The SPFL Split - Insanity gone mad

ForGodForCountryForever

ForGodForCountryForever

Well-Known Member
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?
 
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
 
It's harder for 6th place to beat Rangers, Celtic and Sheep compared to 7th taking points off the lowest teams though.

It is by no means a perfect system. It'd be better with a bigger league and splitting after half the games so you also play home and away.

For example 20 teams, play every team h/a twice and split after 18 then another 18 top half and 18 bottom half. Fairer for home/away fixtures and retains the 4 old firm games plus makes the league very competitive.

I'd still prefer a 16 team league and 30 game season with smaller squads and less overheads for clubs though. That would make it much more competitive with likes of Aberdeen only being able to drop 12 points a season to us and that lot, and allow the mid table clubs to bleed youngsters with less fear.
 
bar72bear said:
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
Click to expand...
I'm kind of the same, I think it adds something having the difficult teams post split.

My main grip is the potential unfairness of home/away splits.

Can't believe after all these years we still have folk complaining about the chance of 7th having more points than 6th. who cares?
 
ForGodForCountryForever said:
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?
Click to expand...
7th usually has.more than 6th cos they play the gash teams at the end of the season. That's no big deal.

What's a pain in the hole is having to play a side 3 times away almost every year. Livi is a fucking difficult place to go and we have to play on their shoddy pitch 3 times this season. If it really mattered then I would be more peeved about it.
 
bar72bear said:
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
Click to expand...
If there really has to be a split then it must be the type you’ve suggested. It keeps the 4 old firm and also ends any nonsense like us going to Livingstone 3 times in one season and only once at home . Ludicrous that we still haven’t sorted it
 
ForGodForCountryForever said:
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?
Click to expand...
About £130k difference between each place. Means nothing to the top two but for St Johnstone and Livingston it’s one or two extra players in the squad.
 
bar72bear said:
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
Click to expand...
They can handpick the fixtures to ensure the bigger sides play each other
 
I hate the split as you cannot preplan any social events after March. Also the league looks ludicrously amateurish when 7th has more points than 6th.
 
It’s hardly a surprise given that logically the bottom 6 are on average lower quality sides than the top 6, so a team just missing out on top 6 are more likely to collect more points than one just sneaking in to the top half.

As for the disparity in prize money, teams have 33 games to get where they want to be in the table if they are borderline, tough luck if you miss out.
 
With the way the league is set up now, the split works really well imo.

Adds both a competitive edge for the other teams who fight to get in the top 6 and for the final games of the season
 
The league setup is appalling and has been throughout it's existence.

There's a bigger question regarding the structure of football here going forward, but the various corrupt bowling clubs don't want to have that discussion.
 
the_ref said:
I'm kind of the same, I think it adds something having the difficult teams post split.

My main grip is the potential unfairness of home/away splits.

Can't believe after all these years we still have folk complaining about the chance of 7th having more points than 6th. who cares?
Click to expand...
Well if you have a League format over X games then the total points accumulated over X is what should decide your final position, anything else is undermining the results in said games as they don’t really count as should. People still complain because it makes as much sense now as it did years ago, none.
 
ForGodForCountryForever said:
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?
Click to expand...
I’m not saying the split is a good thing, but it’s pretty obvious why 7th has a higher points total than 6th most seasons. There’s rarely much between them at the time of the split, then 7th goes on to play the bottom 5 while 6th plays the top 5 teams.
 
ForGodForCountryForever said:
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?
Click to expand...

There's a better chance of this happening than not as the 7th placed team becomes the best team of the bottom 6 and the 6th placed team becomes the worst team in the top 6, it's not really that hard to figure out that the 7th placed team more than likely will pick up more points than the 6th after the split.
Dunno why people keep going on about it, it's not even in the top 10 of the things that are farcical about the split as it is at present.
 
It's ridiculously convoluted. When you find yourself having to explain why a league table looks the way it does to outsiders, or how to figure out otherwise simple things like how many are to be played in the league then it's been overcomplicated.

Home advantage is real, so it's fundamentally unfair to change things up after 3 fixtures for the sake of a poor imitation of a playoff scenario.
 
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.
 
90minsofmadness said:
7th usually has.more than 6th cos they play the gash teams at the end of the season. That's no big deal.

