Is 3 Points For a Win a Major Factor in the Glasgow Dominance?

[Pretty Boy]

As it says on the tin.

In Season 1984/85 Aberdeen, the last team outside Glasgow to win the league, won the league by 7 points from Celtic. In the following 9 seasons, with 2 points for a win, the league champions, 2nd and 3rd were as follows:

85/86 - Celtic 50pts (Hearts 50, Dundee Utd 47)
86/87 - Rangers 69pts (Celtic 63, Dundee Utd 60)
87/88 - Celtic 72pts (Hearts 62, Rangers 60)
88/89 - Rangers 56pts (Aberdeen 50, Celtic 46)
89/90 - Rangers 51pts (Aberdeen 44, Hearts 44)
90/91 - Rangers 55pts (Aberdeen 53, Celtic 41)
91/92 - Rangers 72pts (Hearts 63, Celtic 62)
92/93 - Rangers 73pts (Aberdeen 64, Celtic 60)
93/94 - Rangers 58pts (Aberdeen 55, Motherwell 54)

The average gap between 1st and 2nd in this period was 5.7 points and between 2nd and 3rd was only 3.3 points. Add to that the top 2 excluded Celtic or Rangers in 8 of the 9 seasons. In season 94/95 3 points for a win was introduced and the following 9 seasons looked like this:

94/95 - Rangers - 69pts (Motherwell 54, Hibs 53)
95/96 - Rangers 87pts (Celtic 83, Aberdeen 55)
96/97 - Rangers 80pts (Celtic 75, Dundee Utd 60)
97/98 - Celtic 74pts (Rangers 72, Hearts 67)
98/99 - Rangers 77 (Celtic 71, St Johnstone 57)
99/00 - Rangers 90 (Celtic 69, Hearts 54)
00/01 - Celtic 97 (Rangers 82, Hibs 66)
01/02 - Celtic 103pts (Rangers 85, Livingston 58)
02/03 - Rangers 97pts (Rangers 97, Hearts 63)

In these seasons the gap between 1st and 2nd had increased to 9.55 points and between 2nd and 3rd to a whopping 16.1 points. In those 9 seasons the top 2 excluded Rangers and Celtic only once (the 1st season after the change) and until Rangers liquidation the top 2 only excluded either side on one other occasion (season 05/06). In season 93/94 Rangers won 5 more games than Aberdeen and won the league by 3 points (had it been 3 points for a win the gap would have been 8 points). In 94/95 they won 6 more games than Motherwell but won the league by 15 points (had it been 2 points for a win the gap would have been 9 points).

Of course the reasons for the Glasgow dominance is multi faceted but the pattern suggests that 3 points for a win could be a major factor.

[calumhibee1]

Interesting stats. Was it that too many teams were happy with draws and games were not exciting enough that it was changed to 3 points?

[hibbysam]

Maybe is, however I would never go back. Just encourages teams to sit in and enjoy a point.

[Pretty Boy]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Interesting stats. Was it that too many teams were happy with draws and games were not exciting enough that it was changed to 3 points?

I think that must have been a factor. There were 208 draws in season 93/94 (12 teams, 2 points per win). Following the return to 12 teams in 00/01 with 3 points for a win there were 111 draws. That's a significant difference.

[proud_and_green]

If dominance is equated to a big points difference yes, but is dominance not really about the number of times they have won. If 2pts for a win had continued and Celtic and Rangers had won less championships as a consequence then i would say yes. I think though your points about it merely being a reduced gap says it doesn't change anything.

[weecounty hibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Interesting stats. Was it that too many teams were happy with draws and games were not exciting enough that it was changed to 3 points?

It was exactly that. It was meant to give a greater reward for teams actually trying to win games. I believe Alex Miller was the main driver in it all!!

[hibby rae]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

As it says on the tin.

