League restructure

[virgilhiltz]

The argument being made here's just bizarre.

 

As far as I can see, what's being said is that the smaller teams would have a greater chance of finishing closer to the Old Firm if they played them less often. If they need to play them less often to have any chance of getting close, surely they don't deserve to be near to them in the first place?

 

The whole point of a league is that the best team wins.

 

Hows it bizarre? its pure logic.

 

Current set up.

22% of points attainable for season are against Old Firm (8 games from 38).

 

18 team league

11% of points attainable for season are against old firm ( 4 games from 34).

 

more games againt the rest would give a relatively strong 3rd, 4th team opportunity to close up on top two.

 

Why do your think the old firm are vehemently opposed to changing the status quo.

[Deevers]

Sixteen team league is the way forward, with the League cup being revamped back to the section arrangement we had previously to create the additional fixtures. The present set up with the split is dreadful and benefits nobody apart from Rangers and Celtic.

 

It's not just the top league that could do with re-structuring if the SFA were to be really radical they would move to a pyramid system in Scotland involving all Junior sides and Senior sides creating as system that promotes ambition.

 

In order to prove that they had the best intentions for Scottish football the SFA would move their offices out of Glasgow in a real effort to show that they did not have a West Coast slant - that however will never happen - nor will the rest of it - so it's status quo for the foreseeable future unfortunately.

[Das Root]

I'd take a larger league and I'd get rid of the split. I'd get rid of it now as it's only there to allow for more OF derbies. Teams in the SPL are getting better, increasing the league would only improve upon that as it would open up the competition and give teams something more to play for as I agree with the OP that the OF are better off in a smaller league where there's a possibility of taking more points from their closest opposition.

 

Never going to happen though, the OF would never allow for their amount of derbies to be cut in half, as we all know that's what they play for each season.

[shaun.lawson]

There's no chance of a sixteen or eighteen team league I'm afraid: you'd never get the SPL clubs to agree to four or even eight games fewer per season. The reason the split came in in the first place is because a 10-team division was creating fear football among eight clubs - but a 12-team league would normally mean a ridiculous 44-game season.

 

So they came up with the split as a compromise. Unless we went all the way up to a 20-team league (would that really be viable?), I'm afraid we're stuck with it... unless, that is, the SPL agreed with my idea to increase to a 14-team league, play each other home and away, but split earlier (after 26 games), with the top 7 and bottom 7 then again playing each other home and away, giving you a total of 38 matches. That has the advantage of properly rewarding those clubs who make the top seven, as well as ending the current nonsense of some clubs playing 18 games at home and 20 away, which is simply unfair, and at odds with the integrity of the league.

[Makween]

But look at it another way. At present you may play 8 games in which you get eff all from the ref, thus reducing your chances of points and that's whether you are us, Aberdeen or even Gretna.

 

Reduce that to 4 in which you are directly mucked about and you may stand a better chance.

 

Of course, that's assuming refs don't influence other games too much.........

 

Do you think that everyone should play the OF more often then? What about 8 times each? Surely that would allow the stronger teams - ie the OF - an even better chance to be the deserving winners.

 

The fact is that playing everyone 4 times skews the league in favour of the strongest teams and makes everything less competitive. The top footballling countries have a league where everyone plays everyone else at home once and away once. It works and it's fair.

 

It's a bit like the cup. How often do you hear commentators saying after a lower league team has got a draw that they have had their chance? In the SPL the OF being the strongest teams are the ones that get the chance to put the one off result behind them.

 

In 2005-06 our better results at home and away against the OF were 2 wins, a draw and a defeat. Our worse results were a draw and 3 defeats. It makes a massive difference by playing the top sides 4 times. And we are probably one of the sides least affected given our normal high finishing position. It is much more unfair for the sides finishing lower down the table.

 

No I would disagree.

The debate is basically, how do we create a more competative league?

Do you use the American sport system where they effectivly skew it to force competition or do we continue with our free for all system where the richest teams ALWAYS win.

No one is saying that their ideas wouldn't result in the OF still winning most of the time but could things be changed to at least give others teams a chance?