What's a pain in the hole is having to play a side 3 times away almost every year. Livi is a fucking difficult place to go and we have to play on their shoddy pitch 3 times this season. If it really mattered then I would be more peeved about it.
Click to expand...
This is a big problem. We're fortunate that we've already won the league but if it was neck and neck and we had to go away to Livingston for the third time on matchday 37 I would be worried.
 
Coplandbear said:
Will never happen any tv deal specifically states we need to play that mob 4 times a season.
Click to expand...

What was mooted a few years back would be a better split.
Two 12 team divisions splitting into 3 of 8.
4 x OF games (if tims finish top 8), everyone plays same number of games (36), everyone plays each other the same amount of home and away games and still 14 games to play after the split.
 
The concept of a split isn't a bad one. But, our version is. There are other leagues that do it and the point to remember is that any kind of split is just that in league terms. In effect the top league splits into two. Technically the team that finishes 7th should be referred to as the team that finished top of the post split lower league. As other posters have said it doesn't matter if they have more points than the team that finished 6th as their opponents are not if the same calibre.
As with others if we have to retain the split I wish it was such that post split you played each team home and away. There are numerous ways to achieve this whilst keeping the number games at an acceptable level.
My overall preference would be to just have a larger premier league and only play each team twice. Then "manufacture" the league cup set up in such a way it guaranteed us playing scumtic at least once or twice. Throw the league cup in with the league TV rights and that may just be acceptable to tv companies.
 
90minsofmadness said:
7th usually has.more than 6th cos they play the gash teams at the end of the season. That's no big deal.

What's a pain in the hole is having to play a side 3 times away almost every year. Livi is a fucking difficult place to go and we have to play on their shoddy pitch 3 times this season. If it really the I would be more peeved about it
Click to expand...
 
bar72bear said:
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
Click to expand...
This has always been my preference for reconstruction too b72b.

The only issue post split is that with 7 in each section there is a spare team esch fixture date. This could easily be mitigated by staggering the games though, possibly have some play Thursday/Sunday or add in a Monday night game.

Some would like a 14team league with a 6/8 split but I like the 7/7 model!
 
In the spirit of fair play, I'd love to know how many times we've had three away games, post split compared to the yahoos? And the four seasons we were down, doesn't count.

I think it was posted on here years ago, that it was a full 7/8/9 seasons before the yahoos were given three away games.

When it is a two horse race, how can this equate to fairness?

And is part of the equation that the split is part based on presumption at the start of the season? So who is it that is allowed to presume? The muppets who have ran Scottish football into the ground, I suppose?
 
I wouldn't mind the split if it was done fairly with even home and away games after.

Shambles that the league reconstruction wasn't voted through last year. 14 teams, top 6 split, bottom 8, each play each other twice after the split.
 
It is a slow news day when we are back to discussing the split.

There is absolutely no chance of the Sky paymasters agreeing to a league set up which reduces the number of OF games.

The current split after three rounds of matches is typical Scottish football administration nonsense. The game here is riddled with nonsense and it is why we are and will continue to be a diddy football nation notwithstanding the recent efforts in Europe of the Queen's 11!
 
ForGodForCountryForever said:
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?
Click to expand...
This old chestnut folk greeting about the 7th place sometimes gathering more points than 6th is either being deliberately disingenuous or plain hard of thinking.
 
I thought it was mad at first but now i think it's a great idea. Season's where the title has went down to the wire both teams have had the same opponents with the only advantage being whether you are home or away.

The only daft thing is sometimes having 3 home or away against a team but there are ways round that if they expand the league a bit.
 
bar72bear said:
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
Click to expand...
Yeah this has been mooted a few times and would be my choice.

Personally to make it that the top of the bottom half are playing for something I would give the winners a one off game at the ground of the team in the lowest European spot for that place.
 
ForGodForCountryForever said:
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?
Click to expand...
The reason the 7th team generally ends up with more points than the 5/6th team is that they are all evenly matched in mid table pre split.

Post split the 6th placed team can bank 2 losses 99% of the time with us and them being in the top 6. The team in 7th is playing the drega of the league so will likely win majority of their available points.

