Was just typing the same thing RE 14 teams. Would still result in 38 games and would take out the away ground post split ‘lottery’I hate the split as it as as it often means an imbalance, like us having to play Livingston 3 times on that pitch this season. If we have to have it then I'd rather it was 14 teams playing each other home and away and then splitting into 2 groups to play each other home and away again, meaning no 3 away trips or 3 home games against the same team. But my preferred option is a 16 or 18 team league playing each other home and away once as this 4 games and more against the same teams in a season is incredibly stifling.
I would prefer a 20 team league and play each other twice.
However that isn’t going to happen so the next best thing would be a 16 team league and play each other twice getting to 30 games then split and then the top 8 play twice and bottom 8 play twice giving you 34 games. No unfair split with 3 away and 2 home games.
Exactly the way I would have it. Split into two 7 team groups giving 1 team a 'rest' each week. Would likely cause some issues if us or them had our rest before an OF game right enough.im probably in the minority but I like the split. Makes the last 5 games exciting if you have teams fighting to win or avoid relegation. a 14 team league with a split after 26 games would be my favourite with equal fixtures and still 4 old firms
I like it too, gives some excitementim probably in the minority but I like the split. Makes the last 5 games exciting if you have teams fighting to win or avoid relegation. a 14 team league with a split after 26 games would be my favourite with equal fixtures and still 4 old firms
I think you're 10 games light there mate, no?
Didn’t notice the typo, I meant 44 not the 34.
Maybe it's just me but I never wake up on a morning we are playing H*bs, Aberdeen, Hearts or the filth and think "I wish we were playing Queen of the South or Alloa today". Even if it does mean 3 or 4 games a season. Also its worth noting around half of Europe's 54 leagues operate with some kind of split.im probably in the minority but I like the split. Makes the last 5 games exciting if you have teams fighting to win or avoid relegation. a 14 team league with a split after 26 games would be my favourite with equal fixtures and still 4 old firms
In how many of these leagues is there the preposterous imbalance of home games played as opposed to away games played?Maybe it's just me but I never wake up on a morning we are playing H*bs, Aberdeen, Hearts or the filth and think "I wish we were playing Queen of the South or Alloa today". Even if it does mean 3 or 4 games a season. Also its worth noting around half of Europe's 54 leagues operate with some kind of split.
Not sure but in some leagues like Austria they half the points tally at the split. So you could be 13 points clear and then your lead is cut to 6. So you might be far and away the best team in the country with most wins and least losses but you could still lose the league.In how many of these leagues is there the preposterous imbalance of home games played as opposed to away games played?
I agree. I think the split dramatically increases the chances of having an exciting title race, and without it there would be no helicopter Sundays.im probably in the minority but I like the split. Makes the last 5 games exciting if you have teams fighting to win or avoid relegation. a 14 team league with a split after 26 games would be my favourite with equal fixtures and still 4 old firms
That's as bad, if not more so than ours.Not sure but in some leagues like Austria they half the points tally at the split. So you could be 13 points clear and then your lead is cut to 6. So you might be far and away the best team in the country with most wins and least losses but you could still lose the league.
Talk me through this points re-set please.I think for a split to properly work there has to be a points reset and some sort of mini-league for those in the top half and potential relegation for those at the bottom of the league. Maybe something like an 8-4 split, with 4 teams from championship joining the bottom 4 from SPL to try and win/retain a spot in the top league.
The issue is what do you play for in the top half? Is it a title or cup, a European spot, or something else I’ve not thought off? The whole thing quickly gets messy and a whacky, which is probably why you are better just playing a regular season where teams play twice and be done.
Yeah I totally agree. Its probably works in Austria because it stops the unpopular RB Salzburg running away with the league every year.That's as bad, if not more so than ours.
You play good football, your squad is on fire and are running away with the title and then, through no fault of your own, your points total is slashed to give the teams in your slipstream, a scarcely deserved other crack at the whip?
It is way beyond bonkers.
Is there a reason for the unpopularity of RB Salzburg?Yeah I totally agree. Its probably works in Austria because it stops the unpopular RB Salzburg running away with the league every year.
How can playing a team three times away and only once at home be a good thing? It's an absolute farce and a disgrace. It is also completely unfair.As much as it has its flaws the split is a good thing really. Imagine the mid table games without it...absolutely nothing to play for almost half a season. The league would be even more mundane than it already is.
