‘The split’

[Victor]

With the talk of reviews I wonder if our new partners will also look to question why there is a split 5 games from the end of the season? Without the split 5th place could be achievable for Hibs, with it the highest we can reach, even if we win all our remaining games, is 7th which will have financial implications. I appreciate that it is our own fault that we are in this position and our form suggests that we would struggle against better opposition, but overall I think it would be fairer if teams were able to continue to strive to reach a higher placing, rather than being restricted. I also appreciate that we would probably have to increase the number of teams in the Premier League, but would that be a bad thing?

[JohnM1875]

It's the same every time we finish bottom six. Folk moan about it.

Split is brilliant and creates some great games with a lot at stake. It's just pish if you have a bad season and finish bottom six like we too often have recently.

[jacomo]

With the talk of reviews I wonder if our new partners will also look to question why there is a split 5 games from the end of the season? Without the split 5th place could be achievable for Hibs, with it the highest we can reach, even if we win all our remaining games, is 7th which will have financial implications. I appreciate that it is our own fault that we are in this position and our form suggests that we would struggle against better opposition, but overall I think it would be fairer if teams were able to continue to strive to reach a higher placing, rather than being restricted. I also appreciate that we would probably have to increase the number of teams in the Premier League, but would that be a bad thing?


Talk on League reconstruction has gone very quiet.

Funnily enough, Budge promised she would continue to pursue this topic, as it was vital for the overall good of the game, but weirdly she lost interest as soon as Hearts got back in the top flight.

Anyone know why? :wink:

[greenlex]

It's the same every time we finish bottom six. Folk moan about it.

Split is brilliant and creates some great games with a lot at stake. It's just pish if you have a bad season and finish bottom six like we too often have recently.
The split is crap. It always has been. Always will be. The best leagues in the world don’t have them. I wonder why?

[JohnM1875]

The split is crap. It always has been. Always will be. The best leagues in the world don’t have them. I wonder why?

Because they have much bigger leagues than ours. Unless we make the league bigger, which we never will, then the split is the better option. It's only **** if you finish bottom six.

We finish top six this year we’re all buzzing for another derby and games against Celtic and Rangers.

[He's here!]

The split is crap. It always has been. Always will be. The best leagues in the world don’t have them. I wonder why?

Agreed. Effectively stopping the season just five games from the end makes no sense. I've never understood the split.

[He's here!]

Because they have much bigger leagues than ours. Unless we make the league bigger, which we never will, then the split is the better option. It's only **** if you finish bottom six.

We finish top six this year we’re all buzzing for another derby and games against Celtic and Rangers.

I'm never 'buzzing' for games against the OF, especially in recent years. We lose the overwhelming majority of them. I'm just pleasantly surprised if we take something from them.

As for derbies, our record there's an embarrassment. You just want to not lose them.

[JohnM1875]

Just weird we never have a thread moaning about the split when we're in the top six.

[MWHIBBIES]

Because they have much bigger leagues than ours. Unless we make the league bigger, which we never will, then the split is the better option. It's only **** if you finish bottom six.

We finish top six this year we’re all buzzing for another derby and games against Celtic and Rangers.

Id would not be buzzing for any of those. Id be buzzing for a 18 or 20 team league with some better away games and more variety in fixtures. Playing teams 4 times a season is extremely boring.

[JohnM1875]

Id would not be buzzing for any of those. Id be buzzing for a 18 or 20 team league with some better away games and more variety in fixtures. Playing teams 4 times a season is extremely boring.

Same. Never going to happen though.

If you can't get up for games against the OF and Hearts though then what's the point. Maybe just me.

[Since452]

The split is the one thing Scottish football has got right imo. Always creates excitement.

[Lago]

The split is crap. It always has been. Always will be. The best leagues in the world don’t have them. I wonder why?
Because they are better more competitive and entertaining leagues perhaps.

[we are hibs]

One of the worst Hibs games I've ever watched was Hibs V Hamilton in the split under Calderwood. Think it was on ESPN. There were about 30 Hamilton fans there.


That said some of the best games I've seen were in the split. The Celtic, Killie and Rangers games under Lennon were arguably the 3 most entertaining games of that entire season.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[MWHIBBIES]

One of the worst Hibs games I've ever watched was Hibs V Hamilton in the split under Calderwood. Think it was on ESPN. There were about 30 Hamilton fans there.