I just don't believe that the fans, including a lot of OF fans, feel the present setup is sustainable in the long term.

 

Hows it bizarre? its pure logic.

 

Current set up.

22% of points attainable for season are against Old Firm (8 games from 38).

 

18 team league

11% of points attainable for season are against old firm ( 4 games from 34).

 

more games againt the rest would give a relatively strong 3rd, 4th team opportunity to close up on top two.

 

Why do your think the old firm are vehemently opposed to changing the status quo.

 

This is all just utterly, utterly bizzare.

 

The point of the league is that the strongest team over the course of the season wins. It isn't there to "give teams a chance". If teams can't do well enough over the course of four games against the Old Firm to finish near to them, those teams don't deserve to do so.

 

In any case, there are twenty teams in England - nice competitive league they've got...

[Das Root]

This is all just utterly, utterly bizzare.

 

The point of the league is that the strongest team over the course of the season wins. It isn't there to "give teams a chance". If teams can't do well enough over the course of four games against the Old Firm to finish near to them, those teams don't deserve to do so.

 

In any case, there are twenty teams in England - nice competitive league they've got...

 

 

 

None of the smaller teams can touch the OF in terms of spending power, so realistically they will NEVER overtake them. So you are happy to forever have the two of them bat the title back and forth Glasgow each season?

 

To me that's utterly bizarre.

[Makween]

None of the smaller teams can touch the OF in terms of spending power, so realistically they will NEVER overtake them. So you are happy to forever have the two of them bat the title back and forth Glasgow each season?

 

To me that's utterly bizarre.

 

Okay, just to answer this nonsensical argument :

 

If you were to add another four teams to the SPL, the smaller teams would all have less hard games and more easy ones.

 

If you were to add another four teams to the SPL, guess what? The Old Firm would also have less hard games and more easy ones.

 

Restructuring the league wouldn't make any difference. If a team outwith the Old Firm was good enough to win it, they could just as easily do it within the current league structure. That teams don't do so is because of a lack of resources - nothing to do with the league structure.

[Das Root]

Okay, just to answer this nonsensical argument :

 

If you were to add another four teams to the SPL, the smaller teams would all have less hard games and more easy ones.

 

If you were to add another four teams to the SPL, guess what? The Old Firm would also have less hard games and more easy ones.

 

Restructuring the league wouldn't make any difference. If a team outwith the Old Firm was good enough to win it, they could just as easily do it within the current league structure. That teams don't do so is because of a lack of resources - nothing to do with the league structure.

 

 

 

But teams closer to the OF would no longer have to play them so often and therefore lose ground so easily. There'd only be 12pts to play for with the OF per season as opposed to 24pts, so for instance if you lost all games you're only 12pts down instead of 24pts and can then make them up against other teams with greater chance of success.

 

I agree the best team should win the league but when the two top teams have far, far greater resources and most refs in their pocket other teams need what they can get to make things a bit more level.

[Makween]

But teams closer to the OF would no longer have to play them so often and therefore lose ground so easily. There'd only be 12pts to play for with the OF per season as opposed to 24pts, so for instance if you lost all games you're only 12pts down instead of 24pts and can then make them up against other teams with greater chance of success.

 

I agree the best team should win the league but when the two top teams have far, far greater resources and most refs in their pocket other teams need what they can get to make things a bit more level.

 

I'm just not buying this line of argument at all. If a team is on the level of having to view games against the Old Firm as being games where they're guaranteed to lose ground (as all the smaller teams are at the moment), they'll still not really be challenging, regardless of league structure.

[Jarhead]

Makween, I'm curious,

 

Are you happy with the present league structure?

Do you ever forsee anyone ever putting up a sustained challenge to the OF ever again?

Do you think that our setup can be improved in any way?

If yes, what would you change?

[Das Root]

I'm just not buying this line of argument at all. If a team is on the level of having to view games against the Old Firm as being games where they're guaranteed to lose ground (as all the smaller teams are at the moment), they'll still not really be challenging, regardless of league structure.

