18 Team SPL + Extra Derby Games

[Charlie-Brown]

as there is no apparently ideal solution to league reconstruction how about a fudged compromise to suit clubs, tv and fans desires? PROPOSAL: a regular 18 team SPL season = 34 games ; everybody gets 17 home 17 away against everybody else. Also interspersed into the regular season are 2 additional revenue games (derbies home & away) so taking the 12 Spl clubs plus for argument the current top 6 Sfl clubs ie raith, dunfy, falkirk, QoS, partick, morton then we would have to potential for each club getting 2 additional 'money' games ie rangers v celtic, hearts v hibs, motherwell v hamilton, st mirren v morton, killie v partick, aberdeen/inverness v dundee utd/st johnstone, raith v dunfermline, falkirk v QoS meaning each club gets a 36 game season and extra derby or rivalry games to generate additional revenue plus satisfy fans and tv demand for the big games. Could this be viable?

[Armageddon]

This was proposed by some old boy on Unreal Radio Fudgeball Phone In.

 

It's not an option for me.

 

Top 10 league for me and we feck off to England

[Carnaby]

An issue would be if, as an example, us and Killie were competing for a spot neck and neck - surely Killie would be unhappy that our two extra games were easier than theirs?

 

I like the principle but I don't think a league that doesn't have parity between the clubs in terms of fixtures would ever get a go ahead.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

I suggested this nonsense with the 12 teams as it avoided the need for a split.

 

Play each other 3 times = 33 games + 1 extra derby game (New Year) = 34 games.

 

Still a nonsense but miles better than the split.

[Peebo]

Any league format where the fixtures are uneven is a nonsense. This idea is ludicrous.

[Peebo]

I like the principle but I don't think a league that doesn't have parity between the clubs in terms of fixtures would ever get a go ahead.

 

We already have this in the SPL.

[Charlie-Brown]

Any league format where the fixtures are uneven is a nonsense. This idea is ludicrous.

under the cuurent format some teams play opponents 3 times whilst others 4 times, some opponents twice at home whilst others only once, some teams even have to visit other teams 3 times some times, the fixture list nor any given teams number of home games per season cannot be known in advance and there are huge imbalances everywhere in the hugely flawed split league. In my proposal all fixtures can be determined at the start of the season and everybody plays 18 games home and away. The princple of playing certain teams more than others already exists in the spl fixture list for a decade. My solution addresses the claims that an 18 team league provides fewer fixtures and fewer televised derby games.

[Peebo]

under the cuurent format some teams play opponents 3 times whilst others 4 times, some opponents twice at home whilst others only once, some teams even have to visit other teams 3 times some times, the fixture list nor any given teams number of home games per season cannot be known in advance and there are huge imbalances everywhere in the hugely flawed split league. In my proposal all fixtures can be determined at the start of the season and everybody plays 18 games home and away. The princple of playing certain teams more than others already exists in the spl fixture list for a decade. My solution addresses the claims that an 18 team league provides fewer fixtures and fewer televised derby games.

 

Yeah, I agree the split is hugely flawed precisely because of the same reason - i.e. the fixtures are unfair.

[Carnaby]

We already have this in the SPL.

What we have just now is parity, then a mini league in which there is parity.

 

I agree that there is a bit of an issue in the 2/1 home/away situation before the split but it is broadly fair and even and alternates season to season.

 

Although the potential in the current set up is for a 3/1 home/away situation, this very rarely happens, and at least when it does it still evens up the number of fixtures between the clubs as opposed to us playing Hibs 4 times and Aberdeen/Celtic/Rangers etc. only twice a year regardless of the league standing and competitiveness of any teams and fixtures.

[Peebo]

What we have just now is parity, then a mini league in which there is parity.

 

I agree that there is a bit of an issue in the 2/1 home/away situation before the split but it is broadly fair and even and alternates season to season.

 

Although the potential in the current set up is for a 3/1 home/away situation, this very rarely happens, and at least when it does it still evens up the number of fixtures between the clubs as opposed to us playing Hibs 4 times and Aberdeen/Celtic/Rangers etc. only twice a year regardless of the league standing and competitiveness of any teams and fixtures.

 

As you yourself outline, there is not parity under the current SPL split system. Yes, attempts are made to mitigate it, but the fixtures are currently unfair.

 

For example, the league splits after 33 games. In any combination of teams you look at prior to the split, one is advantaged by facing the other twice at home, and the other disadvantaged by playing only once at home. And that is before you even get to the 3 home, 1 away scenario you mention.

[Cigaro]

SPL + 1st Division.