That said some of the best games I've seen were in the split. The Celtic, Killie and Rangers games under Lennon were arguably the 3 most entertaining games of that entire season.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

Twas at Hamilton. We lost 1-0. A truly horrific game. Terrible Hibs away support.

Think we lost to them at home just before the split. Dark days.

[Victor]

Just weird we never have a thread moaning about the split when we're in the top six.

I’m not ‘moaning’ about it. I was just wondering how it would look to our investors, unfamiliar with Scottish football and its peculiarities. I don’t particularly like it and would say that, even if we were in the top six.
I don’t think it is exciting for the top three teams. I think those chasing the title or even third place would prefer to play a mixture of teams rather than their closest rivals again. Personally, I would prefer an extended league, only playing each team twice and having a final position determined by playing scheduled games rather than an artificial end to the season.

[JohnM1875]

I’m not ‘moaning’ about it. I was just wondering how it would look to our investors, unfamiliar with Scottish football and its peculiarities. I don’t particularly like it and would say that, even if we were in the top six.
I don’t think it is exciting for the top three teams. I think those chasing the title or even third place would prefer to play a mixture of teams rather than their closest rivals again. Personally, I would prefer an extended league, only playing each team twice and having a final position determined by playing scheduled games rather than an artificial end to the season.

Aw of course the top three would all prefer to play lower-league fodder. But that's exactly what makes it interesting. They have to play each other. It's the opposite of heavyweight boxing where they all duck fighting the big fights.

I absolutely agree with you about a bigger league though. I just can't see it happening. Definitely not until what, 2028 or so when the Sky league deal expires.

[MWHIBBIES]

Aw of course the top three would all prefer to play lower-league fodder. But that's exactly what makes it interesting. They have to play each other. It's the opposite of heavyweight boxing where they all duck fighting the big fights.

I absolutely agree with you about a bigger league though. I just can't see it happening. Definitely not until what, 2028 or so when the Sky league deal expires.

Its nothing to do with sky, though. That is just an excuse. Hibs, Hearts, Kilmarnock etc, do not want it either. It would mean less money. Our club want 2 visits from OF.

Selfish clubs have been putting themselves before the product for years.

[JohnM1875]

Its nothing to do with sky, though. That is just an excuse. Hibs, Hearts, Kilmarnock etc, do not want it either. It would mean less money. Our club want 2 visits from OF.

Call it an excuse but it's still accurate. There's not a chance in hell Sky would agree to it so it's not happening before that deal expires.

Do agree about the teams being selfish and are all for the stats quo

[MWHIBBIES]

Call it an excuse but it's still accurate. There's not a chance in hell Sky would agree to it so it's not happening before that deal expires.

Do agree about the teams being selfish and are all for the stats quo

Well, even if sky didn't exist the clubs wouldn't go for it, is what I mean.

[JohnM1875]

Well, even if sky didn't exist the clubs wouldn't go for it, is what I mean.

Aye fair point. Again, I totally agree.

[ekhibee]

Just out of curiosity, which other leagues do have a split?

[Bristolhibby]

Id would not be buzzing for any of those. Id be buzzing for a 18 or 20 team league with some better away games and more variety in fixtures. Playing teams 4 times a season is extremely boring.

And other teams could mount a challenge to the OF. No wonder it’s always been voted down.

We had our chance when Sevco were in the fourth tier.

J

[Se7enUp]

With the talk of reviews I wonder if our new partners will also look to question why there is a split 5 games from the end of the season? Without the split 5th place could be achievable for Hibs, with it the highest we can reach, even if we win all our remaining games, is 7th which will have financial implications. I appreciate that it is our own fault that we are in this position and our form suggests that we would struggle against better opposition, but overall I think it would be fairer if teams were able to continue to strive to reach a higher placing, rather than being restricted. I also appreciate that we would probably have to increase the number of teams in the Premier League, but would that be a bad thing?


The division we played in for most of the 23/24 season is now complete, after 33 games. There's no room for a 44 games each division. We were crap and finished in the lower half of that table. We now get to compete in a handicap division of 5 games each to see who is the best (or more importantly, the worst) out of that lot. It's a different competition from the first part of the season. It's that simple, and I've never heard anyone bleating about it when we have previously finished top 6.

[marinello59]

Id would not be buzzing for any of those. Id be buzzing for a 18 or 20 team league with some better away games and more variety in fixtures. Playing teams 4 times a season is extremely boring.

The reality is with a bigger league, as we used to have, you end up with far more boring meaningless fixtures. The split isn’t ideal but it keeps things interesting for most teams right up until the end of the season.

