Martin_T Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Amongst all this talk of league re-construction of late, I have come to the realisation that I actually quite like the SPL split. It maintains interest in the middle of the table, so in effect creates a league where there is still interest in mid-table towards the end of the season. It also means teams involved in the race for European spots (and the relegation battle) are playing head to head games against one another, creating further interest. Any other closet split fans willing to come out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Merse Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 I think it's the best of the poor options available to us. Certainly not as bad as some make out that's for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboRossi79 Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 I know we're in the minority but I have always said I liked the split as it is great when it works i.e. the teams end up playing the teams they are fighting against for relegation, Europe etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alwaysthereinspirit Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Stupidest thing ever. JMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinmaroon Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 It's not nearly as bad as some say! As long as your in the top six! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 I too like the split. It is a nice compromise between the tedium of meaningless games in the old 18 club league and the tightness and repetitiveness of the 10 club format. I've never understood why people who find the split an abomination as a distortion of the principle of a league competition are often keen on play-offs, which represent a far greater distortion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Templeton'sUnderpants Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 I find it ridiculous. You need to accept one of two things. 1. The split shows the great vision in scottish football and every other league around the world has failed to notice this incredible opportunity. 2. The split is gash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bighusref Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Terrible IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinmaroon Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Hammill has had an absolute shocker!!! Time for Crawley Town!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portobellojambo1 Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Terrible IMO. Agree, absolutely ridiculous idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Merse Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Agree, absolutely ridiculous idea. Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davemclaren Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 If we are to have a split then let's engineer it to ensure equal home and away games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergio Garcia Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Another split fan here. Creates interest in middle of season and means you play the team you are directly competing against Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylaw Hearts Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 I don't mind it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romanov Stole My Pension Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Yep I like it too. Scottish football isn't exactly the greatest league in the world, but I think the format of the league takes far too much blame for it. If there are any changes to the format of the league I guarantee in 3/4 years time people will be asking for changes again. The way it is at the moment we get at least 3 derbies per season (unless the hibs go down) and playing the other top 5 teams at the end of the season means that European positions can change very quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wibble Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 I started the same thread a few weeks ago. There are a fair few quiet folk who don't mind the split at all. Last season was gash for Hearts, but making the top six gave us plenty to talk about from November onwards. Without that we'd have had absolutely nothing to go for and had little to interest us for 2/3rds of the season. I'd say that JJ used the motivation of a top six finish to get the team performing and that period allowed him to prepare the team for this season. In a league that is done and dusted for top spot and second before Christmas every year (this year is an anomaly) you need to look at some other reason for teams to feel that remaining competitive is important. The split does that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Templeton'sUnderpants Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Ok, day before the split we are equal on points with 6th but because of goal difference are in 7th. Despite this we are 3 points off of a european spot. The split good or bad. Discuss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guess The Crowd Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 The split is fine, it wrongly gets the blame for everything that's bad in the game. Its main purpose as I recall (copied from Switzerland I think) was to enable - 12 teams in the league (the best number imho) - 38 games (rather than 33 which is too few, or 44 which is too many) Additionally, as others have said, it makes life marginally more interesting in the middle of the league (games from January onward would be far far more tedious with a 16-team or 18-team league). Apart from anything else the split happens something like 85% through the season - if you're not in the top 6 after 33 games, you don't deserve to be. So 7th finishing with more points than 6th - irrelevant, doesn't matter. Plenty things wrong with Scottish football, but the split's not one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Das Root Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 It's nonsense. Just another gimmick from the clowns in charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Brightside Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Don't mind it in principle as it generates a bit of excitement about who is going to be top 6. However the fixtures never seem to even themselves