In Season 1984/85 Aberdeen, the last team outside Glasgow to win the league, won the league by 7 points from Celtic. In the following 9 seasons, with 2 points for a win, the league champions, 2nd and 3rd were as follows:

85/86 - Celtic 50pts (Hearts 50, Dundee Utd 47)
86/87 - Rangers 69pts (Celtic 63, Dundee Utd 60)
87/88 - Celtic 72pts (Hearts 62, Rangers 60)
88/89 - Rangers 56pts (Aberdeen 50, Celtic 46)
89/90 - Rangers 51pts (Aberdeen 44, Hearts 44)
90/91 - Rangers 55pts (Aberdeen 53, Celtic 41)
91/92 - Rangers 72pts (Hearts 63, Celtic 62)
92/93 - Rangers 73pts (Aberdeen 64, Celtic 60)
93/94 - Rangers 58pts (Aberdeen 55, Motherwell 54)

The average gap between 1st and 2nd in this period was 5.7 points and between 2nd and 3rd was only 3.3 points. Add to that the top 2 excluded Celtic or Rangers in 8 of the 9 seasons. In season 94/95 3 points for a win was introduced and the following 9 seasons looked like this:

94/95 - Rangers - 69pts (Motherwell 54, Hibs 53)
95/96 - Rangers 87pts (Celtic 83, Aberdeen 55)
96/97 - Rangers 80pts (Celtic 75, Dundee Utd 60)
97/98 - Celtic 74pts (Rangers 72, Hearts 67)
98/99 - Rangers 77 (Celtic 71, St Johnstone 57)
99/00 - Rangers 90 (Celtic 69, Hearts 54)
00/01 - Celtic 97 (Rangers 82, Hibs 66)
01/02 - Celtic 103pts (Rangers 85, Livingston 58)
02/03 - Rangers 97pts (Rangers 97, Hearts 63)

In these seasons the gap between 1st and 2nd had increased to 9.55 points and between 2nd and 3rd to a whopping 16.1 points. In those 9 seasons the top 2 excluded Rangers and Celtic only once (the 1st season after the change) and until Rangers liquidation the top 2 only excluded either side on one other occasion (season 05/06). In season 93/94 Rangers won 5 more games than Aberdeen and won the league by 3 points (had it been 3 points for a win the gap would have been 8 points). In 94/95 they won 6 more games than Motherwell but won the league by 15 points (had it been 2 points for a win the gap would have been 9 points).

Of course the reasons for the Glasgow dominance is multi faceted but the pattern suggests that 3 points for a win could be a major factor.

It may play some part, although prior to Hibs winning the league in 1947/48, every league bar one (won by Motherwell) was won by Celtic or Rangers, going back to Third Lanark winning the league in the 1903/04 season. The league still operated during the Great War but not during the Second World War.

[Pretty Boy]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If dominance is equated to a big points difference yes, but is dominance not really about the number of times they have won. If 2pts for a win had continued and Celtic and Rangers had won less championships as a consequence then i would say yes. I think though your points about it merely being a reduced gap says it doesn't change anything.

It's not just the size of gap in points though.

For the 9 seasons quoted with 2 points for a win the average difference between 2nd and 3rd was less than 2 wins. Post 3 points that is over 5 wins. As I said there are other factors at play but 3 points makes losses to Celtic and Rangers far more damaging. If Hibs lose to Celtic we have a 3 point deficit. Should Celtic lose their next game and we draw we have made up 33% of that deficit, with 2 points for a win the deficit is 2 points and the same subsequent results sees that reduced by 50%. Over the course of the season that makes a big difference.

[greenlad]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I think that must have been a factor. There were 208 draws in season 93/94 (12 teams, 2 points per win). Following the return to 12 teams in 00/01 with 3 points for a win there were 111 draws. That's a significant difference.

208 draws in 93/94 can't be right? Only 264 games played 93/94 (6*44) and 228 in 00/01 (6*38)

EDIT: It's 104 draws from 264 in 93/94 and 51 from 228 in 01/01 so your general point stands.