[Dalianwanda]

Just out of curiosity, which other leagues do have a split?

just google it…a list comes up in first post

[joe breezy]

I’d be happy with a league the size we have with a dozen wealthy football clubs that all play quality football with decent supports

No gonna happen though

I’m not sure about the split - seems to cut down on meaningless games perhaps but it’s been a while so not sure how true that perception is


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[The Modfather]

The reality is with a bigger league, as we used to have, you end up with far more boring meaningless fixtures. The split isn’t ideal but it keeps things interesting for most teams right up until the end of the season.

Those boring meaningless games gives more of an opportunity to play youngsters than currently IMO, speaking only for myself that’s something I generally look for more than other things.

[Dublin07]

One of the worst Hibs games I've ever watched was Hibs V Hamilton in the split under Calderwood. Think it was on ESPN. There were about 30 Hamilton fans there.


That said some of the best games I've seen were in the split. The Celtic, Killie and Rangers games under Lennon were arguably the 3 most entertaining games of that entire season.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

That Hamilton game is memorable for me as my eldest son was was of
the mascots that day. We found the programme just the other day. The late Liam Miller led him out that day.

[OstKurve Hibs]

Nothing wrong with split at all, we have 33 games to make sure we finish in the top half and competing for europe, we ballsed it.

[Chorley Hibee]

Whilst I wouldn't argue that the mess we're in is of Hibs making, the split itself is a pile of nonsense.

All it has achieved this season is limit the chase for a European place (5th) to two teams, when it could have been fought by ourselves, Motherwell and Aberdeen too. The split has probably caused a collection of meaningless games as a result.

It's also unfair, as the teams involved have played more/less games of a certain fixture (home/away) than others.

I've always thought it was rubbish, irrespective of what half we were in.

[Chorley Hibee]

One of the worst Hibs games I've ever watched was Hibs V Hamilton in the split under Calderwood. Think it was on ESPN. There were about 30 Hamilton fans there.


That said some of the best games I've seen were in the split. The Celtic, Killie and Rangers games under Lennon were arguably the 3 most entertaining games of that entire season.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

All of those entertaining games you mention would have retained equal importance with or without the split.

[Eyrie]

The reality is with a bigger league, as we used to have, you end up with far more boring meaningless fixtures. The split isn’t ideal but it keeps things interesting for most teams right up until the end of the season.

:agree:

Plenty of posters saying that they have little interest in the post split fixtures now we're bottom six and that fewer Hibs fans will actually attend games. So in a larger league we'll have that problem of meaningless fixtures from February and not April.

[Nicho87]

Always argued we should go to an 18 team league

If anyone outside the uglies makes a challenge

They only have to play them home and away once each. Playing the old firm 8 times makes a strong challenge nearly impossible

But it’s Scotland and the format is designed to keep anyone from challenging isn’t it

[Eyrie]

Always argued we should go to an 18 team league

If anyone outside the uglies makes a challenge

They only have to play them home and away once each. Playing the old firm 8 times makes a strong challenge nearly impossible

But it’s Scotland and the format is designed to keep anyone from challenging isn’t it

Can't agree.

Hibs are more likely to drop points to St Johnstone/Raith/Morton/etc than the Ugly Sisters are so it won't improve our chances of making a challenge unless we have a team good enough to consistently beat St Johnstone/Raith/Morton/etc, in which case we will have a team good enough to face the Ugly Sisters eight times a season.

[Nicho87]

Can't agree.

Hibs are more likely to drop points to St Johnstone/Raith/Morton/etc than the Ugly Sisters are so it won't improve our chances of making a challenge unless we have a team good enough to consistently beat St Johnstone/Raith/Morton/etc, in which case we will have a team good enough to face the Ugly Sisters eight times a season.

I didn’t refer to hibs as the challengers

Just a hypothetical team

[Stevie Reid]

I like the split, it’s just pish to be on the wrong side of it.

[Eyrie]

I didn’t refer to hibs as the challengers

Just a hypothetical team

But any hypothetical challenger team will be in the same position that if they're good enough to consistently beat teams lower in the league, then they will be good enough to compete with the Ugly Sisters.

And we'd both be very happy if that hypothetical challenger is Hibs.

[Carheenlea]

Used to think the split of being a bit Mickey Mouse, largely because no other leagues appeared to do similar, but have grown to appreciate its merits.