out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronJambo Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 i think the split is horrendous. how we can have a league set-up where the clubs don't play the same fixtures is still beyond me. the top six clubs don't even play the same fixtures. say, rangers playing aberdeen twice at home and once away is probably 2 or 3 points saved for them. we all have bogey teams and bogey grounds, we should all have to play at the same places against the same teams the same amount of times. its how a league is supposed to work. the split manipulates the system badly. how would you feel about the split if we end up at darkheid or hunbrox 3 times this season (or anywhere 3 times) and it contributes to costing us 1st or 2nd place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frankblack Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 i think the split is horrendous. how we can have a league set-up where the clubs don't play the same fixtures is still beyond me. the top six clubs don't even play the same fixtures. say, rangers playing aberdeen twice at home and once away is probably 2 or 3 points saved for them. we all have bogey teams and bogey grounds, we should all have to play at the same places against the same teams the same amount of times. its how a league is supposed to work. the split manipulates the system badly. how would you feel about the split if we end up at darkheid or hunbrox 3 times this season (or anywhere 3 times) and it contributes to costing us 1st or 2nd place? Exactly, I'm sure we were done out of a place in Europe one season with 3 visits to Ibrox and one at Tynie. Total farce of a system. The top or bottom six are only competitive where there is something to play for e.g. if you are 5th or 6th and a long way from 3rd or 4th. Likewise, the bottom six fixtures are completely meaningless to those that are well clear of the relegation place. Also, its technically possible that the 7th placed team could lose out of a place in the top six on goal difference but might have won more games in the top six than the 6th placed team - it might even be mathematically possible (in theory) to have qualified for Europe. For those that like the split: How would you feel if we lost out by a point or a goal for a place in the top six when Europe could still have been reachable? Did you enjoy the games against the likes of St. Mirren in the bottom six under Stevie Frail? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mre Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 I dont think it is the split per se that is the problem, more the imbalance of home v away fixtures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Dover Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Exactly, I'm sure we were done out of a place in Europe one season with 3 visits to Ibrox and one at Tynie. Total farce of a system. The top or bottom six are only competitive where there is something to play for e.g. if you are 5th or 6th and a long way from 3rd or 4th. Likewise, the bottom six fixtures are completely meaningless to those that are well clear of the relegation place. Also, its technically possible that the 7th placed team could lose out of a place in the top six on goal difference but might have won more games in the top six than the 6th placed team - it might even be mathematically possible (in theory) to have qualified for Europe. For those that like the split: How would you feel if we lost out by a point or a goal for a place in the top six when Europe could still have been reachable? Did you enjoy the games against the likes of St. Mirren in the bottom six under Stevie Frail? I'm sure JKB would have been in meltdown if we'd been DENIED our rightful place in the top 6...............however we've either been in it OR out of it PURELY on merit I'd say. Granted there may come a day when we lose out in a top 6 nailbiter at Darkhead or Hunbrox but until then I'll defend it's good points, which can be 1) the nailbiting struggle to make 'the cut' and 2) the 5 top flight games that follow ! Plus I think the 1st stage of 33 games pretty much places you where you belong in the scheme of things? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydug Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Amongst all this talk of league re-construction of late, I have come to the realisation that I actually quite like the SPL split. It maintains interest in the middle of the table, so in effect creates a league where there is still interest in mid-table towards the end of the season. It also means teams involved in the race for European spots (and the relegation battle) are playing head to head games against one another, creating further interest. Any other closet split fans willing to come out? I wouldn't say I was a fan of the split but the trouble is there just does not seem to be a sensible alternative to the league setup that we have at the moment. When we had an 18 team league it was a case of too many wee teams in the league who's sole purpose in life was to stay in the league to live off the bigger clubs.It was a very boring league with too many meaningless matches. If you were halfway down the league and out of the cup in January that was your season finished.One only has too take a look at the excellent London Hearts website too see how poor the crowds were for games against the sort of clubs who thankfully now languish in the first and second divisions of Scottish football. The games against the clubs of a similar standing to ourselves plus the old firm, attracted decent crowds and that is why the Premium League was formed .The idea was to keep the fans interest up until the end of the season.For the most part it has worked, there is some kind of interest in the league up till the end of the season due to the fact that roughly half the teams in the league are in with a chance of some kind of reward whether it be the title for the old firm or european places for the others.The relegation battle takes care of the lesser klights and they too have something to play for. We should be careful what we wish for history may well be the best indicator in this case. The simple truth is we dont have enough well supported teams in Scotland to make a 18 team league competitive. Another thing to think about is the last five games of the season who would you rather watch Celtic, Rangers, Aberdeen, Hibs, Dundee utd and possibly Motherwell or some some team from the first division with no ambition