20/22 teams. 19/21 home, 19/21 away. 38/42 games a season.

 

2 down 2 up. Possibly 17/18 play 3/4 in the 1st division in a play off.

 

10 team 1st division

10 team 2nd division

Pyramid system thereafter.

[Dinger]

SPL + 1st Division.

20/22 teams. 19/21 home, 19/21 away. 38/42 games a season.

 

2 down 2 up. Possibly 17/18 play 3/4 in the 1st division in a play off.

 

10 team 1st division

10 team 2nd division

Pyramid system thereafter.

 

Gets my vote

[DETTY29]

SPL + 1st Division.

20/22 teams. 19/21 home, 19/21 away. 38/42 games a season.

 

2 down 2 up. Possibly 17/18 play 3/4 in the 1st division in a play off.

 

10 team 1st division

10 team 2nd division

Pyramid system thereafter.

Do we have enough teams in Scotland to introduce a pyramid system or that are interested in joining the senior leagues?

 

I do have some sympathy with our administrators as every propsal appears to have non insignificant flaws

[Drylaw Hearts]

I suggested this nonsense with the 12 teams as it avoided the need for a split.

 

Play each other 3 times = 33 games + 1 extra derby game (New Year) = 34 games.

 

Still a nonsense but miles better than the split.

 

Without doubt the very worst 'proposal' I've seen yet.

 

 

Well done GK.

[Debut 4]

Rangers and Celtic will always be in the top half. For financial reasons they`ll always want 4 derbies...

 

But imo they could have maintained that easy in a bigger league. 16 teams, initial 30 games then keep the split to keep the money men happy.

 

Two mini leagues of 8 with the usual scenario. It means an imbalance in fixtures as it`d be another 7 fixtures but im sure the scientists at the SPL could have worked it out.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Without doubt the very worst 'proposal' I've seen yet.

 

 

Well done GK.

 

I accept your plaudits.

 

Ticks all of Doncaster's boxes though!

[Victorian]

just a normal 18 team (34 match) league would be fine.

 

the television broadcasters would still pay for a package that included only two old firm games instead of four. any attempt on their part to suggest otherwise would simply be a bluff.

 

the value of such a package would probably be a bit less but it's acceptable. the gains massively outweigh a small drop in revenue.

 

the SPL isn't big enough, or valuable enough for it to neccessary that the television companies dictate the format. the sooner scottish football realises that the SPL is better to remain fully independent from them the better.

[Socrates]

Either 10 or 18/20. Please no more creative solutions that have an unbalanced schedule and make us look ridiculous.

[The Old Tolbooth]

A split is only unfair when the games after the split are uneven, ie going to Ibrox or Parkhead 3 times a season, or other teams coming to Tynie 3 times a season for that matter.

 

A 14 team league however eradicates that problem with the split coming after playing each team twice, it's not rocket science really.

[Cigaro]

Do we have enough teams in Scotland to introduce a pyramid system or that are interested in joining the senior leagues?

 

I do have some sympathy with our administrators as every propsal appears to have non insignificant flaws

I'm sure there will be. If not then the bottom division will stagnate as it does now, with no need to improve due to the lack of danger of relegation.

 

If teams are good enough to climb through the leagues they'll want in eventually.

[Drylaw Hearts]

3 leagues of 14 teams.

 

SPL = Split after 2 rounds of matches Home and Away into a Top 6 and Bottom 8.

 

2 teams relegated with 3rd bottom in a play-off with 3rd top of the next division.

 

Pyramid system in place for bottom of 3rd division.

 

 

It's the way ahead.

[We_are_the_Hearts]

3 leagues of 14 teams.

 

SPL = Split after 2 rounds of matches Home and Away into a Top 6 and Bottom 8.

 

2 teams relegated with 3rd bottom in a play-off with 3rd top of the next division.

 

Pyramid system in place for bottom of 3rd division.

 

 

It's the way ahead.

So the bottom 8 teams play 40 games a season and the Top 6 play 36, and they still play the top teams 4 times?

 

Might just work as you only have to play the trash twice!!

[Charlie-Brown]

3 leagues of 14 teams.

 

SPL = Split after 2 rounds of matches Home and Away into a Top 6 and Bottom 8.

 

2 teams relegated with 3rd bottom in a play-off with 3rd top of the next division.

 

Pyramid system in place for bottom of 3rd division.

 

 

It's the way ahead.