We’re pretty much the only team in the league at this point with nothing at stake. Can’t qualify for Europe, can’t be relegated automatically and almost impossible to be dragged in to a play off spot.

[ian cruise]

Historically I've always argued that I'd prefer a larger league where every team plays each other twice as I hate playing teams 4,to 6 times season. Games stop feeling special, even derbies. That said, from a "who is finishing where?" point of view the split definitely has delivered that level of excitement/intrigue.

I'd still extend the league. There's enough teams in the championship who are of an equal level to much of the bottom 6. Gut feel is the only playing each other twice a season throws more unexpected losses vs the current set up making a more competitive league.

[MWHIBBIES]

Can't agree.

Hibs are more likely to drop points to St Johnstone/Raith/Morton/etc than the Ugly Sisters are so it won't improve our chances of making a challenge unless we have a team good enough to consistently beat St Johnstone/Raith/Morton/etc, in which case we will have a team good enough to face the Ugly Sisters eight times a season.

Hibs are never winning the title. May as well get some interesting games and stadiums in the league. Playing 4 times Vs a team is chronic.

[GreenCastle]

Scottish football is boring with x4 games against each other a season.

Would say a large majority agree and know it but just put up with it and still pay to go and watch it.

It’s the first change I would make to improve Scottish football.

Still have a split in a bigger league if you really have to but x4 games plus cup games can mean playing teams x6 a season which is dull.

Also the biggest issue is old firm dominance- all clubs should be finding a way to change that as no one is coming 2nd or 1st anytime soon. Buying a ST for 3rd at best is also a scam.

This relying on old firm money is an issue why Scottish football will never push on - sadly this crap tv deals runs till 2029 I think so still a few years to go with old firm TV.

[The Flea]

Used to think the split of being a bit Mickey Mouse, largely because no other leagues appeared to do similar, but have grown to appreciate its merits.

We’re pretty much the only team in the league at this point with nothing at stake. Can’t qualify for Europe, can’t be relegated automatically and almost impossible to be dragged in to a play off spot.


The split is a perfect fix for all outside the OF to meekly accept the perpetual 2 horse race, at least we have something to play for as we close in on the split and high stake games where we can chase an early round entry to UEFA or be dragged in to a relegation dog fight. What's not to be enthusiastic about.

[Pretty Boy]

I'd go further with the split similar to what Belgium do.

We could have a 14 team league, play each other twice for 26 games. Top 7 then split off, points are halved (and rounded up if required) and they play each other twice to decide the champions and European places. Bottom 7 is the same format with 2 going down, 2 coming up and 1 play off place.

If you implemented that this season (and it's not a perfect comparison because the number of teams and number of games at the point of the split are different) then the gap between Celtic in 1st and Hearts in 3rd would be 8 points with 12 games to play rather than the current split format where it is 12 points with 5 to play.

I reckon you'd see a non OF winner with that format in far less time than the 40+ years it has taken with the various formats we have used since the 80s.

[JimBHibees]

I'd go further with the split similar to what Belgium do.

We could have a 14 team league, play each other twice for 26 games. Top 7 then split off, points are halved (and rounded up if required) and they play each other twice to decide the champions and European places. Bottom 7 is the same format with 2 going down, 2 coming up and 1 play off place.

If you implemented that this season (and it's not a perfect comparison because the number of teams and number of games at the point of the split are differenr) then the gap between Celtic in 1st and Hearts in 3rd would be 8 points with 12 games to play rather than the current split format where it is 12 points with 5 to play.

I reckon you'd see a non OF winner with that format in far less time than the 40+ years it has taken with the various formats we have used since the 80s.

Sounds a good idea which automatically means we will never see it happen

[Scouse Hibee]

The split is the one thing Scottish football has got right imo. Always creates excitement.

It really doesn’t.

[Eyrie]

If we're going to reform the league then I'd want the Championship expanded to 12 teams with both it and the Premiership playing home and away for 22 games. You would then have the mid season break.

After that the top 8 in the Premiership play home and away for the title and Europe, the bottom 4 play the top 4 from the Championship for promotion/relegation and the bottom eight in the Championship play to avoid relegation. Everyone has a total of 36 games.

Plenty of meaningful matches and a very fluid situation for the middle teams so we'll see far more variety in the teams we play each season.

I like PB's suggestion of halving the points total to make the second part of the season more competitive and it would apply for the top and bottom 8s. Or start those teams with one point for each game won in the first part of the season. Everyone in the middle 8 would start on nil.

