14 Team Top Flight Being Mooted For Next Season

[AyrshireTon]

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/competitions/premiership/14-team-premiership-could-be-brought-in-for-2016-17-1-3970519

 

Forward thinking or batshit crazy.

A split of 6-4-4 with the fours coming from alternating league placings.

Maybe trying to save Dundee United's this early in the season.

 

Cockwomble may have lost it.

[LargsTON]

Ensuring Rangers come up.

[AyrshireTon]

Ensuring Rangers come up.

They look set to do that anyway, barring another financial implosion. Hibs will Hibs it.

[TRVMP]

As the article mentions, Denmark is giving this a shot.

 

I'm not at all against it, personally, except it does feel a bit of a punishment for the team finishing eighth.

 

Put it this way, as someone who actually likes the current setup, I think this has far more merit than tinkering with the League Cup.

 

However. The one glaring omission from the article. How many promotion and relegation spots? Bet you anything it's one plus a playoff.

[SpoonTon]

I'm not particularly a fan of the bottom half split, and I'm not a fan of reducing the number of games by four in those groups. The details with be important though. As Nach0 says, the number of relegation places will be important.

 

What are the potential benefits of this setup?

[TRVMP]

Just six short months ago Doncaster was saying we needed to get rid of the split, by the way.

[LinwoodTON]

Batshit crazy. I preferred the 12-12 splitting into 8-8-8 far more than this.  

[dunning1874]

In fairness, Doncaster hasn't said anywhere that this is the system we'd move to: he just mentioned that some things may change and said that Denmark is another league that's changing, not that we're changing to the same system as them. I hope to fuck we don't, because everything about that proposal is absolutely dreadful.

 

I've always believed that if you were creating a league system from scratch, ignoring what we have now and how clubs would respond, the ideal size of league would be 16 teams playing each other once at home, once away for a total of 30 games, with the bottom three automatically relegated. I think that's a good number of games and a good size of league, keeping the number of meaningless games as low as realistically possible. Unfortunately, we don't have the opportunity to create a system from scratch and disregard what's currently in place.

 

Clubs aren't going to accept going from 18/19 home league games to 15, even accounting for being able to play the League Cup at weekends rather than midweek if we had such a league system. You could mitigate that with a split after the 30, but really there's no balanced way of splitting a 16 team league: if you split 8-8 and play once teams have an uneven number of home & away games, split 8-8 and play twice you've got too many games, while it's impossible to split one league into three groups without either having a completely pointless group or being absolutely batshit mental like Belgium. Splits with a 14 team league are even worse, as proved by the abject nonsense being introduced in Denmark.

 

Far more pertinently, we don't have enough clubs big enough to have a 16 team top flight. It wouldn't be a problem for the top flight itself: the 12 currently there are obviously all big enough, while almost everyone in the Championship has the support base and infrastructure to be competitive in a 16 team top division. The problem is that you'd have a massive gap between the first and second tiers, which would make relegation a massive financial hit for anyone dropping from the top flight.

 

If you're going from a league where you regularly have travelling supports of over 1000 and far bigger sponsorship revenue to one where no one brings a travelling support greater than 500 and the prize money, sponsorship revenue etc is all far smaller, you're in trouble. Again, this problem is going to be worse if you have an 18 or 20 team top flight to resolve the number of games problem of a 16 team top flight. That could possibly be mitigated by a ten team second tier rather than another 16 but even then it would still be a problem, or all clubs in the top flight agreeing on a far more equitable distribution of prize money to the second tier through realising this would be best for them as a safety net, but that isn't likely.

 

All things considered, while I would like a 16 team top division I'm pragmatic about it and can accept that with all those potential problems, what we have now is probably as good as we can get unless there's a resolution to that second tier problem. Yes, playing each other four times can get stale, but it's better than just having a ten team league and the split we have is at least simple, with an even number of games for each team and no overly convoluted Belgian nonsense. While I would fully support a change if it was demonstrated how it would create more excitement or higher standards, changing from 12 to 14 with a more complicated split would just strike me as change for change's sake with no thought put into how it would actually improve anything.

[Charles_Joe]

10 and 18, two up and two down with a play off between 8th, 3rd, 4th and 5th. The strength of the second tier as an effect of the highland sides and Hamilton displacing the traditional top tier clubs has been one of the best things to happen in Scottish football this century. The old ten team top division didn't work because it was far too inaccessible, regular rotation of sides between a top and second tier can only be a good thing. We can only have a strong top tier if it's isn't diluted too far and has a strong second tier to support it.

Regionalise the whole setup below that.

[TRVMP]

But that's a right snoozefest of a second tier.

[TRVMP]

Dunning raises the point that we have a big gap between the top and second tiers in terms of 'solid' clubs, while M4RKO alludes to something opposite by saying the likes of Accies and the Highland clubs (and I'd also add St. Johnstone to thay) have shook things up. In fact they're both right. Now, it'd be great if we could put the self-interest of all clubs aside and treat this academically but any change must have the buy-in of the member clubs.

 

With that in mind:

 

1) well, shit happens. We know the fantastic amounts surrendered by teams dropping out of the EPL. Yet life goes on. Leeds, Wigan and the like - still with us.

 

2) even smaller countries have precipitous drops and small clubs. The difference between (say) Benfica and Gil Vicente in Portugal is every bit as big as the Celtic-Raith gap (probably bigger, actually.) In France there's a huge decline between tiers 1, 2 and 3. What I'm getting at is these exist in any vaguely open setup and they can't be the primary factor in league structure.

 

There's also the fact that, for all the talk of death spirals and the like, it wasn't a loss of top flight income that killed any club in Scotland in the recent past.

[AyrshireTon]

The old old top ten did work, and we spent 5 years in it. During that time clubs such as Dundee, Kilmarnock, Airdrie, Motherwell, Hearts and Hibs all came and went from it. Everyone one knew that it was 2 up 2 down - relegation wasn't the fearsome beast it became in the last couple of decades as clubs had a reasonable chance of coming back up.

One promotion place caused clubs to go all out on chasing that one place and missing out became a financial headache. Look at the number of administrations since our own (which was not due to chasing an impossible dream).

[SpoonTon]

I actually prefer the idea of leagues of 10 to the 14 idea, but only if there was something like 2 relegation places plus a playoff place. 14 has always felt like the worst solution to me. I've been following a club in leagues of 10 for more than 20 years, I don't think it's ever been a major problem. But the one up one down system to the top flight was a massive problem.

[AyrshireTon]

20 and 22.

There would be a dozen clubs who would fancy their chances of winning the lower title and have at least a year in the top flight. Not having 20 full time teams isn't a problem - we once topped the tables with a part time team.

Unfortunately too many clubs would moan about only having one home game against the likes of Celtic (and eventually, Rangers - which is ironic as only Celtic seem to be missing them).

 

Edited for typo.

[Toby]

I actually prefer the idea of leagues of 10 to the 14 idea, but only if there was something like 2 relegation places plus a playoff place. 14 has always felt like the worst solution to me. I've been following a club in leagues of 10 for more than 20 years, I don't think it's ever been a major problem. But the one up one down system to the top flight was a massive problem.

 

Two relegation places plus a play off is excessive for such a small division. you could find in the middle divisions that 60% of the division heads off to pastures new over a summer- that devalues promotion and relegation for me to see so many teams moving between the leagues. I actually think the system we've got at the moment's okay. I wasn't a great fan of the split initially, and still am not, but it's almost a necessary evil for a 12 team division. This daft proposal, like the new League Cup format merely seeks to complicate things.

 

What I find unbelievable is that what they're effectively trying to make more exciting is the relegation battle from the top flight- has nobody noticed that since the introduction of the play offs, the relegation battle has been great to watch? Okay, St. Mirren went down like a stone (lol) but Motherwell's survival and Hibs' collapse the previous year were pure theatre. It's incredible that the same folk who were so reluctant for so long to improve things by introducing a play off now want to fanny about with the league like this when it's actually exciting enough anyway.

 

I'd much prefer the powers that be paid a bit of attention to establishing the best possible format for the pyramid system, given that that's in it's infancy and could probably do with a bit of work. 

[SpoonTon]

2.5 relegation places in a league of 10 is excessive, but if excessive is what we really want then we may as well do that. And the 14 team idea is all about excessive. What I was trying to say is that if they're so desperate to make every place mean something for as long as possible and get to play a greater variety of teams then you'd be better just accepting the reality of relegation from a smaller league than trying to manufacture excitement as with the 14. I don't think leagues of 10 with 2.5 relegation places would be terrible if that's the route we really wanted - the same with 16, but clubs would need to raise and accept the consequences. And it is important to get to the bottom of what clubs really want, all things really considered.

 

But my position on this is very similar to Dunning's. As I said, sorting the one up one down problem was the most important thing. And as I said on the League Cup issue, that's the one thing which I'm ok with us messing with in that way.

[dunning1874]

Dunning raises the point that we have a big gap between the top and second tiers in terms of 'solid' clubs, while M4RKO alludes to something opposite by saying the likes of Accies and the Highland clubs (and I'd also add St. Johnstone to thay) have shook things up. In fact they're both right. Now, it'd be great if we could put the self-interest of all clubs aside and treat this academically but any change must have the buy-in of the member clubs.

 

With that in mind:

 

1) well, s*** happens. We know the fantastic amounts surrendered by teams dropping out of the EPL. Yet life goes on. Leeds, Wigan and the like - still with us.

 

2) even smaller countries have precipitous drops and small clubs. The difference between (say) Benfica and Gil Vicente in Portugal is every bit as big as the Celtic-Raith gap (probably bigger, actually.) In France there's a huge decline between tiers 1, 2 and 3. What I'm getting at is these exist in any vaguely open setup and they can't be the primary factor in league structure.

 

There's also the fact that, for all the talk of death spirals and the like, it wasn't a loss of top flight income that killed any club in Scotland in the recent past.

 

All fair points, other than Leeds are only still with us in the sense that Rangers are still with us. The only reason they're still at Championship level is that the Football League & FA were far more spineless and transparent about bending over backwards to help a big club who died than the SFA, SPL & SFL were with Rangers. Other clubs in England have been forced to drop several tiers after liquidation as the Conference actually punishes them for it, but Leeds were allowed to brazenly carry on being cheats with liquidation followed by yet more administrations, with nothing but a points deduction.

 

Anyway, yeah I suppose you're right. It is an issue but I suppose it's one that can be worked round.

 

Two relegation places plus a play off is excessive for such a small division. you could find in the middle divisions that 60% of the division heads off to pastures new over a summer- that devalues promotion and relegation for me to see so many teams moving between the leagues. I actually think the system we've got at the moment's okay. I wasn't a great fan of the split initially, and still am not, but it's almost a necessary evil for a 12 team division. This daft proposal, like the new League Cup format merely seeks to complicate things.

 

What I find unbelievable is that what they're effectively trying to make more exciting is the relegation battle from the top flight- has nobody noticed that since the introduction of the play offs, the relegation battle has been great to watch? Okay, St. Mirren went down like a stone (lol) but Motherwell's survival and Hibs' collapse the previous year were pure theatre. It's incredible that the same folk who were so reluctant for so long to improve things by introducing a play off now want to fanny about with the league like this when it's actually exciting enough anyway.

 

I'd much prefer the powers that be paid a bit of attention to establishing the best possible format for the pyramid system, given that that's in it's infancy and could probably do with a bit of work. 

 

I get that you're talking about the number of teams moving rather than who gets the opportunity to move so it's a different point, but I've always thought it's utterly preposterous that we currently have a playoff system that allows a team finishing fourth in a 10 team division to get promoted. It's ridiculous to give a team finishing in mid-table the chance to be promoted ahead of a team at the top.

 

You're right that too much movement is a bad thing, but it's better than too little movement and I'd say it devalues promotion and relegation far more to have a team finishing fourth promoted ahead of a team finishing second. I accept that fans and TV companies have taken to the playoffs with the excitement they generate and as a result they're here to stay, but they really do undermine the entire concept of a league as a meritocracy. They're a necessary evil in leagues of 18 or higher, but in 10 team leagues there is absolutely no need. If you finish second in a league you deserve to be promoted ahead of the teams in third and fourth, end of story.

 

With that in mind, accepting that 16 teams playing each other twice is an idealistic dream I'll never see while playoffs aren't going away, the only change I'd like to the Premiership setup is the second bottom side being relegated automatically. The split's necessary in a 12 team league but it's as simple as a split can be while 14 is going to improve nothing, there's no need to change the size of league just now.

 

I agree that fixing the pyramid system should be a far bigger priority: obviously it's going to be gradual, but as I think we've discussed in the past as soon as one of the current League Two teams goes down they'll change the relegation place to automatic to make it easier to come back up. I hope that over time we can move to a position where the Champions of the Highland and Lowland Leagues are both promoted automatically, with the runners-up of each playing off against each other for a third promotion place, but that's obviously going to take years and may require a move to a bottom national tier larger than 10 teams, to avoid that same problem you've highlighted of too many teams moving.

[Bobbyton]

I think people forget the flaws in the current system:

• 33 games and 3 fixtures against each team means you get 2 homes and 1 away or 1 home and 2 aways - depending on the way the fixtures work out could mean a big advantage or disadvantage vs a rival of a similar position.
• 5 games post split means 2 homes and 3 aways or 3 homes and 2 aways - again when coming to a relegation fight, having the extra home game could be the difference in staying up vs a team who has an extra away fixture.
• Combine the two examples and you get some examples of 3 home games and 1 away game vs teams.
• Similarly teams can have 20 home games and 18 away games while others have the reverse. 
• there is also the financial side to consider - Aberdeen have 2 home games and 1 away vs Celtic in the regular season. They might draw a home game vs Celtic after the split as well which gives them extra revenue and finally an advantage on the playing side with extra home games vs their rivals.
• The premiership continues for almost a month after the championship meaning big time gaps for the teams participating in the playoffs.
• The playoffs are also heavily weighted towards the Premiership team (probably partly because their season runs a lot longer than the championship).

I think any new league set up has to get back to basics which is an equal number of home and away fixtures.

 

The main gripe from supporters appears to be playing too many games against the same teams - Putting a split in the league does not help this.

 

Only playing teams twice needs a larger league. How large though? A league of 14 = 26 games; 16 teams = 30 games; 18 teams = 34 games.

 

Larger leagues removes the need for playoffs and also increases the threat of a huge gulf in resources between top and bottom teams - however Alloa vs Rangers is happening this season so do we really need to worry about that?

 

The introduction of the playoffs that is blinding people of the current flaws. Could you imagine the hysterics if Chelsea had to travel to Arsenal 3 times while only playing them once at home? There is not a chance our league set up would be accepted in England so therefore we shouldn't be accept it in Scotland either.

 

We need something new that is fair to the development of the sport and not about 4 games vs the Old Firm or about 4x Old Firm games either.

 

P.S. An article that highlights the failures of the current Premiership League format - https://gordonjohnston.wordpress.com/2013/04/03/things-get-silly-its-spl-split-time-again/

[SpoonTon]

Why would we want a top flight of 18 which only 2 teams in the country can potentially win? Just because the main gripe is repetition doesn't mean that there's a better system out there. The main gripe in a league of 18 would be a boring mid table battle, and it would be as big a gripe as the repetition thing is now. In fact the real problem is repetition when there's nothing at stake. No-one complained about having to play Thistle 4 times in 12/13, and that's because they were the biggest and most important games of the season. Similarly, I'd rather 4 games against St Mirren than 2 against Hamilton and 2 against Airdrie. Repetition itself isn't a problem.

 

And the gap problem isn't between the top and the bottom. It's the gap between the leagues. It's not healthy to have a system where relegation means you have to drastically change the financial make up of the club. It would mean we only have one league where full time football is sustainable without extra financial support.

 

Leagues of 18 would be boring, and also damaging for clubs like Morton.

[irnbru]

Why would we want a top flight of 18 which only 2 teams in the country can potentially win? Just because the main gripe is repetition doesn't mean that there's a better system out there. The main gripe in a league of 18 would be a boring mid table battle, and it would be as big a gripe as the repetition thing is now. In fact the real problem is repetition when there's nothing at stake. No-one complained about having to play Thistle 4 times in 12/13, and that's because they were the biggest and most important games of the season. Similarly, I'd rather 4 games against St Mirren than 2 against Hamilton and 2 against Airdrie. Repetition itself isn't a problem.

 

And the gap problem isn't between the top and the bottom. It's the gap between the leagues. It's not healthy to have a system where relegation means you have to drastically change the financial make up of the club. It would mean we only have one league where full time football is sustainable without extra financial support.

 

Leagues of 18 would be boring, and also damaging for clubs like Morton.

 

I think 14 is the way to go with 2 relegation places and play off meaning that there is a bigger turnover of teams every year to freshen things up.

 

To keep to the 36 games it could be an option to have the venue of the third game based on the aggregate winner of the previous two games.

 

I'd also consider going back to 2 points for a win. I know it was made 3 to try to encourage teams to go for the win but with it mostly going to be a two horse race this could help even things out a bit and make it a bit more exciting again.