 

Downsides with your proposal DH

 

- only increases SPL by 2 teams

- an 6/8 or 8/6 split means that some teams would play only 36 games whilst others play 40 games

- a 7/7 split would mean all teams playing 36 games which is a better balance although not everybody can complete fixtures on same day - some must finish earlier

- an earlier split after only 26 games precludes some teams from the possibility of relegation or alternatively europe/title with a third of the season still to play

- teams points total become less meaningful and distorted depending on which half of the split they enter

- any teams fixtures cannot possibly be known in advance nor planned

- still involves playing at least 5 other teams 4 times per season and maintains the unpopular too many repetitive fixtures that most fans cite as unpopular & unwanted

- does not guarantee 4 Old Firm games that TV demands nor 4 Edinburgh derbies - a poor season could see rivals on the opposite sides of the split

 

an 18 team SPL + 2 additional rivalry matches would see

- all teams play 36 games per season

- all teams play 18 home and 18 away matches

- all teams would play the Old Firm an equal amount of times

- all teams would be free to choose to band together with their 'rivalry' opponents for the 2 additional fixtures with the almost certainty that Rangers & Celtic would choose each other, Hearts & Hibs, Dundee clubs, Fife, Lanarkshire, Ayrshire, Renfrewshire clubs etc would band together and only the geographically isolated clubs would be left to decide on a 'rival' from the remaining teams and if they couldn't decide then the closest geographical rival would be chosen from the remaining un-grouped teams - all teams to notify the SPL by a certain date and then a full fixture list & order for the following season can be published before a ball is kicked.

- would almost certainly guarantee the 4 Old Firm & Edinburgh derbies plus other local rivalries that the TV companies say they must have plus the clubs and fans would also desire.

- All teams points would matter and count towards the title, europe & relegation.

- All teams would play everybody else an equal amount of time - the sole exception being the one club they choose for the rivalry games meaning much less repitition in the fixture list APART from the big games that TV, Clubs and fans say they want to preserve.

- the SPL plan to split money between 22 clubs ie 10+12 so in my proposition of 18 teams each club would receive proportionally more than they would if money split between 18 instead of 22 clubs.

- can still include the possibility of automatic relegation and play-off places to ensure their remain interest and competition in the bottom half of the table towards the latter part of the season.

 

I think that ticks more boxes required by TV, Clubs and Fans than a 14 team SPL with a less than perfect split system.

[We_are_the_Hearts]

 

- only increases SPL by 2 teams increases it by 4 from what is the likely outcome

- an 6/8 or 8/6 split means that some teams would play only 36 games whilst others play 40 games don't see the problem here?

 

- a 7/7 split would mean all teams playing 36 games which is a better balance although not everybody can complete fixtures on same day - some must finish earlier irrelevant as a 7/7 split isn't suggested

 

- an earlier split after only 26 games precludes some teams from the possibility of relegation or alternatively europe/title with a third of the season still to play more meaningful games right throughout the season looks a good thing. Without the split and an 18 team League would see a LOT of meaningless games a few months into the season.

 

- teams points total become less meaningful and distorted depending on which half of the split they enter The placings are what count.

 

- any teams fixtures cannot possibly be known in advance nor planned They are not known in the Champions League and that is the best tournament in the World?

 

- still involves playing at least 5 other teams 4 times per season and maintains the unpopular too many repetitive fixtures that most fans cite as unpopular & unwanted What the armchair fans want? If you look at OUR attendance it is clear that Hearts fans who go the games would rather play the OF and Hibs twice at Tynie.

 

- does not guarantee 4 Old Firm games that TV demands nor 4 Edinburgh derbies - a poor season could see rivals on the opposite sides of the splitIf Hibs get relegated then we would have NONE. Can't guarantee anything in football.

 

 

[Charlie-Brown]

- my proposal increases it by 8 compared to the likely outcome of only 10.

- supporters want to know how many home league games their ST entitles them to? this cannot be known if there is the possibility teams might play 18 or 20 home games depending on the split ... it creates a value distortion.

- there has never been an 18 team SPL in Scotland with 3 points for a win therefore just like the big leagues in England with 20-24 teams in them there remains the possibility of teams staying in contention for title, european and possible play-off or relegation places for longer - i fail to see how there would be meaningless games after only a few months when this isn't true for any big division in England?

- league placings in an 18 team proposals would be clear and unambiguous - all points would count equally towards final placings.

- are you suggesting the Supporters Direct poll and other polls are not a true reflection of fans opinions on league reconstruction and preferences?

- there is a greater chance Hearts & Hibs would finish in the top 15 of 18 and thus preserve their SPL status and retain the strong possibility of 4 Edinburgh derbies per season under my proposal than a 14 team SPL and hoping both teams fall in the same 6/8 or 8/6 split.