I'd also consult the Frist and Second division clubs on whether they want to continue with their current structure, move to two equal status regional leagues or have one league of 18.

[marinello59]

The split is a perfect fix for all outside the OF to meekly accept the perpetual 2 horse race, at least we have something to play for as we close in on the split and high stake games where we can chase an early round entry to UEFA or be dragged in to a relegation dog fight. What's not to be enthusiastic about.

It’s not the format that has seen us end up with a two horse race, it was the decision to stop sharing gate receipts with the away team. Up until that point the financial advantage enjoyed by the Old Firm was relatively small with direct transfers of first team players between all clubs much more common. Within a decade of that decision the gap had increased exponentially making it much harder for the rest of us to compete. That problem will not be solved by tinkering with league structures.

[Skol]

It’s not the format that has seen us end up with a two horse race, it was the decision to stop sharing gate receipts with the away team. Up until that point the financial advantage enjoyed by the Old Firm was relatively small with direct transfers of first team players between all clubs much more common. Within a decade of that decision the gap had increased exponentially making it much harder for the rest of us to compete. That problem will not be solved by tinkering with league structures.

Exactly, and also further exacerbated by the unequal share of sponsorship and tv money heavily weighted in favour of the top two.

[Itsnoteasy]

just google it…a list comes up in first post

Exactly. By the time it takes someone to post a message on .net they could have found the answer themselves on Google. I don't get it.

[greenlex]

It's only **** if you finish bottom six.
.
Naw. I said it is crap. It’s always been crap. It always will be crap. Not when it suits.

[Hibbyradge]

The split is crap. It always has been. Always will be. The best leagues in the world don’t have them. I wonder why?

It's because they have enough teams to make larger leagues viable, plain and simple. 3 or 4 home games against Rantic are what keeps several clubs in business.

Also, just look at the number of people saying that they're not going to go to the Aberdeen and Motherwell games because they don't matter because they are "dead rubbers".

Can you imagine the number of dead rubbers in an 18 or 20 team league? The crowds at games would be miniscule for all the teams not competing for Europe or the championship.

I'm pretty sure the majority of European leagues have splits including countries like Denmark and Belgium. Belgium's system, in particular ,is a doozy.

[greenlex]

It's because they have enough teams to make larger leagues viable, plain and simple. 3 or 4 home games against Rantic are what keeps several clubs in business.

Also, just look at the number of people saying that they're not going to go to the Aberdeen and Motherwell games because they don't matter because they are "dead rubbers".

Can you imagine the number of dead rubbers in an 18 or 20 team league? The crowds at games would be miniscule for all the teams not competing for Europe or the championship.

I'm pretty sure the majority of European leagues have splits including countries like Denmark and Belgium. Belgium's system, in particular ,is a doozy.
All of the European leagues that have a split are nowhere near the best leagues in the world Dave. We are both old enough to remember a bigger league. Dead rubber wasn’t even a phrase back then. Crowds by comparison were much the same as today. Big for the big games and meaningful games and average to poor for the others. Nothing would change we would be down a derby and two old firm games at home but should be in a better position to challenge at the right end and against the other teams should see an increase in those. I think the split is pish. If we are in no man’s land because we are poor get the laddies playing instead of loaning them out.

[Mcbizz1998]

No particular problem with the split as others have alluded to. My main issue with the league is the amount of times a season we play the same teams, it's pretty dull at times. I would love to see an expanded top flight where we played each team once home/away. Something like the below would be great, only one chance to go away to each ground a season and representation from all over the country. I'm aware there are probably very good reasons why this wouldn't work but I like it :greengrin

1. Hibernian
2. Celtic
3. Rangers
4. Aberdeen
5. Heart of Midlothian
6. Dundee United
7. Dundee
8. Kilmarnock
9. Motherwell
10. St Mirren
11. St Johnstone
12. Ross County
13. Raith Rovers
14. Partick Thistle
15. Dunfermline Athletic
16. Inverness Caledonian Thistle
17. Falkirk
18. Queen of The South (my wife's home town team so they make the cut!)
19. Greenock Morton
20. Ayr United

[Hibbyradge]

All of the European leagues that have a split are nowhere near the best leagues in the world Dave. We are both old enough to remember a bigger league. Dead rubber wasn’t even a phrase back then. Crowds by comparison were much the same as today. Big for the big games and meaningful games and average to poor for the others. Nothing would change we would be down a derby and two old firm games at home but should be in a better position to challenge at the right end and against the other teams should see an increase in those. I think the split is pish. If we are in no man’s land because we are poor get the laddies playing instead of loaning them out.

