1946 as well.

Dutch league might be more compareable.  I think 5 different teams have won it in the last 20 years?

[jager man]

2 hours ago, Bull's-eye said:

Not one team in the SPFL can compete at European level.

 

Thats all the evidence you need that the current set up is a failure.

 

How anybody can justify the current set up is beyond me, that includes supporters of the bigots.

 

We're playing Rangers 6 times this season, 6 ****in times. An absolute joke of a league.

Spot on. Scottish football internationally and domestic can only thrive again by a bigger league. Take away the threat of relegation to more teams in the league. These teams won't have the same fear of throwing in youngsters. These youngsters will then develop quicker and ultimately the top ones will move to England or Europe quicker. This will then help our national team in the long run.

[Bull's-eye]

As usual, most miss the point completely on here.

 

The current league setup has failed, we're not competitive at the level required to bring in outside investment that will strengthen the product on show, the only way we will ever see a competitive league is if there's significant investment.

 

The current shitshow fails season after season because nobody wants to watch it, nobody understands it and there is zero chance of a return on your investment.

 

Its a complete nonsense to suggest its the best option we have, complete nonsense.

 

 

[jager man]

2 hours ago, michael_bolton said:

 

That's an indefensible statement right from the off.

 

The league system is not why the Old Firm win. They'd win in any league size you'd like to create in Scotland.

 

The 80s are gone and they're not coming back.

So you don't think playing the old firm less increases your chances of winning the league? You don't have to be better than the old firm to win a league where you only play them twice. Beat every team home and away and lose to the old firm every game and I still think you would win the league most seasons. I know it would be hard but do you get my point?

[Nookie Bear]

2 minutes ago, Randy Marsh said:

Dutch league might be more compareable.  I think 5 different teams have won it in the last 20 years?

 

True. They have the Big 3 over there who tend to dominate.

 

From Transfermarkt:

In Holland you can see is that the Top 3 are less than twice the market value of the 4th and 5th clubs.

The old firm are 5 times the value of Hearts.

 

Double the money we have kicking around and then we may have a chance.

[DG_HMFC]

2 minutes ago, jager man said:

So you don't think playing the old firm less increases your chances of winning the league? You don't have to be better than the old firm to win a league where you only play them twice. Beat every team home and away and lose to the old firm every game and I still think you would win the league most seasons. I know it would be hard but do you get my point?

 

It's the games against the other sides in the league that give us a better chance at the league.

 

For a start, our home form this season hasn't really been good enough.

 

 

[Nookie Bear]

9 minutes ago, jager man said:

Spot on. Scottish football internationally and domestic can only thrive again by a bigger league. Take away the threat of relegation to more teams in the league. These teams won't have the same fear of throwing in youngsters. These youngsters will then develop quicker and ultimately the top ones will move to England or Europe quicker. This will then help our national team in the long run.

 

How will developing youngsters to sell off on the cheap down south help our league?

 

This sounds like an exhibition league and, ultimately, dull.

 

[jager man]

Just now, DG_HMFC said:

 

It's the games against the other sides in the league that give us a better chance at the league.

 

For a start, our home form this season hasn't really been good enough.

 

 

I'm not saying we could do it at present, but build a team on par with the 1998 or 2006 team and its possible.  In 1998 we lost the league by 7 points and only took 3 points out of a possible 12 against the old firm. It is doable but would need another great and consistent team like that.

[jager man]

5 minutes ago, Nookie Bear said:

 

How will developing youngsters to sell off on the cheap down south help our league?

 

This sounds like an exhibition league and, ultimately, dull.

 

Yeah okay. Just like the Dutch, Danish or Sweedish league. 

[DG_HMFC]

3 minutes ago, jager man said:

I'm not saying we could do it at present, but build a team on par with the 1998 or 2006 team and its possible.  In 1998 we lost the league by 7 points and only took 3 points out of a possible 12 against the old firm. It is doable but would need another great and consistent team like that.

 

Aye, we'd need to get our sh*t together and blow the other sides away like we did in '05/'06.

 

If we could do that, even with the league the way it is I think we'd have a chance because I don't think the OF are as strong, or feared, as they once were.

[Nookie Bear]

2 minutes ago, jager man said:

Yeah okay. Just like the Dutch, Danish or Sweedish league. 

