The SPFL Split - Insanity gone mad

I don’t like the split and would happily bin it.

But if we need to have it, why did we have to opt for the worst possible arrangement.
 
this 5th 6th 7th 8th problem about clubs lower having higher points is only a problem if you want it to be , the clubs that finsh 5th and 6th are in the top half of the split for a reason ie performing well in the 33 game season so stands to reason they have harder games against the top teams going for titles/europe so means bigger crowds so more money


note. if they wanted a better system they should've went down the 14 team top 6 bottom 8 split where clubs in the split played everyone home and away , the extra 2 games for the bottom would help them financially and give the top 6 less games because they deeper in Europe and cup competitions
 
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.
 
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 44 games. No unfair split with 3 away and 2 home games.
 
Last edited:
ao2 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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’
 
  • Like
Reactions: ao2
Gameboy said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think you're 10 games light there mate, no?
 
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...
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.
 
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 like it too, gives some excitement
 
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...
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.
 
Uddingston_Bear said:
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.
Click to expand...
In how many of these leagues is there the preposterous imbalance of home games played as opposed to away games played?
 
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.
 
wee bud's pit boots said:
In how many of these leagues is there the preposterous imbalance of home games played as opposed to away games played?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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 agree. I think the split dramatically increases the chances of having an exciting title race, and without it there would be no helicopter Sundays.
 
The split would be fine if every team would play the same number of home and away games against each other.

without that, it doesn’t make for a 100% competition.

sporting integrity....

if only there was a way to construct the league to provide that. Whilst retaining the high value games.

if someone at the sfa is looking in, drop me a dm, I could offer this to you in about 30 seconds
 
Uddingston_Bear said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
_DON_ said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
wee bud's pit boots said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yeah I totally agree. Its probably works in Austria because it stops the unpopular RB Salzburg running away with the league every year.
 
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.
 
Uddingston_Bear said:
Yeah I totally agree. Its probably works in Austria because it stops the unpopular RB Salzburg running away with the league every year.
Click to expand...
Is there a reason for the unpopularity of RB Salzburg?

In saying that, my knowledge of Austrian football is as limited as my smarts regards Jedward's greatest hits.

Rapid Vienna, Baxter breaking his leg in 64 and that's about the size of it.
 
delboi said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

I'd say that even if we were playing a side three times at home.
 
wee bud's pit boots said:
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.
Click to expand...

Mainly pulled this nonsense from the MLS, which is even more messed up as they have uneven games, but here we go...

In a 12 team league you play home and away for a regular season of 22 games. Maybe the winner gets the top CL spot and some sort of fans shield like they do in the MLS.

The teams that finish in the top 8 go into a mini-league, starting at 0 points, playing an additional 14 games for the "SPFL Cup" and additional European spots. The bottom 4 would be joined by the top 4 from the Championship in a similar format of 14 additional games to say in the Premiership.


Like I said previously, the whole thing is a shambles. B-D

If we are forced to play each other 4 times dot to TV we would be better just having a 10 team league, but nobody is going to vote themselves out of the league.
 
The 7th placed team didn’t have more points than the 6th placed team after 33 games. That’s the point.

Also, what the hell is ‘insanity gone mad’? It’s a made up phrase that’s gone nonsense.
 
Scotland should have a single 18 team division playing each other home and away, with regional leagues below it feeding a playoff system. Ideally the top league would be full time professionals playing on grass pitches as a requirement for entry.
 
We don't need a split to make our league a joke.

Last season for example in the rush to 'hand' the title to the yahoos we saw Hibs 'placed' into 7th spot despite actually earning more points than the 6th placed club St Johnstone.

SPFL a complete joke.

gn20.png
 
The split is ridiculous, I've always hated it in its current format.

Fair enough if there's a split that ensures an equal number of home and away games, but it's a complete nonsense that you can have 3 home/1 away game against 1 team, instead of 2/2.
 
Shuffle the pack any way you like. It makes no difference. Such is the financial disparity one of the OF will win. It's ridiculous.
 
delboi said:
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.
Click to expand...

Two leagues of 12, splitting to 3 of 8, 14 games after split.
Equal home and away games for all.
 
Each team should play the same fixtures home and away. This system we have of fudging the fixtures for the last five games, so that we get three trips to Livingston in one season for example, is terrible.

If you're going to have a split, do it after the second round of games not the third.
 
Johnny Yen said:
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.
Click to expand...
Agree with this. That's why the league was changed in the first place.
 
Johnny Yen said:
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.
Click to expand...

I've never really understood that argument tbh. If those are the run in fixtures then they would have to have been the other way round at some point and it balances out when the season complete.
 
Gameboy said:
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.
Click to expand...
20 team league?? FFS. Its bad enough battering Hamilton 8-0 without playing Alloa and Arbroath for half the season.
 
Sunnyvale_Loyal said:
Hate the spit.

Small time thinking for a small time league.

Club in 7th with more points than club in 5th. Idiotic.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Corkinator said:
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.
Click to expand...
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)

And to those talking about Morton/Arbroath etc on a Wednesday night in January, do you really get pumped up for a Wednesday night in January at St J/Livi/Hamilton?

My own preference is an 18 team top league. There's not a lot of difference between the likes of Ross Co, Hamilton and Killie, to Hearts, Dundee, ICT and so on. I can see the argument about missing 4 games v them, sheep and hivs, but a couple of seasons ago we played both Killie and Aberdeen seven times. To me that's worse than playing teams at the top of the Championship.
 
Glasgowsteve said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is absolutely my first choice too. Not a chance of it happening tho SKY won’t allow it. I’d honestly prefer 2 OF games a season.
 
Glasgowsteve said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
tazzabear said:
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.
Click to expand...
Why not just create a league of 6 then? 4 Europe places and 2 relegated.
 
The time to increase the league and reduce it to 2 old firm games would’ve been when we we weren’t in the top league as the top flight clubs would’ve been used to only getting two home games against either of the old firm than 4
 
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 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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top