 

 

 

That's not the case but it does reduce the % against all points that the games mean. A team challenging will of course be looking to thrash the OF but will also be looking to pick up points against the lower teams as these games help build a title challenge. With more teams to play against the OF games do not matter as much in the overall season while the OF can't ensure of title victory by taking a large amount of points from their closest rivals. Instead the season is more open and teams can mount a better challenge against the OF without having to solely rely on beating them in all games played.

[Makween]

Makween, I'm curious,

 

Are you happy with the present league structure?

Do you ever forsee anyone ever putting up a sustained challenge to the OF ever again?

Do you think that our setup can be improved in any way?

If yes, what would you change?

 

Am I happy with the present league structure? Minus the ridiculous top six split, more or less. I don't think that adding in extra teams would have any effect other than lowering the overall standard still further.

 

I don't see anyone putting up a sustained challenge to the Old Firm, no - but that's because of a lack of resources, not the league structure. No-one can afford to.

 

As mentioned earlier, I'd get rid of the split.

 

That's not the case but it does reduce the % against all points that the games mean. A team challenging will of course be looking to thrash the OF but will also be looking to pick up points against the lower teams as these games help build a title challenge. With more teams to play against the OF games do not matter as much in the overall season while the OF can't ensure of title victory by taking a large amount of points from their closest rivals. Instead the season is more open and teams can mount a better challenge against the OF without having to solely rely on beating them in all games played.

 

I still don't think that it'd make a difference. The Old Firm'd have more easy games, too - if a team was good enough to challenge them, having to play each other less would benefit the Old Firm just as much as it would them.

 

If the amount of teams in the league was reduced, you'd maybe see a slight reduction in the gap between the Old Firm and the rest in terms of points, but it'd be misleading and the other team still wouldn't really be challenging.

 

In the current SPL, it's a moot point as no-one looks like becoming an outstanding candidate to move ahead of the pack in any case.

[shaun.lawson]

I agree with a lot of what Makween has said. Bear in mind too that in a greatly expanded league, you'd surely end up with a load of ridiculous scorelines when Rantic met, say, Ross County or Clyde - and I'm not convinced it would reduce the gap between the OF and the rest anyway. In terms of points/game, our best season in recent times wasn't 85/6, 05/6 or 97/8: actually, it was 91/2. If three points for a win had been awarded, we'd have accrued an excellent 90 points from 44 matches - yet would still have been miles behind Champions Rangers! Indeed, looking over the past few decades, what's noticeable is that the league was tighter when fewer sides were involved, not more.

 

I do get the point Das Root is making as well, though. I think for Hearts fans, we all tend to think of 97/8: when we were invariably better at picking off the 'other seven' than the OF, yet still came up short because of our results in the eight crunch matches. But in truth, we were never quite good enough to win the title that year - our squad wasn't strong enough, and we leaked too many goals - and essentially, our failures against the gruesomes simply underlined that fact. If we'd been good enough, we'd have picked up enough points regardless; but we weren't, so we didn't.

 

In any case, you have to think we're now set forever for a system whereby the OF continue to play each other four times a season - and just as the likes of Newcastle, Spurs, Everton, Villa etc will surely never win the EPL again, so I'm resigned to the reality that no non-OF club will ever win the Scottish title again either. If you don't accept this, look at pretty much every league across Europe: they're all dominated by the same few clubs, and always will be too. Money talks louder in football now than ever - and because of the massive disadvantages we all face in comparison with the OF (not to mention the Champions League money they rake in), no matter what the league system is, I'm afraid we'll keep getting the same outcome.

 

Only when (not if) a European Super League is set up, and the OF leave for good (or continue to play reserve sides in a Scottish setup), will we be able to think seriously about raising the league flag at Tynie again.

[John Findlay]

The Scottish league came into being in 1891 that is now 117yrs ago.

 

Now study and see which two teams have ran away with it more than the others combinded regardless of the format of said league.

 

When both Hearts and Hibs had their purple patches in the late 40s to the very early 60s. The one thing that was common was there there was a maximum wage in force so all clubs could only pay a top wack of ?20pw.

 

When Jimmy Hill got this abolished at the start of the 60s it took 5 yrs to filter through to the richest. So see who have won the league since 1965/66 compared to the rest. I will telly you. Aberdeen, Celtic, Dundee United(once, which considering the size of club they really are was a very remarkable achievement), and Rangers.

 

 

 

John

[Jarhead]

I agree with a lot of what Makween has said. Bear in mind too that in a greatly expanded league, you'd surely end up with a load of ridiculous scorelines when Rantic met, say, Ross County or Clyde - and I'm not convinced it would reduce the gap between the OF and the rest anyway. In terms of points/game, our best season in recent times wasn't 85/6, 05/6 or 97/8: actually, it was 91/2. If three points for a win had been awarded, we'd have accrued an excellent 90 points from 44 matches - yet would still have been miles behind Champions Rangers! Indeed, looking over the past few decades, what's noticeable is that the league was tighter when fewer sides were involved, not more.

 

I do get the point Das Root is making as well, though. I think for Hearts fans, we all tend to think of 97/8: when we were invariably better at picking off the 'other seven' than the OF, yet still came up short because of our results in the eight crunch matches. But in truth, we were never quite good enough to win the title that year - our squad wasn't strong enough, and we leaked too many goals - and essentially, our failures against the gruesomes simply underlined that fact. If we'd been good enough, we'd have picked up enough points regardless; but we weren't, so we didn't.

 

In any case, you have to think we're now set forever for a system whereby the OF continue to play each other four times a season - and just as the likes of Newcastle, Spurs, Everton, Villa etc will surely never win the EPL again, so I'm resigned to the reality that no non-OF club will ever win the Scottish title again either. If you don't accept this, look at pretty much every league across Europe: they're all dominated by the same few clubs, and always will be too. Money talks louder in football now than ever - and because of the massive disadvantages we all face in comparison with the OF (not to mention the Champions League money they rake in), no matter what the league system is, I'm afraid we'll keep getting the same outcome.

 

Only when (not if) a European Super League is set up, and the OF leave for good (or continue to play reserve sides in a Scottish setup), will we be able to think seriously about raising the league flag at Tynie again.

 

That's fair answers from yourself and Makween.

I would happen to agree that no matter the size of the league the OF will still dominate.

I would also agree that nothing will change until there is a European super league, and I can see that happening eventually.

However I refuse to believe that there is nothing we can do in the meantime to reduce the gap between the OF and everyone else. It's a pretty depresing thought that the best we can expect is a fluky season like 98 or 06 with 3rd really the best we can reasonably get.

[virgilhiltz]

I'm just not buying this line of argument at all. If a team is on the level of having to view games against the Old Firm as being games where they're guaranteed to lose ground (as all the smaller teams are at the moment), they'll still not really be challenging, regardless of league structure.

 

I cannot believe how stupid you are and that I have to resort to this explantion to get the point through.

 

Lets take it to the extremes.

Lets for example say that we played Gretna every week, for 38 games.

How many points would we acrue.

 

On the other side of the coin, if we played Rangers and Celtic alternatively every week, how many points?.....mmmn less than the scenario of playing Gretna every week?

 

So the bottom line is, the less games you play against the old firm, the more points you are likely to achieve?.......

 

Am sorry but i hope this explains the logic, cause if it doesnt.......

[Makween]

I cannot believe how stupid you are and that I have to resort to this explantion to get the point through.

 

Lets take it to the extremes.

Lets for example say that we played Gretna every week, for 38 games.

How many points would we acrue.

 

On the other side of the coin, if we played Rangers and Celtic alternatively every week, how many points?.....mmmn less than the scenario of playing Gretna every week?

 

So the bottom line is, the less games you play against the old firm, the more points you are likely to achieve?.......

 

Am sorry but i hope this explains the logic, cause if it doesnt.......

 

I've answered your point already. I'll do it again, though, 'cause I'm nice like that.

 

If the smaller teams played less games against the Old Firm, they'd quite possibly get more points. Then again, the Old Firm would have less difficult games, so they'd also get more points.

 

If one of the smaller teams was to put together a side that was as good as or better than the Old Firm, they'd not be put at a disadvantage by playing against them more often. Avoidance of the Old Firm as a means of lowering the points difference would defeat the whole purpose.

[Dr Ian Malcolm]

By playing their closest challenegers 4x a season, the OF have more opportunity to take points off them. By playing them only twice, any points they do drop are more significant as they don't have another 3 games to "put them back in their place". For example, just now beating either of the OF once maybe twice out of 8 attempts isn't going to do much in the way of getting close to them. Beating them once/twice out of four attempts would have much more of an impact.

 

Imagine Chelsea, Utd, Arsenal & Liverpool played the rest 4 x per season - they'd be even farther ahead than the OF are up here just now.

[WagonWheel]

I'd be in favour of an expanded league purely on the basis that I hate the OF and all the baggage that goes with them. Two less games each would be just fine by me.

 

As for losing revenue, I think as some posters have mentioned the actual drop might be sustainable. Stats might prove me wrong, but I don't think the OF travel in as great a number as they used to? (Not just to us.) And a successful home team can always decrease their allocation like we have. (And they've done to us.)

 

Beat them at home, lose away and you've even Steven points-wise. More or less match the results against the (so called) 'lesser' sides and the gap narrows. Get some momentum going and who knows.

 

The OF can use the 'meaningless games' to rest some of their prima donnas for Champions League action instead of greetin' about getting the games called off.

 

Somethings got to be worth a try.

[Makween]

By playing their closest challenegers 4x a season, the OF have more opportunity to take points off them. By playing them only twice, any points they do drop are more significant as they don't have another 3 games to "put them back in their place".

 

Imagine Chelsea, Utd, Arsenal & Liverpool played the rest 4 x per season - they'd be even farther ahead than the OF are up here just now.

 

The Old Firm would only "put them back in their place" if they were better than them to start with.

 

Even if the points difference did drop - which might well happen - it'd be highly misleading. If the Old Firm were still so much better than their challengers that extra games against them were to be seen as nothing more than a way of increasing the gap (as opposed to a chance for the challengers to catch up), any lessening of the gap would be a false economy.

 

I realise that I'm being a bit of a stuck record here - to be fair, no-one else is really saying anything new either

[virgilhiltz]

I've answered your point already. I'll do it again, though, 'cause I'm nice like that.

 

If the smaller teams played less games against the Old Firm, they'd quite possibly get more points. Then again, the Old Firm would have less difficult games, so they'd also get more points.

 

If one of the smaller teams was to put together a side that was as good as or better than the Old Firm, they'd not be put at a disadvantage by playing against them more often. Avoidance of the Old Firm as a means of lowering the points difference would defeat the whole purpose.

 

ExampleA

Theres a 3 team league, us, rangers and Gretna, and we play each other 4 times per seaon.

Both us and rangers win all our games against Gretna and we lose all our games against Rangers

 

points total for season:

 

Rangers : 24

Us: 12

Gretna: Z0

 

Example B

We now revert to two game scenario per season with an additional 2 teams Hobos and Sheep.

Again we win all our games against Gretna, Hobos and Dons as do Rangers but we lose all our games against Rangers.

Gretna beat Hobos and Dons twice and Dons Gub Hobos twice.

 

Points total for season:

 

Rangers : 24

Us : 18

Gretna 12

Dons 6

Hibs 0

 

The points difference between 1st and second is 12 & 6 respectively for A & B.

Now heres the good bit.

In both examples we happen to win one of our games against Rangers.......

New league totals are:

 

Example A:

Rangers : 21

Us: 15

Gretna 0

 

Example B

Rangers : 21

Us : 21

Gretna 12

Dons 6

Hibs 0

Now we are level on points, and as a matter of fact we have a better goal diff as we hamered Hobos 5-1, therefore the actual league reads like;

 

Example B

Hearts : 21 (Champions!!)

Rangers : 21

Gretna 12

Dons 6

Hibs 0

 

In both examples there are 24 points to play for, however in example A 50% of our points are against Rangers.

 

In example B 25% of our games are against Rangers.

Rangers lose one game in both scenarios to us, but in example B we end up as champions.

 

Now please explain to me how the above does not register with you.

[Walter Payton]

ExampleA

Theres a 3 team league, us, rangers and Gretna, and we play each other 4 times per seaon.

Both us and rangers win all our games against Gretna and we lose all our games against Rangers

 

points total for season:

 

Rangers : 24

Us: 12

Gretna: Z0

 

Example B

We now revert to two game scenario per season with an additional 2 teams Hobos and Sheep.

Again we win all our games against Gretna and Hobos as do Rangers and we lose all our games against Rangers and Gretna beat Hobos and Dons twice and Dons Gub Hobos twice.

 

Points total for season:

 

Rangers : 24

Us : 18

Gretna 12

Dons 6

Hibs 0

 

The points difference between 1st and second is 12 & 6 respectively for A & B.

Now heres the good bit.

In both examples we happen to win one of our games against Rangers.......

New league totals are:

 

Example A:

Rangers : 21

Us: 15

Gretna 0

 

Example B

Rangers : 21

Us : 21

Gretna 12

Dons 6

Hibs 0

Now we are level on points, and as a matter of fact we have a better goal diff as we hamered Hobos 5-1, therefore the actual league reads like;

 

Example B

Hearts : 21 (Champions!!)

Rangers : 21

Gretna 12

Dons 6

Hibs 0

 

In both examples there are 24 points to play for, however in example A 50% of our points are against Rangers.

 

In example B 25% of our games are against Rangers.

Rangers lose one game in both scenarios to us, but in example B we end up as champions.

 

Now please explain to me how the above does not register with you.

 

I think Makween understands what you're saying, but I think he also raises a reasonable question in whether it would be the best way to format the league. If we remove the maroon goggles and forget that we'd all love Hearts to win the league, we need to remember that the point of a league is to see who's the best team.

 

Yes, a bigger league would eradicate the advantage the OF have of being better teams by reducing their opportunity of emphasising their better ability than their nearest competitors. The whole point of a league though is to find the team with the most footballing ability, not give supporters of smaller clubs the chance of seeing their team win it.

 

I'd love to see Hearts win the league and if league reconstruction would help that then I'm all for it. The fact remains though that more games against fewer teams is still the fairest way of finding the team with the most ability among them.

[virgilhiltz]

I think Makween understands what you're saying, but I think he also raises a reasonable question in whether it would be the best way to format the league. If we remove the maroon goggles and forget that we'd all love Hearts to win the league, we need to remember that the point of a league is to see who's the best team.

 

Yes, a bigger league would eradicate the advantage the OF have of being better teams by reducing their opportunity of emphasising their better ability than their nearest competitors. The whole point of a league though is to find the team with the most footballing ability, not give supporters of smaller clubs the chance of seeing their team win it.

 

I'd love to see Hearts win the league and if league reconstruction would help that then I'm all for it. The fact remains though that more games against fewer teams is still the fairest way of finding the team with the most ability among them.

 

I would argue that the point of the league is also to make it competitive.

More teams competing for the title would add interest to the fans of all sides in the competition.

More fans, more advertisers, more advertisers, more television.

[Walter Payton]

I would argue that the point of the league is also to make it competitive.

More teams competing for the title would add interest to the fans of all sides in the competition.

More fans, more advertisers, more advertisers, more television.

 

I would like it to be competitive- the point of a competition though IMO is to find who's the best, and the "fairest" competitions will be structured in a way that encourages the best to rise to the top. I don't think you can call the OFs increased resources an "unfair" advantage (though I don't like the reasons behind it) but the GFA syndrome definitely is. Two wrongs don't make a right though and IMO the current structure is the better way of finding the best football team. Doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see reconstruction though!

[virgilhiltz]

I would like it to be competitive- the point of a competition though IMO is to find who's the best, and the "fairest" competitions will be structured in a way that encourages the best to rise to the top. I don't think you can call the OFs increased resources an "unfair" advantage (though I don't like the reasons behind it) but the GFA syndrome definitely is. Two wrongs don't make a right though and IMO the current structure is the better way of finding the best football team. Doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see reconstruction though!

 

Ok so in example B, even though Rangers might be the better team, we end up as champions and therefoer in your eyes unjust champions because The Best team has not had the opportunity to bludgeon their closest challengers by playing them more often?

 

How could we be deemed unworthy champions?

 

Rangers might be the better team and yes you are right the more times you play them, over a period of time they will come out on top with more wins, but it is this scenario that makes it unlikely for a team to be competitve unless the individual reward for each victory is reduced in comparison to the overall total for the season.

 

Example B is the model used by the most competitve leagues in Europe, if its good enough for them then we should follow suit.

[Walter Payton]

Ok so in example B, even though Rangers might be the better team, we end up as champions and therefoer in your eyes unjust champions because The Best team has not had the opportunity to bludgeon their closest challengers by playing them more often?

 

How could we be deemed unworthy champions?

 

Rangers might be the better team and yes you are right the more times you play them, over a period of time they will come out on top with more wins, but it is this scenario that makes it unlikely for a team to be competitve unless the individual reward for each victory is reduced in comparison to the overall total for the season.

 

Example B is the model used by the most competitve leagues in Europe, if its good enough for them then we should follow suit.

 

We would be unjust champions because, as you admitted, Rangers would have been the better team and not finished top of the league. If you remove your emotive language like "bludgeoned" and replace it with "outplayed" your argument would seem a lot weaker. As I've said (and Makween before me) already, I'd love to see a more competitive league. It's just not true though to try and argue that an expanded league would be fairer or produce a more "true" champion. If you want to see who is genuinely the best, the current league format is better.

[virgilhiltz]

We would be unjust champions because, as you admitted, Rangers would have been the better team and not finished top of the league. If you remove your emotive language like "bludgeoned" and replace it with "outplayed" your argument would seem a lot weaker. As I've said (and Makween before me) already, I'd love to see a more competitive league. It's just not true though to try and argue that an expanded league would be fairer or produce a more "true" champion. If you want to see who is genuinely the best, the current league format is better.

 

Profoundly disagree.

More teams introduces a wider range of competitor and other factors which would make a champion of such a league far more worthy than a champion of a 2-horse race.

 

By your reasoning the EPL would be better if it was reduced to 4 teams, and the SPL reduced to 2 .

Utter tosh.

[Dr Ian Malcolm]

I understand what Makween is saying, but surely part of the reason the Old Firm are contunually better than the rest is the lack of competition. They continually bitch about not having enough of a challenge domestically affecting them in Europe, so lets make it more of a challenge and see how they respond.

 

The situation is just now that you can consistantly beat the "lesser" sides but will never win the league as even a few good results against the Old Firm isn't enough to get close to them due to the fact that you still need to play them for another 6 points. They have the bigger squads of mostly better players so can cope far more than the rest. As you said, 9 times out of ten, they're going to come out on top with the resources available. They're at a massive advantage because of that - lessen the amoutn of times you play them then there's more chance those with less resources can make more of an impact with good results against them.

 

You still need to go out and actually beat them and if they still come out on top, fair enough, but as it stands, the more chances they get to utilise those resources in order to keep challengers at a distance, the less competitive it is.

[colingwood]

I am a supporter of a 16 team top league/division and always have been. My reasons for this are solely because it seems to me to be the optimum number for football reasons. I have my doubts about making the league any more competitive or disrupting the OF hegemony but what the hell! I am a bit puzzled though about the assertions that the OF would oppose this move. I can find no evidence of this although if someone can post a link I would be grateful. I have a vague memory of the OF being unhappy with the set up we have now and arguing for a larger league. I have an equally vague recollection of the other teams pressing for 4 OF games at home for financial reasons. I cant see Hearts being happy with any proposal to return to a 50-50 split of gate money far less the OF. In truth I would find it hard to come up with a respectable and legal argument to force clubs to part with ST money and again relying on an increasingly fallible memory I think home clubs were always entitled to hold onto St cash, even in the old Scottish League Div 1. There may be an argument that visiting clubs get to keep their ticket sales or split non ST cash but I can think of various arguments against from virtually all clubs. Anyway lets get to a 16 team league or at least end this ridiculous split where, uniquely in the world of soccer, it is guaranteed that clubs will not have an identical programn of matches.

[Guest juvehearts]

Do you want to know the real reason why we are in the current state of affair we are in today?

simply put we all voted in favor of a new 12 team league that was separate from the SFL.

the SPL is a completely different league governed by a different body & not very closely monitored by its own FA. hell it can at the end of the season say to the winner of the 1st division, you're no coming up. & the SFL could say well were no letting you in to the League cup. (they would never say that as they need the money)

 

the funny thing is that the SFA have complete authority over 1 tournament in scotland.................. The Scottish FA cup, the SPL governs the SPL, the SFL governs the lower leagues & the League cup & the League Challenge cup.

 

thats why rangers & Celtic are so successful.

 

its all our own doing, either put up with what we've got or go & support Raith or Dunfermline, nothing is going to change anytime soon, were legally binded to a contract with the SPL for 10 years. I think 4 years left still to go.

 

personally Scottish Football is a shambles has been since this break away from the 12 teams. it should be all brought back under the FA rule governed by them & run by someone that is not biased to any Scottish club (i.e) an Englishman!

 

their should be 2 top 16/18 team leagues with the highland & junior leagues in a pyramid system in place so any team in Scotland can gain promotion to the premiership & have a chance of winning that league & gaining entry into the Champions league.

 

the Scottish cup should now remain as it is with every club in Scotland right down to a pub team being able to challenge for it & the league cup re-drafted to a KO stage until the semi-final where their should be a 2 legged match home & away to play the winner at Hampden.

 

IMHO the SFA should be moved out of Glasgow & put where their is only 1 team in that city (Aberdeen) where each club votes every season for the president of the FA.

 

This has much chance of happening as Scotland gaining Independence form the UK, so read what you want about it.

[pennantjambo]

A two team SPL like it is just now with the bigot brothers playing themselves 34 times in a season. (because lets face it to them no-one else matters)

 

followed by a 16 team 1st division playing each other home and away with the prize being the UEFA cup place to the winner. TV highlights only and all games played on a saturday at 3pm, the bottom club relegated and second bottom playing second top in the 2nd div in a play-off

 

keep the CIS and the Scottish Cup for all clubs so that the bigots get a chance to play with the rest.

 

Yes?

[jambone]

Never going to happen though, the OF would never allow for their amount of derbies to be cut in half, as we all know that's what they play for each season.

 

Lets have two leagues. The old firm can have one of their own and play each other 38 times a season. Or p$ss off to england.

[JT1]

A few ideas that are not exactly rocket science ...

 

1 Scrap the split.

 

2 Play each other 1 x home + 1 x away.

 

3 Expand the SPL to include more derby matches for smaller clubs.

 

4 Make the "Irn Bru" league regional.

 

5 All league games on a Saturday at 3PM.

 

6 Limited TV games at 1230 on Saturdays.

 

7 Merge both cups. Play, unseeded , to finish , midweek , over the season.

 

8 Only cup winner + highest ranked SPL team gets UEFA cup place.

 

9 2up/2down for each division.

 

10 Even split of TV cash.

 

11 Split gate receipts 80/20.

 

12 No official to officiate a team they support - or rivals!

 

13 Reinstate all derbys on the same day.

 

14 Reinstate New Year derbys.

 

15 2-week break around xmas [break + catchup outstanding games].

 

Sorry for rant folks - that should cover everything lol.

[virgilhiltz]

Notice Jeffries in this mornings papers shouting for the current set-up to be scrapped in favour of a bigger league.

 

Surely the added advantage of having 4 games less, with an 18 team league, is another benefit given the fixture backlog we are currently experiencing.

[Gigolo-Aunt]

Notice Jeffries in this mornings papers shouting for the current set-up to be scrapped in favour of a bigger league.

 

Surely the added advantage of having 4 games less, with an 18 team league, is another benefit given the fixture backlog we are currently experiencing.

 

 

 

Game wise it would be for the best. However, IMO the league as it is is very poor quality wise with teams thinking top 6 is an achievement - not sure adding more teams will do anything for the league myself.