Crowds were terrible and declining when we had 18 team league and that was one of the major drivers behind reconstruction.

Even in the 73 and 74 seasons, most of our games outwith Rantic and Hearts were under 10k.

And we were second both of those seasons and an absolute joy to watch!

I agree the leagues with splits are not the best in the world, but that's because of the countries' populations, not their league systems.

If people can't be arsed going to see us against 2 of the bigger clubs in the country, Aberdeen and Motherwell, we wouldn't have to open all the stands if we were playing Morton or Ayr United.

I'd rather we didn't have a split, but it's the best solution for such a small country.

It's not as if the championship was regularly won by different clubs. Celtic and Rangers still clearly dominated.

[Pagan Hibernia]

Id would not be buzzing for any of those. Id be buzzing for a 18 or 20 team league with some better away games and more variety in fixtures. Playing teams 4 times a season is extremely boring.

:agree:

I'd love a bit more variety with away trips

[joe breezy]

The crowds Hibs get are the biggest I can remember
17000 against Motherwell?

I can’t remember that kind of crowd for that kind of fixture in my lifetime

Sure, it won’t be that next time but we had a really strong support this season


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LaMotta]

Crowds were terrible and declining when we had 18 team league and that was one of the major drivers behind reconstruction.

Even in the 73 and 74 seasons, most of our games outwith Rantic and Hearts were under 10k.

And we were second both of those seasons and an absolute joy to watch!

I agree the leagues with splits are not the best in the world, but that's because of the countries' populations, not their league systems.

If people can't be arsed going to see us against 2 of the bigger clubs in the country, Aberdeen and Motherwell, we wouldn't have to open all the stands if we were playing Morton or Ayr United.

I'd rather we didn't have a split, but it's the best solution for such a small country.

It's not as if the championship was regularly won by different clubs. Celtic and Rangers still clearly dominated.

You are bang on with this I think.

For those claiming that a bigger league would result in a better chance of one of the big two not winning the league - the league was first reduced in size from a big league to a small league in 1975. Celtic had just won that bigger league 9 times in a row. :cb

As for the argument that the top leagues have bigger leagues and no split so it must be better- the top leagues have 3 or 4 Champions league places to play for, alongside another 3 other european spots - this means there are way more meaningful games that can be accomodated in a bigger league.

[LaMotta]

The crowds Hibs get are the biggest I can remember
17000 against Motherwell?

I can’t remember that kind of crowd for that kind of fixture in my lifetime

Sure, it won’t be that next time but we had a really strong support this season


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good point.:agree:

[Centre Hawf]

I personally would like to see us go to a bigger league. But in the current format I do actually quite like the split. Bing part of the race to make top 6 added some jeopardy akin to a title race in early April where we were all looking at Dundee/Motherwells next 3 fixtures compared to ours.

Being bottom 6 is *****, especially when you just miss out and you're not really in the relegation conversations. But I also think for the most part the relegation race is never as exciting as folk would have you believe, it's usually drab draws because neither team can actually score goals or a 1-0 win from a flukey corner goal. But the principle of the whole thing does work 'beat your nearest rivals to earn Europe/top flight status'.

[Paulie Walnuts]

I'd go further with the split similar to what Belgium do.

We could have a 14 team league, play each other twice for 26 games. Top 7 then split off, points are halved (and rounded up if required) and they play each other twice to decide the champions and European places. Bottom 7 is the same format with 2 going down, 2 coming up and 1 play off place.

If you implemented that this season (and it's not a perfect comparison because the number of teams and number of games at the point of the split are different) then the gap between Celtic in 1st and Hearts in 3rd would be 8 points with 12 games to play rather than the current split format where it is 12 points with 5 to play.

I reckon you'd see a non OF winner with that format in far less time than the 40+ years it has taken with the various formats we have used since the 80s.

That sounds absolute bizarre.

So essentially, if you do well first half of the season you’ll be penalized by having more points taken off you than teams that didn’t do well? :confused:

I get it would make it more likely for someone else to win the league, but it seems a bit unfair really. If you pick up 40 points in the first half of the season then you’re down to 20 but if you pick up 25 then you’re down to 13. Win 2 and draw 1 more than the team who had 40 points in the next half of the season and you could win the league despite having picked up significantly less actual points.