[We_are_the_Hearts]

- my proposal increases it by 8 compared to the likely outcome of only 10.

- supporters want to know how many home league games their ST entitles them to? this cannot be known if there is the possibility teams might play 18 or 20 home games depending on the split ... it creates a value distortion.

- there has never been an 18 team SPL in Scotland with 3 points for a win therefore just like the big leagues in England with 20-24 teams in them there remains the possibility of teams staying in contention for title, european and possible play-off or relegation places for longer - i fail to see how there would be meaningless games after only a few months when this isn't true for any big division in England?

- league placings in an 18 team proposals would be clear and unambiguous - all points would count equally towards final placings.

- are you suggesting the Supporters Direct poll and other polls are not a true reflection of fans opinions on league reconstruction and preferences?

- there is a greater chance Hearts & Hibs would finish in the top 15 of 18 and thus preserve their SPL status and retain the strong possibility of 4 Edinburgh derbies per season under my proposal than a 14 team SPL and hoping both teams fall in the same 6/8 or 8/6 split.

Fair enough it's all about opinion but I still maintain that Hearts fans would rather watch us play Rangers, Celtic and Hibs twice than sacrificing one of they games for Raith Rovers or Partick Thistle.

[topcat]

under the cuurent format some teams play opponents 3 times whilst others 4 times, some opponents twice at home whilst others only once, some teams even have to visit other teams 3 times some times, the fixture list nor any given teams number of home games per season cannot be known in advance and there are huge imbalances everywhere in the hugely flawed split league. In my proposal all fixtures can be determined at the start of the season and everybody plays 18 games home and away. The princple of playing certain teams more than others already exists in the spl fixture list for a decade. My solution addresses the claims that an 18 team league provides fewer fixtures and fewer televised derby games.

 

While it's not without flaws the current system at least ensures that teams in contention for honours at the top or struggling aginst relegation face the same set of 5 teams 4 times and the same set of 5 teams 3 times.

 

once a decade depending on how the cards fall you'll get a 20th home game or a 20th away game but generally home and away advantage over the season is pretty well evened out and if things worked out badly this year they might work out better the following season.

 

Your plan would see some teams having the same systematic advantage over others built in for as long as it existed.

 

Minor competitive imbalance arising from the fixture list isn't unique to leagues with splits either. Even in a plain and simple "play everybody once at home, once away" some clubs benefit from good luck in the timing of their fixtures. If your final fixture is against a team with a cup final to come while your rival is playing somebody desperate to avoid relegation or if you happen to meet an opponent in the middle of their injury crisis.

 

Nobody worries too much about these imbalances as they're seen as basically down to luck, although some people, particularly the celtic minded, will see nefarious schemes at work regardless.

 

Your system would purposely but the same imbalance in place each season.

[Charlie-Brown]

Fair enough it's all about opinion but I still maintain that Hearts fans would rather watch us play Rangers, Celtic and Hibs twice than sacrificing one of they games for Raith Rovers or Partick Thistle.

 

A split league doesn't guarantee anything more than only 2 games (1 home 1 away) against these opponents if you or they finish on opposite sides of the splt - also a 26 game split means a further 12 or 14 games post-split excluded from either the chance of finishing higher or else of finishing lower than a set position ie 7th or 6th and the possibility for Title/Europe or Relegation threats - the last 2-3 months post split under this system creates far more potential for imbalances and potentially more meaningless games or waning interest not less.

 

My proposal would almost certainly guarantee 4 games at Tynecastle v Hibs(2) and Old Firm(1 each) - compared to only 3 (1 v each) definitely guaranteed in a 14 team league with a split.

[Charlie-Brown]

While it's not without flaws the current system at least ensures that teams in contention for honours at the top or struggling aginst relegation face the same set of 5 teams 4 times and the same set of 5 teams 3 times.

 

once a decade depending on how the cards fall you'll get a 20th home game or a 20th away game but generally home and away advantage over the season is pretty well evened out and if things worked out badly this year they might work out better the following season.

 

Your plan would see some teams having the same systematic advantage over others built in for as long as it existed.

 

Minor competitive imbalance arising from the fixture list isn't unique to leagues with splits either. Even in a plain and simple "play everybody once at home, once away" some clubs benefit from good luck in the timing of their fixtures. If your final fixture is against a team with a cup final to come while your rival is playing somebody desperate to avoid relegation or if you happen to meet an opponent in the middle of their injury crisis.