but to stay in the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fozzyonthefence Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 The split is the most ridiculous thing this league has ever done - totally against the concept of a fair league when even all the teams in the bottom half or the top half don't have the same fixture list as their rivals - what kind of a league is that? One where some teams play 18 games at home and 20 away, some play 18 at home and 20 away, some play their rivals 3 times at home and 1 away or 1 at home & 3 away. Therefore, league titles, relegation & European places can effectively be decided by advantages or disadvantages gained by certain teams. If the league is exciting it is despite the split, not because of it. If the title race, European spots or relegation place is close then it will be close whether we have a split or not - it's irrelevant. As to making the middle of the table exciting around maybe the 30 - 33 game mark, personally if we are fighting for 6th place, I couldn't really give a flying one whether we finish 6th, 7th or 8th so no excitement for me there. In short - it's a fecking farce & nobody can say otherwise. I'd rather have a 10 team league if that is the only alternative - at least every team has the same fixture list so it is fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Merse Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 The main reason behind people disliking the split is because of the fixture imbalance. Does that mean more people would be behind the 14 team league is more palatable as the imbalance is lessened? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guess The Crowd Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Exactly, I'm sure we were done out of a place in Europe one season with 3 visits to Ibrox and one at Tynie. Total farce of a system. The top or bottom six are only competitive where there is something to play for e.g. if you are 5th or 6th and a long way from 3rd or 4th. Likewise, the bottom six fixtures are completely meaningless to those that are well clear of the relegation place. Also, its technically possible that the 7th placed team could lose out of a place in the top six on goal difference but might have won more games in the top six than the 6th placed team - it might even be mathematically possible (in theory) to have qualified for Europe. For those that like the split: How would you feel if we lost out by a point or a goal for a place in the top six when Europe could still have been reachable? Did you enjoy the games against the likes of St. Mirren in the bottom six under Stevie Frail? Is that not pretty much what happened, though, in 07/08? We lost a top 6 place by a very narrow margin to Aberdeen, who ended up coming 4th, and could even have been 3rd. No complaints though. We ended up playing against St Mirren because we weren't good enough over 33 games, not through any fault in the system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoked-Glass Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 one of the problems with the split is you don't get a team about to win the league playing a team about to get relegated in the last few games. That is an exciting game. i.e hamilton v rangers last game of season Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Merse Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 one of the problems with the split is you don't get a team about to win the league playing a team about to get relegated in the last few games. That is an exciting game. i.e hamilton v rangers last game of season Fair point. But increases the likelihood of teams all but playing off for relegation on the last day of the season as has happened the last two years. Albeit the matches were utter guff but that's nothing to do with the format just the standard of the players being atrocious. And obviously with it always being the fecking Old Firm winning the league and the police not allowing a "title-decider" that takes away a bit of the excitement on that front if teams were playing off for the title. If it was an Old Firm team and another going for it then good chance of an exciting end of season match. Or if there was Old firm + another going for it towards end of season it'd be better. End of the day the OF domination is the problem and I'm not sure whatever format the league takes will be able to take this away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guess The Crowd Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 The split is the most ridiculous thing this league has ever done - totally against the concept of a fair league when even all the teams in the bottom half or the top half don't have the same fixture list as their rivals - what kind of a league is that? One where some teams play 18 games at home and 20 away, some play 18 at home and 20 away, some play their rivals 3 times at home and 1 away or 1 at home & 3 away. Therefore, league titles, relegation & European places can effectively be decided by advantages or disadvantages gained by certain teams. If the league is exciting it is despite the split, not because of it. If the title race, European spots or relegation place is close then it will be close whether we have a split or not - it's irrelevant. As to making the middle of the table exciting around maybe the 30 - 33 game mark, personally if we are fighting for 6th place, I couldn't really give a flying one whether we finish 6th, 7th or 8th so no excitement for me there. In short - it's a fecking farce & nobody can say otherwise. I'd rather have a 10 team league if that is the only alternative - at least every team has the same fixture list so it is fair. I take all your points, but I think you're exaggerating the impact. Name me a season when the wrong team won the league, the wrong team got into Europe, the wrong team got into the top 6, or the wrong team got relegated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2NaFish Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 i dont mind the split, it serves a purpose. those who dislike it usually just say its ridiculous or silly but it goes some way to removing the tedium of an OF-centric league. to be against it cos it is 'not the way things should be done' is a poor argument anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacDonald Jardine Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Exactly, I'm sure we were done out of a place in Europe