Rangers Football Club 0 Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 BOSS calls for massive overhaul of the Scottish game More... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 Usual problems with this. Would you rather pay for your season ticket to see two home games against the top 6, or replace them and others with matches against 1st division teams? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super_Ally 0 Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 Usual problems with this. Would you rather pay for your season ticket to see two home games against the top 6, or replace them and others with matches against 1st division teams? Less home games against lower quality opposition (on average) will lead to calls for reduced season ticket prices. And from that p.o.v. it looks fair. But then we have the obvious associated drop in quality due to reduced revenue fans wont be happy. I don't know how you solve that conundrum to anyone's satisfaction. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 Funny thing is, I quite like the drama of the split. If it could be fair every year it could be a good thing with less meaningless games towards the end of the season and also it makes it a climax. All the teams fighting at the top have an equally difficult run in which takes out scenarios where say Man U have 4 lower, middle and safe teams to play while Chelsea have 3rd and 4th as well as two relegation battlers. Perhaps we need 14 teams to play twice with 26 games and then the split is the top 7 playing home and away giving 38 games. The bottom 7 play home and away with the bottom relegated and the next two going into a semifinal play off with 3rd and 4th in the first division, with only the winner going/staying up. The top two in div 1 go up. That would make the bottom end pretty competitive at the end and give an exciting promotion climax at Hampden. Two or three would go up or down every year, keeping it fresh and sharing the cash around the lower teams. Competition for the top four in div 1 would also be hot. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 PS Of course the 7th team would have the no-fixture date as the last one. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 PPS You could make it a top six and bottom 8 for 36 and 40 games and no fixture anomalies. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny 0 Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 Funny thing is, I quite like the drama of the split. If it could be fair every year it could be a good thing with less meaningless games towards the end of the season and also it makes it a climax. fwiw I actually agree, it's just that this year there is no climax with us being effectively champions already. The drama of last season, for example, is but a memory. This season is the kind the split is redundant for. The only use it would have had this year would have been sparing us a trip to Pittodrie if we desperately needed the points. All the teams fighting at the top have an equally difficult run in which takes out scenarios where say Man U have 4 lower, middle and safe teams to play while Chelsea have 3rd and 4th as well as two relegation battlers. Perhaps, but Man U have already played the tough teams that Chelsea are now going to face. I can see both sides of this one - imagine the outrage in England if Chelsea got Man U 2 times away but obviously Utd got Chelsea twice at home. There is something not quite kosher about it, but it does make it interesting. If unfair. Perhaps we need 14 teams to play twice with 26 games and then the split is the top 7 playing home and away giving 38 games. The bottom 7 play home and away with the bottom relegated and the next two going into a semifinal play off with 3rd and 4th in the first division, with only the winner going/staying up. The top two in div 1 go up. Walter's in favour of a 16 team SPL I think it is, and I have to agree. Playing St Mirren and Hamilton almost every week this season has been excruciating. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy steel 0 Posted April 15, 2010 Share Posted April 15, 2010 There's a counter argument to that, though, which is that for football to develop organically, to bring through new players, give managers a fair crack of the whip, introduce new styles of play and so on, there needs to be a period of competitive games which will not make or break a career or, in the current circumstances, break a club. I know this makes the word 'competitive' slightly anomalous, but we've seen what the politics of failure (failing to make the top 6) has done to the standard of our game. There are other reasons, too, but that has to be high up the list. This might mean that a portion of the season will appeal only to the purist, who is interested in seeing the latest young players, or who is attracted along to a game with the promise of a 4-2-4 formation and the implied glut of goals...a bit like Test cricket, which is dying on it's arse around the world except in England. It goes through peaks and troughs, but when they get it right it utterly absorbs the nation - witness the last two tours by the Australians. Overall, the split is impacting negatively on the SPL: fans, managers and writers are all whining about it to a lesser or greater degree. Call me a purist, but I think it has to go. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmck 117 Posted April 15, 2010 Share Posted April 15, 2010 There's a counter argument to that, though, which is that for football to develop organically, to bring through new players, give managers a fair crack of the whip, introduce new styles of play and so on, there needs to be a period of competitive games which will not make or break a career or, in the current circumstances, break a club. I know this makes the word 'competitive' slightly anomalous, but we've seen what the politics of failure (failing to make the top 6) has done to the standard of our game. There are other reasons, too, but that has to be high up the list. Think this is a really good point and one I hadn't really considered. When every game isn't do or die there's more scope for creativity and developing players - especially young ones. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted April 15, 2010 Share Posted April 15, 2010 Walter's in favour of a 16 team SPL I think it is, and I have to agree. Playing St Mirren and Hamilton almost every week this season has been excruciating. However, a 16 team league will mean ten games against the instead of twenty against the top six and add eight games against lesser teams than St Mirren and Hamilton. The only upside is twelve games against the seventh to twelfth place instead of eighteen. However that also means two less games against Aberdeen replaced by a first division team. If you find those two teams excruciating then how is a 16 or 18 team league going to help reduce your pain? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.