As for 7th place finishes on more points that 6th (& sometimes 5th). Tough. You know the rules at the start of the season...be the better team after 33 games. & of course you will finish on more points if you have to play Hamilton & Ross County as supposed to Rangers & C*ltic. As I said, be the best team in the first 33 games.
What I would say is the split should maybe happen sooner i.e. after every team has played each other home and away, so you don't get this nonsense of us playing Hibs away twice then a potential 3rd time after the split for example.
But, in general, Scottish football needs a split really.
Only because 7th place has easier games than 6th place after the split.Most seasons the 7th placed team ends up with slightly more points than 6th, occasionally more than 5th resulting in a dogs dinner situation.
Talk me through this points re-set please.
Before the split you play (plucked out of thin air) say, twenty-six games, you win twenty-six games but you then need to give up some of these points won?
You are right though, the whole thing does get messy and whacky. A league set up has to offer all teams participating the same amount of fixtures played home and away.
If that doesn't happen, then it is a farce.
because they've been poorer over 33 gamesOnly because 7th place has easier games than 6th place after the split.
As much as it has its flaws the split is a good thing really. Imagine the mid table games without it...absolutely nothing to play for almost half a season. The league would be even more mundane than it already is.
As for 7th place finishes on more points that 6th (& sometimes 5th). Tough. You know the rules at the start of the season...be the better team after 33 games. & of course you will finish on more points if you have to play Hamilton & Ross County as supposed to Rangers & C*ltic. As I said, be the best team in the first 33 games.
What I would say is the split should maybe happen sooner i.e. after every team has played each other home and away, so you don't get this nonsense of us playing Hibs away twice then a potential 3rd time after the split for example.
But, in general, Scottish football needs a split really.
That only gives it a point for TV companies.Think it's the polar opposite of pointless mate. It is to ensure 4 old firm matches.
Agree with this. That's why the league was changed in the first place.I like the split, it’s not perfect of course but it’s the best we can offer, a bigger league is a total non starter and never going to happen, adding bang average teams to an already poor league, dilutes the poor quality even further.
The split also stops the potential scenarios for teams chasing the title to have easy fixtures in the run in, the mhanks for example could have Hamilton at home and Ross County away and we could be at home to Hibs and away to Aberdeen.
The split also stops the potential scenarios for teams chasing the title to have easy fixtures in the run in, the mhanks for example could have Hamilton at home and Ross County away and we could be at home to Hibs and away to Aberdeen.
20 team league?? FFS. Its bad enough battering Hamilton 8-0 without playing Alloa and Arbroath for half the season.I would prefer a 20 team league and play each other twice.
However that isn’t going to happen so the next best thing would be a 16 team league and play each other twice getting to 30 games then split and then the top 8 play twice and bottom 8 play twice giving you 44 games. No unfair split with 3 away and 2 home games.
You better get used to it mate. I confidently predict that in 20 years time the team who wins most points won't even be declared champions. We will end up with a play off system at the end of the season where the top 4 (probably) will play off in some way to end up with a cup final of sorts to decide the champions.Hate the spit.
Small time thinking for a small time league.
Club in 7th with more points than club in 5th. Idiotic.
I hate the split also, but if this is Sky's biggest games of the season, why aren't the idiots running our game demanding more money from them? (and that's not a dig at you mate)I hate the split it’s unfair and a joke but sky want their minimum 4 OF games a season! I believe it’s one of their biggest audience games.
Personally I’d prefer a 20 team league and we play each other twice, giving us a 38 games a season. It could make for an interesting season.
Not for the teams from around sixth to sixteenth who’ll have nothing to play for afyer around three quarters of the season.Personally I’d prefer a 20 team league and we play each other twice, giving us a 38 games a season. It could make for an interesting season.
Why not just create a league of 6 then? 4 Europe places and 2 relegated.Not for the teams from around sixth to sixteenth who’ll have nothing to play for afyer around three quarters of the season.
No chance of getting a European place and no chance of relegation.
The very reasons we created the top ten in the first place in the mid seventies.
Great deal of realism there.Why not just create a league of 6 then? 4 Europe places and 2 relegated.
7th normally end up with more points than 6th because 6th play teams like us,the scum, sheep etc. whilst 7th play all the dross at the bottom. How people don't grasp this fact baffles me.I was thinking about this mess today and looking back at some of the old tables since it came into effect.
Most seasons the 7th placed team ends up with slightly more points than 6th, occasionally more than 5th resulting in a dogs dinner situation.
Aside from looking ridiculous, whats the financial cost to the clubs finishing lower than the actual points total should deliver. Is there much difference between being 5th, 6th, or 7th?