one season with 3 visits to Ibrox and one at Tynie. Total farce of a system. The top or bottom six are only competitive where there is something to play for e.g. if you are 5th or 6th and a long way from 3rd or 4th. Likewise, the bottom six fixtures are completely meaningless to those that are well clear of the relegation place. Also, its technically possible that the 7th placed team could lose out of a place in the top six on goal difference but might have won more games in the top six than the 6th placed team - it might even be mathematically possible (in theory) to have qualified for Europe. For those that like the split: How would you feel if we lost out by a point or a goal for a place in the top six when Europe could still have been reachable? Did you enjoy the games against the likes of St. Mirren in the bottom six under Stevie Frail? I don't understand this point. It might be the case that a team not in the top 6 would have won more games but they weren't good enough in the 33 before that. You know the rules when you kick off at the start of the season. It adds interest to the end of the season for most teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sydney Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 The Split is fine. Last 5 games are all against "Big Teams" (unless Hibs squeeze in every now and again). European places are often decided on the last couple of days of the season - Hearts vs Aberdeen in 05/06, Hearts vs Dundee Utd in 08/09. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le Chat Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 The main reason behind people disliking the split is because of the fixture imbalance. Does that mean more people would be behind the 14 team league is more palatable as the imbalance is lessened? That's a 'yes' from me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Wiseau Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Any league where you start the season not knowing how many home and away games you will have is a farce. The 14 team league with the split and balanced fixtures would actually settle a lot of my issues with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frankblack Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 I don't understand this point. It might be the case that a team not in the top 6 would have won more games but they weren't good enough in the 33 before that. You know the rules when you kick off at the start of the season. It adds interest to the end of the season for most teams. No, the difference is that there could be 4 or 5 teams contesting Europe and one team might have got into the top six by having more favourable fixtures e.g. both the old firm at home pre-split. The team that misses out by a point could have Rantic away twice, and be denied the chance to turn it around, which they could do without a split. The only way the split would be fair was if it was predicted pre-season by someone like Alison Dubois. Also, even if you had the old firm twice away you could get them away again in the split, and your rivals get them 3 times at home. Do you seriously think this is a fair system? To me that isn't what you would term sporting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mysterion Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Any league where you start the season not knowing how many home and away games you will have is a farce. The 14 team league with the split and balanced fixtures would actually settle a lot of my issues with it. Agree and agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portobellojambo1 Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Why? Think it has already been covered by others TM. Call me old fashioned, but to me the league should be decided by each club playing each other home and away, and the club with the highest number of points are declared the winners, and all others placed accordingly. There was no need to tinker with a format that had worked perfectly well for around 100 years. Its a bit like the change in the offside rule as well, another change to football which was unneeded. The rule whereby you are declared offside if beyond the last defender at the point in time the ball was last played in a forward direction (other than from a throw in or if in your own half of the field) worked perfectly well (when administered properly, i.e. it tended to work best in those countries where the OF don't play league games), and didn't need to be tinkered with, especially by idiots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Exactly, I'm sure we were done out of a place in Europe one season with 3 visits to Ibrox and one at Tynie. Total farce of a system. The top or bottom six are only competitive where there is something to play for e.g. if you are 5th or 6th and a long way from 3rd or 4th. Likewise, the bottom six fixtures are completely meaningless to those that are well clear of the relegation place. Also, its technically possible that the 7th placed team could lose out of a place in the top six on goal difference but might have won more games in the top six than the 6th placed team - it might even be mathematically possible (in theory) to have qualified for Europe. For those that like the split: How would you feel if we lost out by a point or a goal for a place in the top six when Europe could still have been reachable? Did you enjoy the games against the likes of St. Mirren in the bottom six under Stevie Frail? On the first question, I'd be disappointed but nothing like as disappointed as when we lost the league on goal average when on goal difference we'd have won it, and then lost the league on goal difference when on goal average we'd have won it. There is always room for possible sickeners but as others have said, the possibility of losing out on Europe because you can't get into the top six after 33 games is hardly a clinching argument against the split, given the alternatives. On the second, again it was our fault we ended up where we were and it was better than playing meaningless games from January on. The uneven home/away fixtures thing is for me the only real argument against the split, but could be solved in a 14 club league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Templeton'sUnderpants Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Any league where you start the season not knowing how many home and away games you will have is a farce. The 14 team league with the split