Its a pointless having a split but it is easy to understand why the team in 7th generally has more points than those one or two places higher
 
tbh i think the split adds something to the end of the season. Teams more likely to play each other for positions.

There is a solution that i've never understood why they don't use. Just show the league as actually split. Premier league A and B, top and bottom, Champions and relegation, or whatever.
That would stop all the folk moaning about the team in 7th having more points than 6th.
 
RoofeIsOnFire said:
The reason the 7th team generally ends up with more points than the 5/6th team is that they are all evenly matched in mid table pre split.

Post split the 6th placed team can bank 2 losses 99% of the time with us and them being in the top 6. The team in 7th is playing the drega of the league so will likely win majority of their available points.

Its a pointless having a split but it is easy to understand why the team in 7th generally has more points than those one or two places higher
Click to expand...
Think it's the polar opposite of pointless mate. It is to ensure 4 old firm matches.
 
The only plus sides that there are is that you "usually" have a few more games against teams that don`t dig themselves in behind the half-way line AND against teams without plastic pitches.

Having more "exciting games" (remember, this is Scotland we are speaking of) is being countered by a warped selection of home and away games, usually depending on how it went the season before or how loud certain managers whine.

A bigger league with just two games against one another won`t happen, as the TV media will scream for 4 Old Firm matches (i.e. the only meaningful games for them).

I doubt that the powers in Scotland right now can come up with anything useful, so there is hope that one day Sky and Co. whip up a British League (and they have the power to dictate that) with us joining the top tier, with some sort of monetary benefit for the rest of the game in Scotland. Like handing the Premiership sides enough money to make up for any attendance figure loss due to our absence - probably still peanuts to Sky et al.
 
RoofeIsOnFire said:
The reason the 7th team generally ends up with more points than the 5/6th team is that they are all evenly matched in mid table pre split.

Post split the 6th placed team can bank 2 losses 99% of the time with us and them being in the top 6. The team in 7th is playing the drega of the league so will likely win majority of their available points.

Its a pointless having a split but it is easy to understand why the team in 7th generally has more points than those one or two places higher
Click to expand...
Specious reasoning I would suggest there. Teams can be on a run of good or bad form that moves them into a position of unnatural standing vs their actual quality, this is particularly true of a League where there are not enough teams competing so its much easier to jump and fall places.

That actually brings forward the point that the League's failing is its far too small with too many repeat fixtures. As I recall at the time of its introduction the split was promoted as being able to add excitement to the final games whereas its probably done the absolute opposite. Fast Forward 15 years approx and its still there with not even a thought to review its impact and benefits. Or lack thereof.
 
bar72bear said:
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
Click to expand...
If you’re going to have a split, then this would be my preferred option.
 
The whole system of scotshit football is a shambles. If things don't go the way of certain teams they want the system changed especially if relegation is a possibility. Last season was an embarrassment and showed how corrupt the organisations that run the game are. A league where teams play each other home and away once is the only fair way to go. And a complete clear out of the crooks in charge is priority before this shambles collapses completely.
 
bar72bear said:
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
Click to expand...
Said exactly this for years
 
I struggle to see what exactly the split achieves (apart from the obvious complication)

I know a mid-table team during a normal campaign - with crowds - has an incentive to remain in the top half - for no other reason than being able to earn more revenue playing the likes of us

When it upsets the balance of equal numbers of home & away fixtures - it's into mickey mouse realms IMO

I know there's other leagues that do this - but as far as I know they're also mickey mouse leagues

I remember Wee Dick being interviewed about it & him shrugging his shoulders & saying something along the lines of -
I don't know how it works - I haven't managed to understand it yet -

Well after all this time - I still don't understand the point of it personally
 
Coplandbear said:
Will never happen any tv deal specifically states we need then to play that mob 4 times a season.
Click to expand...
It’s a vicious circle IMO. The OF can’t be the sole reason for Scottish football. The better leagues all have more teams than ours. Playing each team 3/4 dilutes the quality of the league imo. You get a second chance if you slip up in one game. It would make each game more meaningful if there was just a home and away tie. It might not make a difference immediately but in time I think it would improve the standard of the league. Of course there would be other derby matches as it’s hard to think from 20 top flight teams that one of the Edinburgh or Dundee clubs would be missing. Are there any other leagues that have a split like ours?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top