 

Nobody worries too much about these imbalances as they're seen as basically down to luck, although some people, particularly the celtic minded, will see nefarious schemes at work regardless.

Your system would purposely but the same imbalance in place each season.

 

Only because the TV, Clubs and fans want to preserve 4 Old Firm games, 4 Edinburgh derbies etc. If the clubs would accept a straight 16, 18 or 20 team league then everything would be equal in an expanded league but for vaiorus reasons they don't want this so either a straight 10 (against the wishes of supporters) or 12/14 with a split or my proposal with 2 additional rivalry games are necessary compromises and less than ideal - but ideal seems to be not on the agenda unfortunately.

[topcat]

Only because the TV, Clubs and fans want to preserve 4 Old Firm games, 4 Edinburgh derbies etc. If the clubs would accept a straight 16, 18 or 20 team league then everything would be equal in an expanded league but for various reasons they don't want this so either

 

That's a nonsense argument. You're blaming your opponents for your idea being so bad.

 

Anyway looking round to see what we might can learn from elsewhere.

 

Using the "18 or 20 of clubs play everybody home once and away once" model is a peculiarity of Association football in big European Countries and even in these countries a limited post season consisting of playoffs for relegation, promotion or European competition places isn't uncommon.

 

Not only are fixtures not known in advance in the Champions League it's hard to come up with any professional sport where the round robin 'only play each other twice' model is used at the very top level.

 

In Cricket, The worlds biggest 20/20 competition IPL is a regular round robin followed by a knockout post season (of course competitions in the longer form of the game have to take into account unfinished matches.

 

The big Rugby Union and League Club competitions as well as the AFL now all end in a grand final. The big International Rugby Union tournaments in either hemisphere have necer been bothered about playing on a home and away basis It's just understood that Scotland will have an extra home game this season and an extra away gamenext season.

 

The big North American Sports leagues are all based on conferences meaning that fans get a mix of the fixtures against familiar rivals in their conference and the novelty of intra conference games. Big European football clubs can get the same effect by mixing domestic and European football. Baseball plays to big houses despite the fact that teams can face the same opposition several days in a row and it finishes with a best of 7 series where home advantage will only be balanced by chance.

[Charlie-Brown]

That's a nonsense argument. You're blaming your opponents for your idea being so bad.

 

Anyway looking round to see what we might can learn from elsewhere.

 

Using the "18 or 20 of clubs play everybody home once and away once" model is a peculiarity of Association football in big European Countries and even in these countries a limited post season consisting of playoffs for relegation, promotion or European competition places isn't uncommon.

 

Not only are fixtures not known in advance in the Champions League it's hard to come up with any professional sport where the round robin 'only play each other twice' model is used at the very top level.

 

In Cricket, The worlds biggest 20/20 competition IPL is a regular round robin followed by a knockout post season (of course competitions in the longer form of the game have to take into account unfinished matches.

 

The big Rugby Union and League Club competitions as well as the AFL now all end in a grand final. The big International Rugby Union tournaments in either hemisphere have necer been bothered about playing on a home and away basis It's just understood that Scotland will have an extra home game this season and an extra away gamenext season.

 

The big North American Sports leagues are all based on conferences meaning that fans get a mix of the fixtures against familiar rivals in their conference and the novelty of intra conference games. Big European football clubs can get the same effect by mixing domestic and European football. Baseball plays to big houses despite the fact that teams can face the same opposition several days in a row and it finishes with a best of 7 series where home advantage will only be balanced by chance.

 

Iam well aware of how other sports are structured TC however this IS association football and more specifically LEAGUE football ... almost all the other credible European leagues including 7 large divisions in English football play each other only twice on a once at home once away basis for league matches - Scottish clubs and SKY are resistant to this format as it restricts the amount of big games (read Old Firm matches) provided for each season - the SPL clubs want to maximise OF games per season, the TV want OF games plus Hearts & Hibs, the SFL clubs and lower SPL clubs mostly want expansion, the fans overhelmingly want league expansion not contraction back to 10 teams ..... my proposal whilst not 100% ideal in my opinion ticks more boxes in terms of less imbalances, fewer repetitive fixtures, greater fairness and predictability of fixtures and thus income streams for all clubs as well as giving clubs in an enlarged SPL more money if it is divided between only 18 instead of the 22 proposed.(10+12) It seems the only way to get any possibility of an enlarged league is by making concessions to the greed/self interest of clubs and TV stations therefore I have tried to devise an enlarged league that ticks as many boxes as possible but reduces some of the anomolies and inequalities and downright dumb consequences of the split.