[Pretty Boy]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

208 draws in 93/94 can't be right? Only 264 games played 93/94 (6*44) and 228 in 00/01 (6*38)

EDIT: It's 104 draws from 264 in 93/94 and 51 from 228 in 001/01 so your general point stands.

You're right, I've double counted draws.

[proud_and_green]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It's not just the size of gap in points though.

For the 9 seasons quoted with 2 points for a win the average difference between 2nd and 3rd was less than 2 wins. Post 3 points that is over 5 wins. As I said there are other factors at play but 3 points makes losses to Celtic and Rangers far more damaging. If Hibs lose to Celtic we have a 3 point deficit. Should Celtic lose their next game and we draw we have made up 33% of that deficit, with 2 points for a win the deficit is 2 points and the same subsequent results sees that reduced by 50%. Over the course of the season that makes a big difference.

Yes, I get that, but would it make a difference to the overall placings in the championships after the change had they been 2pt wins.

Sent from my G8441 using Tapatalk

[Diclonius]

I think having to play the two of them eight times is a bigger factor. A team with inferior resources could maybe manage a win and a draw against both of them. They can't keep that up four times in a row.

[Renfrew_Hibby]

Simple maths really but we in Scotland have the added factor of having to play the top teams 4 times and not just twice as you would find in just about every other league.

Leicester could win 36 fixtures but lose twice to Man Utd and finish 6pts behind them whereas we could win all our fixtures too but lose our games against Celtic. This would of course result in a potential 12pt gap.
This helps create a false impression that there is a greater gulf between the richest clubs and the rest than other leagues therefor our league is seen as more rubbishy or tin pot in say the eyes of your average English football fan.
It certainly makes the league far less competitive and for that reason I can't ever see Celtic or Rangers allowing it to change.

[Pagan Hibernia]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Simple maths really but we in Scotland have the added factor of having to play the top teams 4 times and not just twice as you would find in just about every other league.

Leicester could win 36 fixtures but lose twice to Man Utd and finish 6pts behind them whereas we could win all our fixtures too but lose our games against Celtic. This would of course result in a potential 12pt gap.
This helps create a false impression that there is a greater gulf between the richest clubs and the rest than other leagues therefor our league is seen as more rubbishy or tin pot in say the eyes of your average English football fan.
It certainly makes the league far less competitive and for that reason I can't ever see Celtic or Rangers allowing it to change.

time to maybe start thinking about reconstruction? ()

[JeMeSouviens]

This may have had a small influence. Playing 4 rounds of fixtures may have had a small influence.

But by far and away the biggest reason is ££££££.

The only times Scottish football has been competitive among more than Celtc and a Rangers were the post-war period when everyone had massive crowds and the 80s when Celtc were mis-managed by their biscuit tin board and the Old Huns were hamstrung by rebuilding Ibrox. In those days other clubs held onto their best players or if they didn't, they went south and so did any decent Hun or Celtc players.

By the mid 90s, David Murray had put the Old Huns on the financial steroids that would eventually kill them and Fergus McCann had sorted out Celtc to the extent they were starting to compete with that finance. That happens to coincide with 3 pts for a win.

[1 8 7 5]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

As it says on the tin.

In Season 1984/85 Aberdeen, the last team outside Glasgow to win the league, won the league by 7 points from Celtic. In the following 9 seasons, with 2 points for a win, the league champions, 2nd and 3rd were as follows:

85/86 - Celtic 50pts (Hearts 50, Dundee Utd 47)
86/87 - Rangers 69pts (Celtic 63, Dundee Utd 60)
87/88 - Celtic 72pts (Hearts 62, Rangers 60)
88/89 - Rangers 56pts (Aberdeen 50, Celtic 46)
89/90 - Rangers 51pts (Aberdeen 44, Hearts 44)
90/91 - Rangers 55pts (Aberdeen 53, Celtic 41)
91/92 - Rangers 72pts (Hearts 63, Celtic 62)
92/93 - Rangers 73pts (Aberdeen 64, Celtic 60)
93/94 - Rangers 58pts (Aberdeen 55, Motherwell 54)