and balanced fixtures would actually settle a lot of my issues with it. Agree wit the 14. Anyone that says dunfermline, dundee, raith, queen of the south or falkirk arent at least as good as st mirren, hamilton, aberdeen or hibs is a liar so the too many wee teams argument doesn't hold any water for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Dover Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 There have been a few variants of the 14 team put forward and I was pretty much in favour of it. However as others have said the split maybe comes a bit early in that format ( 26 games ) and perhaps you could ill afford to go on a poor run at the wrong time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 I don't mind it, life's always about the top 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Any empirical evidence that these "exciting" split determination games bring in the crowds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radioactive Mince Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 The main reason behind people disliking the split is because of the fixture imbalance. Does that mean more people would be behind the 14 team league is more palatable as the imbalance is lessened? I'm actually starting to favour the 14 team, 38 game format with split after game 26. I'd prefer 16 but can't see much support for that setup amongst fellow supporters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RussAsia Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 I like the idea of the split but dont like the fact that you can play uneven fixtures and i am sure that if hearts are still challenging for the title then we will be sent back to Parkhead for a 3rd away fixture with the excuse that we have played to many home games.. I do like the 14 team idea.. play each other twice.. split top 6 and bottom 8.. top 6 clubs will be happy because they will have their extra games against the old firm.. plus if they are involved in the later stages of the cups etc.. the lower 8 will be happy as they have an extra 4 games giving them a 40 game season to bring in money.. I would also say that a post split season ticket could be popular for some teams, like our half year season ticket has been this year.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 I like the idea of the split but dont like the fact that you can play uneven fixtures and i am sure that if hearts are still challenging for the title then we will be sent back to Parkhead for a 3rd away fixture with the excuse that we have played to many home games.. I do like the 14 team idea.. play each other twice.. split top 6 and bottom 8.. top 6 clubs will be happy because they will have their extra games against the old firm.. plus if they are involved in the later stages of the cups etc.. the lower 8 will be happy as they have an extra 4 games giving them a 40 game season to bring in money.. I would also say that a post split season ticket could be popular for some teams, like our half year season ticket has been this year.. The clubs might be satisfied with such an arrangement as it might suit their financial needs but what about their supporters and SPL supporters in general? Do you think they would be happy with such an arrangement and have the appetite for it? 2 of the biggest criticisms of the current set up is 1) the split - most fans simply don't like it 2) too many repetitive fixtures against the same opponents - a 14 team arrangement means at least 4 league games per season against certain opponents which is simply too many and has already been having a negative impact on spectator interest. The fans are quite clear and the vast majority 75%+ want bigger leagues with 16 or 18 team leagues polling almost 90% of supporters votes. It's now up to the clubs to re-arrange their affairs to accommodate customer demand UNLESS of course they really don't care about fans opinions and will shaft them with any format that disregards their express wishes but maximises commercial revenues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 If ten team leagues playing each other 4 times per season or 12 or 14 team leagues with variable home and away fixtures against opponents then a fudged split league arragement are such a great idea how come not one of the serious footballing nations in Europe has ever bothered to copy these abominable formats? How come they ALL manage to cope with bigger league formats of 16-24 teams and in England even all the way down into non-league conference divisions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinmaroon Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Ok, day before the split we are equal on points with 6th but because of goal difference are in 7th. Despite this we are 3 points off of a european spot. The split good or bad. Discuss. It's the last game of the season and we're two points ahead, and all we need is a draw. We lose 2-0 and the 2nd team win 5-0 to take the CHAMPIONSHIP on goal difference. Bummer! It happened! It happens! You can't make a decision based on how marginal anomalies might effect us. 14 Teams would mean no more of the Uglies getting the 2 games at home to help them in the run in against their stronger compeitors - or, simply making it more difficult for teams competing for 3rd. I agree, that even with 12, and even with 10, there can be meaningless games. Going for top 6 keeps the midseason interesting, and if it was 2 down, the bottom 8 couldn't just take it for granted. Especially if there was a play off 3rd bottom v 3rd top! Any set up will produce some meaningless games, 14 could produce relatively fewer! It also produces a few extra games for the bottom 8, and even with lower crowds, perhaps, it's extra revenue. Also a chance for those who are in no danger of relegation to blood youngsters etc. It's not as black and white as some are trying to make out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThomasFlogel Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Not bad. Stops us from the potential horror of going to st mirren to try and win the league this season. You are guaranteed that if you are challaenging for the league then your opponents will have just as tough a game as you. The only fair way to do the split is if you play the same teams home and away. At the moment it isn't fair, the fixtures are down to luck which in turn can affect the league in an unfair way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.