 

The Danish league has an identical structure to ours but splits after two rounds of fixtures rather then 3

The |Swedish league looks better as it has 16 teams but 2 go down automatically and the 3rd bottom plays off against the 3rd place team in the league below. Statistically a higher percentage of teams in the Swedish league can go down than in Scotland (3/16 against 2/12)

 

The Dutch league seems to hit the spot although culturally they have always stood out for being a country that not only plays young players but also has a way of playing that rewards technique and, dare i say it, flair? Very different from us.

[JJ93]

2 hours ago, Mirror said:

a 20 team league could potentially mean that a team could get beat home and away against cetlic and rangers but win the other 34 games and win the league.

Exactly.

[OTT]

45 minutes ago, Nookie Bear said:

 

The Danish league has an identical structure to ours but splits after two rounds of fixtures rather then 3

The |Swedish league looks better as it has 16 teams but 2 go down automatically and the 3rd bottom plays off against the 3rd place team in the league below. Statistically a higher percentage of teams in the Swedish league can go down than in Scotland (3/16 against 2/12)

 

The Dutch league seems to hit the spot although culturally they have always stood out for being a country that not only plays young players but also has a way of playing that rewards technique and, dare i say it, flair? Very different from us.

 

Personally, I'd like to trial a system with minimal relegation. 

 

I want to see if with increased stability, teams are more likely to properly have a go and not be so defensive. 

 

I.e if we did an 18 team league, I'd like to see if 1 automatic relegation and 1 play off relegation (exactly as it is now) would mean teams like Killie, Livi, St Mirren etc. would actually try and attack and not just sit in for 90 minutes and try and hit on the break. 

[jager man]

53 minutes ago, Nookie Bear said:

 

The Danish league has an identical structure to ours but splits after two rounds of fixtures rather then 3

The |Swedish league looks better as it has 16 teams but 2 go down automatically and the 3rd bottom plays off against the 3rd place team in the league below. Statistically a higher percentage of teams in the Swedish league can go down than in Scotland (3/16 against 2/12)

 

The Dutch league seems to hit the spot although culturally they have always stood out for being a country that not only plays young players but also has a way of playing that rewards technique and, dare i say it, flair? Very different from us.

I'm not against more teams going down in Scotland but 16 teams min is a must. More teams going down would also mean more coming up obviously, so relegation wouldn't be so severe. This would also encourage teams to play with more freedom giving youth more of a chance.

[Hearts_fan]

1 hour ago, Dazo said:

It would be the same in the sense the same two would compete for the championship. You don’t get any prizes for being closer. Think your torpedo is more of a used condom floating about. 

 

 I disagree with the resistance to the theory.

 

As I’ve said above, not wanting to labour the point, but reconstructing league would not be done with the aim of corrupting it so the arse cheeks couldn’t win. Therefore idea that “the same two would still compete for the championship” doesn’t reduce the argument for change.

 

The point is the league would be more equal in terms of opportunity because the diversity of opponents would be far greater, and the consequential points disparity would naturally be less than it is presently.

 

This isn’t about engineering it so Hearts can win the league, but Hearts would undoubtedly be closer, and it would still be a level playing field*.

 

* Obviously the whole thing is not a level playing field at the moment, especially when you consider the arse cheeks effectively control the running of the game for their own collective benefits. 

 

Edited April 3 by Hearts_fan

[michael_bolton]

2 hours ago, Hearts_fan said:

 

You apparently believe very deeply in what you are saying about league size having no bearing on the points gap in the final table. 

 

I think it would be useful if you could demonstrate how Hearts, for example, playing 4 games against the likes of Morton or Dunfermline instead of 4 games against Celtic and rangers would not result in us, or other teams such as Aberdeen and Hibs, accruing more points, thus narrowing the gap.

 

 

 

Very simple. The likely outcome is that Rangers and Celtic would win all of those games while we would not.

 

We have about a century of evidence for this.

[michael_bolton]

1 hour ago, jager man said:

So you don't think playing the old firm less increases your chances of winning the league? You don't have to be better than the old firm to win a league where you only play them twice. Beat every team home and away and lose to the old firm every game and I still think you would win the league most seasons. I know it would be hard but do you get my point?

 

This would be fine if there was any chance of us beating all of the other teams. But there isn't.

 

I'm honestly not sure what people think would happen here. Rangers and Celtic would thrash these teams while we'd win most of the time, occasionally draw and get beat. Just like that happens now.

 

When did we last out-perform the Old Firm against the bottom six in any season?

[Japan Jambo]

Was ruminating the other day in the context of the Livingston discussion - setting aside the competition issues that stack this in the OF's favour and the boredom issues of perpetually playing the same few teams to what extent do we feel that having a smaller league effectively incentives a number of the weaker teams to structure their whole setup in an anti-football uber defensive manner? 

[Dazo]

28 minutes ago, Hearts_fan said:

 

 I disagree with the resistance to the theory.

 

As I’ve said above, not wanting to labour the point, but reconstructing league would not be done with the aim of corrupting it so the arse cheeks couldn’t win. Therefore idea that “the same two would still compete for the championship” doesn’t reduce the argument for change.

 

The point is the league would be more equal in terms of opportunity because the diversity of opponents would be far greater, and the consequential points disparity would naturally be less than it is presently.

 

This isn’t about engineering it so Hearts can win the league, but Hearts would undoubtedly be closer, and it would still be a level playing field*.

 

* Obviously the whole thing is not a level playing field at the moment, especially when you consider the arse cheeks effectively control the running of the game for their own collective benefits. 

 

The problem is the horse has bolted and the people who run our game will do nothing to sort it out. Other than those two leaving means nothing will change that will allows us to win the league. Best case scenario for me is to make sure we are best of the rest season on season. Everything about the club recently is suggesting that’s where we are trying to position ourselves. 

[May98]

4 hours ago, Bull's-eye said:

Not one team in the SPFL can compete at European level.

 

Thats all the evidence you need that the current set up is a failure.

 

How anybody can justify the current set up is beyond me, that includes supporters of the bigots.

 

We're playing Rangers 6 times this season, 6 ****in times. An absolute joke of a league.

Rangers literally got to the final of a European competition 3 years back.  

 

The reason other teams fail isn't because of the league format, it's because of the money of the leagues the opposition play in.  Even then we are closer, a lot closer than before, knocking out Norwegian and Swiss teams in Europe this season for example, Rangers topping a group with Betis and Sparta Prague in it.

 

A bigger league would probably suit three teams in the whole of the country - us, sheep, hibs.  The rest of the country wouldn't want to only play the bigger clubs twice a season, why would they want Ayr to come visiting instead of another bigot visit and the cash they bring?  

 

Why would TV companies put more money into a league with even more dross games than we have just now in their eyes?  There would also be around 6/7 teams with sod all to play for this time of year each season stuck in no mans land instead of the 1 or 2 just now.

 

Nice pipe dream the larger league, selfishly because it would give us a chance to get closer to the top of the table but realistically it's never going to happen just to suit a few teams.

[May98]

36 minutes ago, jager man said:

I'm not against more teams going down in Scotland but 16 teams min is a must. More teams going down would also mean more coming up obviously, so relegation wouldn't be so severe. This would also encourage teams to play with more freedom giving youth more of a chance.

Most teams have absolutely no option but to give youth a chance as it is right now.  Maybe not the teams who should be third and fourth or the top 2 but that wouldn't change with a larger league either.

[michael_bolton]

4 minutes ago, May98 said:

 

 

Why would TV companies put more money into a league with even more dross games than we have just now in their eyes?  There would also be around 6/7 teams with sod all to play for this time of year each season stuck in no mans land instead of the 1 or 2 just now.

 

 

 

This is a good point. A lot of people wanting a bigger league also want a better tv deal.

 

So, they want to have fewer Rangers v Celtic, Hearts v Celtic, Aberdeen v Hibs, etc games, and replace them with what? Raith, Partick Thistle, and Morton?

 

It would be absolute madness. Our leagues just now are quite good. All the way through the divisions. Pretty much every one of the 21 SPFL fixtures this weekend has something meaningful riding on it. It's mad that people want to give that up to fill up the top flight with dross and completely kill the second tier.

 

It would last two years tops before folk were moaning about how boring it was.

Edited April 3 by michael_bolton

[Nookie Bear]

32 minutes ago, May98 said:

Most teams have absolutely no option but to give youth a chance as it is right now.  Maybe not the teams who should be third and fourth or the top 2 but that wouldn't change with a larger league either.

Yep, it’s necessity that means young players get chances earlier. 
 

Perhaps a limit on non-Scottish qualified players in a starting XI would be of more use. 

[Hmfc1965]

3 hours ago, OTT said:

 

Maybe the younger generation are bored of watching the same stale and boring league. 

 

Playing each other 4 times is utter shite and most other countries having 16+ team leagues suggests its pretty accepted its a poor format. 

Maybe. But they'll get another stale and boring league in its place.

Combined with an overall poorer standard of game.