Do you reckon that's why the FAI never know what they are doing with the league until early Febuary??Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
Everytime they try to bring the clubs together around the table to sort it out, it just turns into a big **** measuring contest??
Would explain a LOT actually. :ball:
Denmark.
Seriously, the number of teams in the league is not a big problem. I'll be glad to not have 4 fixtures against every team, and there was a time that I'd be delighted to hear this news but I'm not going to hold my breath that this change of structure will come along with the necessary changes to... well, most aspects of the way things are run here (vague enough for you?).
Tarmonbarry
myposts spaceshuttle
thats sensible & fair, lets hope lims continue to go in the right direction, the league need LimerickQuote:
Originally Posted by Lim till i die
They must have forgot to tell the waterford team though, as they didn't look interested (first half anyway).Quote:
Originally Posted by legendz
I think 16 teams will probably help crowds, even allowing for having nothing to play for - derbies/ traditional games will mean more being only twice a season and there'd be more incentive to travel as an away fan. If mid table interest is an issue, have a play off for the final european spot and/or extend the relegation play off up the table as well. Or play off for the title, grand final style.
Agree with Macy. we're too caught up in the LOI with the motherland - a big league season and the winner takes all. Better to have a full on league season, then a knock em down drag em out end of season play off. If there are 12 teams, top 8 qualify and go from quarters to final. Bottom 2 go down, 3rd and 4th last play off with 3rd and 4th in the 1st division for a single spot, though hard to justify it with only 12 teams, better the 16.
Regardless, a play off for the top 8 makes sense, will give even teams in 9/10 next season something to battle for. And mid table sides can keep going, I'm sure fans will buy into it after a year or 2.
Awful, awful idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spudulika
The traditionalist in me agree's, but part of me also feels that rather than another shifting the deckchairs change of numbers in the premier, we have to do something radical to reinvent the league. Rugby (both league and union) seems to have adjusted to the change? I would have it that the league winner is guaranteed Europa League at least though to maintain the importance of the league table.Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
Why so?Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
If there is talk of a 16 team premier from the FAI, it'd suggest more that one A Championship side could be invited to the first division. These clubs have until 30th November to meet the criteria required. When is the date for the current 21 clubs to find out their licences for next year? That is bound to have a bearing on any changes to the Premier.
If only one A Championship club is invited I think they'll go with 12 in the Premier and 10 in the FD. If at least 3 are invited, it could be 12 & 12 or 16 & 8.
The date is a closely guarded secret. Even the clubs dint know.
Week before the first round of fixtures for the licences to be finalised, give or take a week.Quote:
Originally Posted by legendz
Please, please no.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
Rugby in England may have made that change, but its been far from universally welcomed. I have lived a large part of my life in the northwest of England and have seen how it impacted on rugby league, which went from being a "bottom up" sport, played in schools and local clubs with a recognised pyramidal structure, to what is effectively a "top down" franchised commercial sports league which is closer to the NFL model than its cultural roots. The playoffs are an aspect of this new reality. There is now something horribly artificial about Super League rugby.
Rugby League changed its culture in order to attract TV money. Even if we change, we still wouldn't be attractive to TV. If LOI introduced similar playoffs, we would end up with the artificiality without the commerciality. The worst of both worlds.
I'm all for rethinking how the LOI is structured, but the integrity of the league format is what makes football football.
Can anyone point out any league in the world where this has been done and has improved matters?
Even as a Blues' supporter, I'll take the meaningless end of season matches we've had to endure this season over any artificial possibility of silverware. Anyway, isn't misery supposed to be part of the football supporters lot?
I would've thought it was the closed shop nature of it that were the real (negative) changes in Rugby League to be honest, rather than the play offs. They were part of the new format, but are they really that big an issue? However, I don't want to come across as a zealot on the issue, as I'm not, I just think it's something that should be considered.
I'm all for a 16 team Premier, but if Harps aren't involved...then I'm not for it. Thats simple enough isn't it?
Well, you may not be, but I suspect I am a zealot on this issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
You make a reasonable point about the closed shop being perhaps more of an issue than the playoffs in rugby league, but i would argue that they are both part of a commercialising and commodifying process which sucks the integrity of the sport away in order to pander to "nearly" supporters.
Imagine if it were introduced in, say, a twelve team LOI PD, and you allowed eight teams in, where is the incentive to chase down difficult victories when all you have to do is finish fifth bottom or better? I think players would switch off. Also, loads of games would become effectively meaningless - which perhaps is little different to as things are now, except it would be the teams at the top who would have nothing to play for, rather than the teams in mid-table as is the case now. That can't be right, surely?
Playoffs work well for promotion, but not to decide a league. Lord save us from Americanisms!
I don't think it'd work in a 12 team league, only in an extended league, and I'm not even sure I'd go down as far as 8th. Presumably league rankings would count on as to who you play and where. 1st would play 8th, at home, and so one down the line.Quote:
Originally Posted by gormacha
However, I really don't get the logic of play offs being ok for promotion but not for titles. Surely it's exactly the same argument for and against promotion playoffs? If the best team over the league should win the title, then the best 2 or 3 over the league should get promoted?
As I said, I am a zealot on this issue, and if I had my way there would be no use of playoffs for promotion either, so you are right to point out the inconsistency in my last post where I gave the impression I thought playoffs were good for promotion spots. What I meant to say was that playoffs work better in a promotion situation rather than deciding a championship winner, as the top teams still get rewarded whilst keeping interest up for other clubs. I still think this is "wrong", but I find it easier to accept than playoffs to decide a league winner.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
Spot on, guilty of that myself, when you look at things, apart from a few clubs, is there anyone in good shape. Still think it was a decent enough standard this year, pity we ended up so rubbish. A 16 team PD would add to the quality imo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
I'd agree with a 4 team play-off for the final european place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
Expanding to 16 if is to happen probably will be more shifting of deckchairs. The reaction to the news last year though, before Delaney poured cold water on Fran Gavin's comments, seemed positive in both media and amongst supporters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy