PDA

View Full Version : Is a 16 team league possible?



Hibbyradge
11-08-2015, 11:37 PM
I've read and heard a lot of people calling for a 16 team league. The arguments are that it would reduce the boredom caused by playing teams 4 times a season and it might give teams a better chance of competing for the title.

Those are desirable benefits, for sure.

However, a 16 team league would only provide 15 home games instead of the current 19, a statistical drop of over 21% in income. However, there would also only be one game against Celtc and TV money would also reduce so the actual loss in income would be closer to 25%. Hibs and Hearts would be even harder hit as we'd also lose out on a home derby.

How could clubs adapt to that?

An increase in ticket prices? Pay lower wages?

Home and away games against the likes of Arbroath, Berwick and Queen's Park in a revamped league cup? (I thought we were trying to reduce the boredom).

I don't think it's at all feasible, but I'd be interested in the views of those who advocate it.

lord bunberry
12-08-2015, 02:20 AM
I've read and heard a lot of people calling for a 16 team league. The arguments are that it would reduce the boredom caused by playing teams 4 times a season and it might give teams a better chance of competing for the title.

Those are desirable benefits, for sure.

However, a 16 team league would only provide 15 home games instead of the current 19, a statistical drop of over 21% in income. However, there would also only be one game against Celtc and TV money would also reduce so the actual loss in income would be closer to 25%. Hibs and Hearts would be even harder hit as we'd also lose out on a home derby.

How could clubs adapt to that?

An increase in ticket prices? Pay lower wages?

Home and away games against the likes of Arbroath, Berwick and Queen's Park in a revamped league cup? (I thought we were trying to reduce the boredom).

I don't think it's at all feasible, but I'd be interested in the views of those who advocate it.
I think the revamped league cup would involve regionalised groups to provide another home and away derby. I still think a 20 team league is the simplest solution.

jodjam
12-08-2015, 07:15 AM
I've read and heard a lot of people calling for a 16 team league. The arguments are that it would reduce the boredom caused by playing teams 4 times a season and it might give teams a better chance of competing for the title.

Those are desirable benefits, for sure.

However, a 16 team league would only provide 15 home games instead of the current 19, a statistical drop of over 21% in income. However, there would also only be one game against Celtc and TV money would also reduce so the actual loss in income would be closer to 25%. Hibs and Hearts would be even harder hit as we'd also lose out on a home derby.

How could clubs adapt to that?

An increase in ticket prices? Pay lower wages?

Home and away games against the likes of Arbroath, Berwick and Queen's Park in a revamped league cup? (I thought we were trying to reduce the boredom).

I don't think it's at all feasible, but I'd be interested in the views of those who advocate it.

There are certainly issues with increasing league size but I reckon removing the familiarity factor between teams will see a rise in attendances. If you played Hertz at home in the first game of a league season and then the next time they visited ER it was near end of the following season I'm sure crowds would rise. Away crowds would increase to as folk made an effort to make their favourite away grounds.

Also playing teams only twice a season will see a closer league. This again should help attendances.

The League Cup may be something they need to look at but playing this early in the season when kids are still on holiday will keep crowds low.

My worry though is the rumours of Sky etc only offering decent poppy for a 4 times a year OF bun fight. This could be catered for with a regional LC format.

A bigger league will hopefully help young talent come through. Less pressurised games but this relies on managers having the guts to do this.

I'm really not sure of the correct number but we need to try something.

Gatecrasher
12-08-2015, 07:52 AM
I don't think a 16 team league is possible without some kind of split after 30 games. restructuring the league cup is fine in its own merits but it doesn't make up for a loss of league games IMO.

Jim44
12-08-2015, 08:10 AM
I've read and heard a lot of people calling for a 16 team league. The arguments are that it would reduce the boredom caused by playing teams 4 times a season and it might give teams a better chance of competing for the title.

Those are desirable benefits, for sure.

However, a 16 team league would only provide 15 home games instead of the current 19, a statistical drop of over 21% in income. However, there would also only be one game against Celtc and TV money would also reduce so the actual loss in income would be closer to 25%. Hibs and Hearts would be even harder hit as we'd also lose out on a home derby.

How could clubs adapt to that?

An increase in ticket prices? Pay lower wages?

Home and away games against the likes of Arbroath, Berwick and Queen's Park in a revamped league cup? (I thought we were trying to reduce the boredom).

I don't think it's at all feasible, but I'd be interested in the views of those who advocate it.

Your first paragraph gives the logic for increasing the number of teams in the league and if this is accepted as reasonable then you've just got to go for it, despite the 'bigger' teams losing out on matches against the other 'big' teams. You can't have your cake and eat it, as they say. If you don't accept the principle of more teams, more variety, greater interest for everyone etc., you would be as well going in the other ridiculous direction and have an elite league of six, playing each other, say six times a year. That would suit the likes of Ronnie Deila and Sky TV and stuff the rest of the minnows who'll be left to get on with it. As I've said in other similar threads, the leagues weren't primarily set up for the convenience and financial well-being of a few big clubs but to create sporting involvement and interest among a large and varied group of participants. If money is the be all and end all for a handful of teams why not have a small league of twelve and, after their 22 boring games, let the big boys arrange financially lucrative friendlies against other like minded moneygrabbers from around the globe. Nothing to beat a nice bit of football incest. :rolleyes:

Hibs Class
12-08-2015, 08:27 AM
There would be disadvantages to a 16 team league, but I don't think they would be as bad as those with either the 10 or 12 team leagues we've had for the last 40 years. Whether a 16 team league is the answer (or 18 or 20) the one thing I'm certain of is that 10 and 12 team leagues are boring and predictable and the mid-season split is nothing more than a farce. Change in league size has to happen, the only question is what option should be tried next.

Kojock
12-08-2015, 08:42 AM
How about the away team gets a share of the home gate, that would even things up a bit.

Jim44
12-08-2015, 08:52 AM
How about the away team gets a share of the home gate, that would even things up a bit.

With most of the home gate made up of season ticket holders. how do you determine the home gate to be shered?

Unseen work
12-08-2015, 09:02 AM
I am all for a 16 team league. The current 12 plus ourselves, Rangers, St mirren and Falkirk would be a good competitive league IMO.

A lot of spl teams fans seem to have the impression that there is a massive gap between the 2 leagues, especially since Motherwell pumped Rangers. I think there wouldn't be a massive gap between ourselves, Rangers, St mitten, qos and Falkirk and the bottom 6 teams in the spl

Moulin Yarns
12-08-2015, 09:07 AM
How about the away team gets a share of the home gate, that would even things up a bit.

I have said this before. With all games segregated it is easy to know how many away supporters turn out, after deducting a sum for the stewarding etc it is entirely possible to give the away club the correct proportion of gate money according to the number of supporters.

It would, IMHO, encourage fans to support their team home and away.

Keith_M
12-08-2015, 09:45 AM
18 team league: 17 home and 17 away games.

No split.

No extra League Cup games.


Replace Doncaster & Co with people that can talk up and actively sell our game, instead of doing the reverse. Preferably somebody that can do a better deal with the TV companies, so we can at least compete money wise with the lower leagues in England.

JimBHibees
12-08-2015, 09:50 AM
18 team league: 17 home and 17 away games.

No split.

No extra League Cup games.


Replace Doncaster & Co with people that can talk up and actively sell our game, instead of doing the reverse. Preferably somebody that can do a better deal with the TV companies, so we can at least compete money wise with the lower leagues in England.

We have a winner. :cup:

Bishop Hibee
12-08-2015, 09:52 AM
I'm with The OP on this. A 16 team league gives too few games.

There is no way clubs and broadcasters would want to give up 4 derbies a season compared to 2.

Maybe two leagues of 10 again with 2 up 2 down, more equal spread of the sponsorship money with regional leagues below would be better.

Kojock
12-08-2015, 09:59 AM
With most of the home gate made up of season ticket holders. how do you determine the home gate to be shered?

It worked in the 60s and 70s so I'm sure with modern technology something could be worked out.

marinello59
12-08-2015, 10:15 AM
It worked in the 60s and 70s so I'm sure with modern technology something could be worked out.

They simply halved the total gate back then.

J-C
12-08-2015, 10:21 AM
18 team league: 17 home and 17 away games.

No split.

No extra League Cup games.


Replace Doncaster & Co with people that can talk up and actively sell our game, instead of doing the reverse. Preferably somebody that can do a better deal with the TV companies, so we can at least compete money wise with the lower leagues in England.


Obviously keeping the play offs for relegation/promotion.

PISTOL1875
12-08-2015, 10:34 AM
16 team league is a good idea because....

- Teams only play each other twice which increases interest..

- Play New Year round of fixtures then have a shut down until February as over-priced tickets are financially crippling in January..

- Re-start the season after the break with the Scottish Cup..

- Less games will help players playing for the national team..

Keith_M
12-08-2015, 10:40 AM
Obviously keeping the play offs for relegation/promotion.


As it's 18 teams, could still have 2 automatically relegated and a a third club in the Play-Offs.

DJ HIBBY
12-08-2015, 10:47 AM
As it's 18 teams, could still have 2 automatically relegated and a a third club in the Play-Offs.

Whilst I want a larger top division and agree with all points, the only problem I see with this would be the 2nd division. Once the top teams from Championship are added to the top league, the teams in the 2nd division would be mostly part-time and the quality coming up would be poor. I think there would have to be mergers with smaller clubs allowing them to go full time and improve so that we have the appropriate league below the Premier league

chippy
12-08-2015, 12:04 PM
People who want a 16 team league don't need to remodel the league cup to make up games lost. All that is required is have a range of splits at the end of the 30 games. We could follow the Belgian Pro league model which has s top 6 playing each other home and away again with 2 sections for 7th -14th who again play home and away and the winners play each other the winner then plays against the top 6s 5th place team for the final European place. The bottom 2 play each other to death over up to 5 games to see who is relegated. Of course we could choose our own splits that suit us but the beauty of this is that it adds exciting additional games, makes it likely there are 4 old firm games at least 2 edinburgh , Dundee, highland and sometimes Fife , Lanarkshire and Renfrewshire derbies. What's stopping us ?

derekHFC
12-08-2015, 12:19 PM
18 team league: 17 home and 17 away games.

No split.

No extra League Cup games.

Replace Doncaster & Co with people that can talk up and actively sell our game, instead of doing the reverse. Preferably somebody that can do a better deal with the TV companies, so we can at least compete money wise with the lower leagues in England.

An 18-team league is fine, but what about the other 24-teams underneath the top league, how do you propose they're split?

The travelling in the 2nd division kills teams already and we've already had Brora citing their reluctance to come up should they have beaten Montrose.

Would you go 14 under the premier and then regionalise the 3rd league adding more teams in who want to progress?

Moulin Yarns
12-08-2015, 12:25 PM
How about the away team gets a share of the home gate, that would even things up a bit.


With most of the home gate made up of season ticket holders. how do you determine the home gate to be shered?


It worked in the 60s and 70s so I'm sure with modern technology something could be worked out.


They simply halved the total gate back then.


I have said this before. With all games segregated it is easy to know how many away supporters turn out, after deducting a sum for the stewarding etc it is entirely possible to give the away club the correct proportion of gate money according to the number of supporters.

It would, IMHO, encourage fans to support their team home and away.

#justsaying

NAE NOOKIE
12-08-2015, 12:31 PM
Bad idea number 1 .............. An 18 team league .... No matter what folk say it will have too many meaningless games and the teams left in the 2nd division will just about all be part time with very little prospect of them ever bringing through a club which would enhance the top league after promotion, even a 16 team league pushes that to the limit. Bad idea number 2 ......... a 10 team league .......... too little variety and far too much chance of being relegated, it would also sideline the play offs, which are a great idea. Its got to be 14 .. and with a split. As I said on another thread, the only thing wrong with the current set up is the imbalance of games before the split, with for example Aberdeen playing Celtic away twice and at home once before the top 6 is decided. ....................................... 26 games home and away followed by an 8 / 6 split, that gives the bottom 8 teams 40 games and the top 6 teams 36 games. The bottom two get relegated automatically and the 11th and 12th teams play each other home and away to decide who plays the winner of the play off between 3rd and 4th in the 2nd division in a winner takes all one off game at a suitable neutral venue.

Keith_M
12-08-2015, 12:58 PM
Bad idea number 1 .............. An 18 team league .... No matter what folk say it will have too many meaningless games and the teams left in the 2nd division will just about all be part time with very little prospect of them ever bringing through a club which would enhance the top league after promotion, even a 16 team league pushes that to the limit. Bad idea number 2 ......... a 10 team league .......... too little variety and far too much chance of being relegated, it would also sideline the play offs, which are a great idea. Its got to be 14 .. and with a split. As I said on another thread, the only thing wrong with the current set up is the imbalance of games before the split, with for example Aberdeen playing Celtic away twice and at home once before the top 6 is decided. ....................................... 26 games home and away followed by an 8 / 6 split, that gives the bottom 8 teams 40 games and the top 6 teams 36 games. The bottom two get relegated automatically and the 11th and 12th teams play each other home and away to decide who plays the winner of the play off between 3rd and 4th in the 2nd division in a winner takes all one off game at a suitable neutral venue.


Meaningless Games:

I've never understood that as a concept. No game is meaningless to the fans that attend as, even if the only thing at stake is pride, that's enough reason to still want to win. The other side of the coin is the complaint that every game is such high pressure that teams are reluctant to introduce young players. However, having games where you knew your league place was not at stake would allow clubs to do that.

The Bundesliga currently has 18 clubs, with relegation and playoffs as proposed, but nobody ever complains of 'meaningless games'. Every game is still taken seriously. Most clubs know that they have little to no chance of winning the league but that's irrelevant, as winning is stil important.

The Split:

I absolutely hate this whole concept. It's interesting that other leagues have tried this and dumped it ASAP, e.g. Switzerland. For one thing, clubs can finish in the top or bottom six and have absolutely nothing to play for in the last five matches, therefore negating the 'meaningless games' argument.

For another, a club on the slide can just squeeze into the top six at the last minute and avoid a playoff or relegation spot that they might have deserved if there was no split. Teams finishing in the bottom half of the league automatically lose the right to challenge for a Euro spot they might otherwise still have had a chance of gaining.

There is often an imbalance of home and away games under the split, with some clubs playing others 3 times at home and once away, and vice versa. That's hardly fair.

Number of viable clubs:

This is actually a very good point, as to whether we have enough clubs to make an 18 team league viable. The issue is not having 18 large enough clubs, but also having others that can take their place. However, who would have ever predicted that ICT or Ross County would become mainstays of our top league? It can happen.

NAE NOOKIE
12-08-2015, 01:14 PM
Meaningless Games:

I've never understood that as a concept. No game is meaningless to the fans that attend as, even if the only thing at stake is pride, that's enough reason to still want to win. The other side of the coin is the complaint that every game is such high pressure that teams are reluctant to introduce young players. However, having games where you knew your league place was not at stake would allow clubs to do that.

The Bundesliga currently has 18 clubs, with relegation and playoffs as proposed, but nobody ever complains of 'meaningless games'. Every game is still taken seriously. Most clubs know that they have little to no chance of winning the league but that's irrelevant, as winning is stil important.

The Split:

I absolutely hate this whole concept. It's interesting that other leagues have tried this and dumped it ASAP, e.g. Switzerland. For one thing, clubs can finish in the top or bottom six and have absolutely nothing to play for in the last five matches, therefore negating the 'meaningless games' argument.

For another, a club on the slide can just squeeze into the top six at the last minute and avoid a playoff or relegation spot that they might have deserved if there was no split. Teams finishing in the bottom half of the league automatically lose the right to challenge for a Euro spot they might otherwise still have had a chance of gaining.

There is often an imbalance of home and away games under the split, with some clubs playing others 3 times at home and once away, and vice versa. That's hardly fair.

Number of viable clubs:

This is actually a very good point, as to whether we have enough clubs to make an 18 team league viable. The issue is not having 18 large enough clubs, but also having others that can take their place. However, who would have ever predicted that ICT or Ross County would become mainstays of our top league? It can happen. I did mention the unfair home and away ratio in my original post. I agree that a club within one point of 6th when the split comes is getting it tough, but its the same for everybody in that scenario. The difference in Germany I would presume is that, even if in the context of league position a game means little there is still plenty of quality on show and an exciting matchday atmosphere, probably not the case in Scotland. As for the bottom 8 in a 14 team league .... with 2 going down automatically and the next 2 heading for a play off, chances are most games would still mean something. ..... If I had my way the bottom 8 would have their points wiped and start from scratch .... that would shake things up :greengrin

Keith_M
12-08-2015, 01:21 PM
I did mention the unfair home and away ratio in my original post. I agree that a club within one point of 6th when the split comes is getting it tough, but its the same for everybody in that scenario. The difference in Germany I would presume is that, even if in the context of league position a game means little there is still plenty of quality on show and an exciting matchday atmosphere, probably not the case in Scotland. As for the bottom 8 in a 14 team league .... with 2 going down automatically and the next 2 heading for a play off, chances are most games would still mean something. ..... If I had my way the bottom 8 would have their points wiped and start from scratch .... that would shake things up :greengrin


That's just my take on things, NN, I'm not claiming it's the only fair view.


I'm willing to listen to your viewpoint...no matter how wrong it is


:greengrin

HFC 0-7
12-08-2015, 01:41 PM
I think league re construction isnt just to make this instantly better. If teams only played each other twice and things became more exciting as a spectacle then more interest would be shown in the scottish game. Yes, if we went to an 18 team top tier the league below would be made up of a lot part time clubs, however, if we can draw more interest, better sponsorship etc then more money would be available for the scottish game.

Personally I hate the split. If I knew that I would only see Hibs vs Hearts once a season I would be up for the game so much more. Playing that much different opposition could mean a lot more different types of players, different tactics etc so games could become a bit more challenging and entertaining.

16 team IMO is still too small. 18 would be the way forward, yes there would be a lot of issues for smaller clubs in lower divisions but its hardly a picnic for the just now. If it was 18 with 2 automatic relegation spots and another for play off it would give these smaller clubs a better chance of making it to the top league and playing the bigger clubs and getting better gate receipts etc.

If we went to 18 teams as well, there would be the chance for young scottish players from the smaller clubs out of that 18 to play against big clubs in big stadiums possibly on the television. IMO it would become a lot more attractive to players to come to this league and play for one of the smaller clubs that would normally not have much chance of reaching the top flight.

NAE NOOKIE
12-08-2015, 01:44 PM
That's just my take on things, NN, I'm not claiming it's the only fair view.


I'm willing to listen to your viewpoint...no matter how wrong it is


:greengrinI am rarely wrong :cb

KeithTheHibby
12-08-2015, 01:46 PM
16 team league giving 15 home and away games. League them splits into top 8 and bottom 8 therefore giving each team another 3 or 4 games.
No difference to what happens now i.e. 18 or 19 home league games.

No matter what people think the split is here to stay regardless of size of league.

BroxburnHibee
12-08-2015, 02:09 PM
The obsession with money is what's killing the game.

The English prem despite its faults gives the broadcasters a product they like which let's them create massive advertising revenues.

Unfortunately there's only 2 teams they're interested in up here and that's what drives every decision that gets made up here.

Personally a regionalised cup is a better idea than this stupid stupid split imo.

ancient hibee
12-08-2015, 02:11 PM
The obsession with money is what's killing the game.

The English prem despite its faults gives the broadcasters a product they like which let's them create massive advertising revenues.

Unfortunately there's only 2 teams they're interested in up here and that's what drives every decision that gets made up here.

Personally a regionalised cup is a better idea than this stupid stupid split imo.


No-it's not having enough money that's killing the game up here.

HFC 0-7
12-08-2015, 02:51 PM
The obsession with money is what's killing the game.

The English prem despite its faults gives the broadcasters a product they like which let's them create massive advertising revenues.

Unfortunately there's only 2 teams they're interested in up here and that's what drives every decision that gets made up here.

Personally a regionalised cup is a better idea than this stupid stupid split imo.

The Scottish game could do with being obsessed with money, well the powers that be could. We have gone without sponsors for the league and cup which is just crazy! We need to create a product that will generate money. IMO, the current setup is rubbish, the split is just a bad idea as well that was designed to try and have 4 old firm games per season. If you base your model on that for TV revenues then we wont market anything well. The whole scottish game needs to be a better product with more excitement.

IMO, an 18 team league would provide a better spectacle that would encourage fans back to the game. Smaller teams would benefit as well IMO, unfortunately none of this would be overnight and there would need to be some short term pain to get there.

Eyrie
12-08-2015, 06:49 PM
I'd favour 18 teams over 16 but that is not my preferred solution.

I still like the rejected idea of two leagues of 12 splitting into three leagues of 8 (top 8 = title/Europe. middle eight = which 12 for next season, bottom 8 = avoiding relegation). The teams that visit Easter Road twice will be teams at a similar level to ourselves, so the games will be competitive. There's a fair chance of four derbies to satisfy the broadcasters (Partick will be in the same group as either Septic or Sevco Huns). There's a fluid promotion/relegation situation with the middle group, so that being relegated is easier to bounce back from. I'd zero the points after the split into eights, so the title will be more open if a challenger can find a burst of form. With 24 teams involved, the other clubs can form part of a regionalised structure to reduce their travel costs and will see increased crowds by having more games with local rivals.

The only thing not to like is that it involves change.

Hibby70
12-08-2015, 07:00 PM
2 leagues of 10. Each team plays all of the other 19 teams home and away.

End of season 2nd plays 1st in the other league over 2 legs.

Grand final to decide champions

Old firm won't like it but we need something different.

Thoughts?