The average gap between 1st and 2nd in this period was 5.7 points and between 2nd and 3rd was only 3.3 points. Add to that the top 2 excluded Celtic or Rangers in 8 of the 9 seasons. In season 94/95 3 points for a win was introduced and the following 9 seasons looked like this:

94/95 - Rangers - 69pts (Motherwell 54, Hibs 53)
95/96 - Rangers 87pts (Celtic 83, Aberdeen 55)
96/97 - Rangers 80pts (Celtic 75, Dundee Utd 60)
97/98 - Celtic 74pts (Rangers 72, Hearts 67)
98/99 - Rangers 77 (Celtic 71, St Johnstone 57)
99/00 - Rangers 90 (Celtic 69, Hearts 54)
00/01 - Celtic 97 (Rangers 82, Hibs 66)
01/02 - Celtic 103pts (Rangers 85, Livingston 58)
02/03 - Rangers 97pts (Rangers 97, Hearts 63)

In these seasons the gap between 1st and 2nd had increased to 9.55 points and between 2nd and 3rd to a whopping 16.1 points. In those 9 seasons the top 2 excluded Rangers and Celtic only once (the 1st season after the change) and until Rangers liquidation the top 2 only excluded either side on one other occasion (season 05/06). In season 93/94 Rangers won 5 more games than Aberdeen and won the league by 3 points (had it been 3 points for a win the gap would have been 8 points). In 94/95 they won 6 more games than Motherwell but won the league by 15 points (had it been 2 points for a win the gap would have been 9 points).

Of course the reasons for the Glasgow dominance is multi faceted but the pattern suggests that 3 points for a win could be a major factor.

Good thread.

Think that, more than 2pts or 3 pts, the main issue is the 8 games against them every season.

[Fuzzywuzzy]

I've said before that 3 points for an away, 2 for a home and 1 for a draw would be interesting. Can't remember the thread but someone kindly drew up the table on this basis of points. Just can't remember where! Don't think there were massive changes but think it would make things a bit more interesting for teams going to Ibrox or park head

[proud_and_green]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I think having to play the two of them eight times is a bigger factor. A team with inferior resources could maybe manage a win and a draw against both of them. They can't keep that up four times in a row.

I agree, that is 24 points. I always reckoned that for non old firm to win the league they didn't have to beat the old firm but they did have to beat everyone else, that was changed to an extent by the 3 pt win.

Sent from my G8441 using Tapatalk

[nonshinyfinish]

Bosman ruling (1995) is also a factor. Balance of power between players and clubs changed and it made it harder for a smaller club to keep a good side together.

[Inconsequential]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I think having to play the two of them eight times is a bigger factor. A team with inferior resources could maybe manage a win and a draw against both of them. They can't keep that up four times in a row.

Yes I totally agree and have thought this for a long time. Probably since the two divisions were reconstructed! In a home and away only basis a win against either of the big two would be a 50% success but with the present set up it's only 25%. Doesn't really damage them.

[MWHIBBIES]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Bosman ruling (1995) is also a factor. Balance of power between players and clubs changed and it made it harder for a smaller club to keep a good side together.

I think this is probably the biggest factor and easily the biggest reason for the dominance of a select group of teams in the period since. Coupled with the TV money down south, players just don't stay here for more than 1 contract.

Next summer Doidge will probably leave because he'll only have a year left and we'll be in trouble of losing him for nothing. Same with Gogic. Its horrible to think about but its reality these days.

Scouting and the availability of highlights has also impacted small clubs. Its much harder to keep a player when everyone knows about him. You used to only really see players from certain leagues in big euro games and international tournaments.

[Ozyhibby]

European income also a factor.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Keith_M]

I think money plays a large factor in their dominance, generated by having massively larger attendances than the other clubs. Success creates bigger attendances, which creates more money, which creates more success.

The dominance of the ugly sisters between 1904 and 1947, plus the sectarian divide they cultivated, drew so many people to them that no other club will ever have a chance of competing with them long term.

There was a brief spell after the war when various clubs challenged them. Most other clubs at that time had much larger attendances than either before or since. None of them managed to sustain that success (or crowd numbers).

Aberdeen and Dundee Utd had an even briefer spell of success in the first half of the 80s, at a time when Rangers and Celtc's crowds were at an all-time low.

Souness' arrival at Ibrox changed all that and Celtc eventually responded... to the extent that they now have average attendances 3-4 times that of their nearest challengers.

[Liberal Hibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I think money plays a large factor in their dominance, generated by having massively larger attendances than the other clubs. Success creates bigger attendances, which creates more money, which creates more success.

The dominance of the ugly sisters between 1904 and 1947, plus the sectarian divide they cultivated, drew so many people to them that no other club will ever have a chance of competing with them long term.

There was a brief spell after the war when various clubs challenged them. Most other clubs at that time had much larger attendances than either before or since. None of them managed to sustain that success (or crowd numbers).

Aberdeen and Dundee Utd had an even briefer spell of success in the first half of the 80s, at a time when Rangers and Celtc's crowds were at an all-time low.

Souness' arrival at Ibrox changed all that and Celtc eventually responded... to the extent that they now have average attendances 3-4 times that of their nearest challengers.

Money has always been the dominant factor but the issue is the gap is now bigger than ever. Alex Ferguson argued that he needed a strong Dundee United to take points off the OF as well. So bringing more teams into the league that have no chance of taking points off the OF doesn't solve the problem. P

[one day maybe...]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Maybe is, however I would never go back. Just encourages teams to sit in and enjoy a point.

Imagine if you got no points for a draw, 2 points for a home win and 3 for an away win 🤷🏻*♂️

[jgl07]

I don't think it has anything to do with the results.

The OF seemed to be rather successful between 1904-05 and 1938-39 winning all titles bar one for Motherwell (all on 2 points for a win).

Things were more competitive after the war thanks largely to Hibs in the immediate post-war era, Hearts in the late 1960s, plus Aberdeen and Dundee United in the early 1980s.

What made the difference was firstly Rangers and subsequently Celtic expoiting their financial advantage. Rangers success started with the under the chairmanship of David Holmes with the arrival of Graeme Souness . Holmes had already largely reconstructed Ibrox and had a huge advantage over other clubs who had to spend millions. It was bugger all to do with David Murray who jumped on the bandwagon.

By the time Fergus McCann had transformed Celtic's finances and rebuilt Parkhead, no other club could come near Rangers and Celtic.

Sorry but nothing to do with points awarded for a win.

[Aim Here]

While we're listing possible factors, there is also the introduction of the backpass rule at about the same time, which might have made it harder for a weaker team to hang onto an early goal with goalkeeper-based timewasting.

[SuperAllyMcleod]

It’s down to finance - when the leagues changed in the 70’s they also allowed the home teams to keep all of the gate money. This gave the Old Firm a massive advantage once they eventually worked out how to harness it properly.

That along with Bosman are the two biggest factors for me, although eight games against the Old Firm does have an impact. Even there they get an advantage as they only have to play against the Old Firm four times in any one season.

[mcohibs]

Fairly easy to work out. Substitute 3 point wins for 2 points and see how the leagues work out. Celtic and Rangers would still win

[Carheenlea]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Fairly easy to work out. Substitute 3 point wins for 2 points and see how the leagues work out. Celtic and Rangers would still win

Yes they still would in all likelihood, but a narrower gap might just give some clubs some belief that they could mount a serious title challenge, or at least remain competitive at the top of the table for longer in the season.

Right now everyone out with the Old Firm is targeting third, and there seems no time in the future as far as we can see where Celtic or Rangers won`t win the league.

Having that little bit extra belief could see a change in mindset and maybe even some clubs being a bit more ambitious in the transfer market when it comes to preparing squads.