Printable View
I see you have 12 teams.
I would presume you play each other 3 times then their is a split where the top 6 teams play each other a further 1 time and the bottom 6 play each other 1 more time.
The reason why I ask, is because IL football looks likely to adopt a 12 team format.(possibly 10 team, but most likely 12)
How well does it work and would you prefer a different format?
The premier division is reverting to 10 teams for the 2009 season. And the league doesn't split after 3 rounds of games, that's it.
I despise any system where teams play different amount of home and away games.
Apart from that it couldn't be simpler. 12 teams and every club plays the other clubs 3 times giving a 33 game season.
I agree. The 10 team premier still won't get rid of this problem though, it just shifts it onto the first division.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
It gets rid of the problem for me :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by holidaysong
Yeah but the FAI dont give a f*ck about the first division so for them its problem sloved
An odd thing to just presume. We briefly tried the top 6/bottom 6 split-division and it was a disaster. Having said that, the LOI has tried pretty much everything and seems to end up back with 12-teams in the Premier more often than not. You should give the 4-3-2-1 system a shot, just to complicate things (4 points for an away win, 2 points for an away draw). :oQuote:
Originally Posted by Steve Bruce
I presumed it because Scotland uses or used that system, the IL used that system a while back as well. Personally I hated it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry The Saint
The 10-team division is a disaster, as it means you have to travel everywhere else twice, like it or lump it. It's also far too many matches for part-time players to play, that's without counting Europe, Cups, friendlies, and postponements. You could play the same team 6 or 7 times a season.
I'm personally dreading the return of the chaotic 10-team Premier. :(
well the ideal is that he players aren't part time.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
Wouldnt be that hard to find out unless you are a WUM.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Bruce
10 team league is the way forward. Playing each other 3 times is farcical. Saying its too many games is nonsense. Is 3 extra games too many? Of course not.
KOH
That's why I asked. This is me finding out:rolleyes: What part of this topic have I looked to be winding any one up?Quote:
Originally Posted by NY Hoop
Just dont believe you that you dont know about our league structure is all. "I see you have 12 teams" is very patronising IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Bruce
Especially for a guy who spends an inordinate amount of time on another leagues MB.
KOH
Personally I'd be in favour of extending the Premier, rather than restricting it. I think ten teams is too small for a serious league. I'd have a 14, or even 16 team premier, with maybe a regionalised first division set up. Dundalk, Athlone, Limerick and Finn Harps have all sustained top flight teams in the past, there's no reason why they shouldn't again. That, added to what's there gives you 16 teams. We should be looking to broaden the appeal of the league country wide. This would do that in my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by holidaysong
Definitely agree that 10 team league is too small. Looks amateurish for a 'professional' league in my opinion.
The problem with the 10 team league is that when you get a game postponed, you could end up playing 2 league games against the same team in quick succession as the meetings are pretty close to each other.
I thought it was a disaster but the clubs favour it because they play the bigger teams more often which means more revenue.
People will get sick of seing the same teams playing each other over and over again so the revenue will probably go down anyway after a while.
Expanding is the way to go IMO and regionalise the part timers in the first division.
....because St Pat's didn't qualify for the top six perhaps?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry The Saint
But where are you going to find another 2, or even 4 teams capable of being competitive?Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyD
Even with a 12 team league, we've already got too big a gap between top and bottom (even if you give Longford back their points), and teams struggling to make it work financially. And it's not a new problem, it seems to happen near enough every season. Adding more sides will only make the problem worse. The league needs to be evenly balanced, so a 10 team league is the only way forward.
10 team league will be a shambles. What the f*ck are the FAI thinking?
the fai dont think about what they are doing just past it on to the next division f*8k it up and blame someone else, roy keane was right the fai is joke...
i agree with tony,extend the premier, it ruins rivalry games if your playing rovers or someone 3 times in quick succesion and then you might even get them in the cup,and anyway the new first div clubs that would come up would get great attendences if they played the bigger clubs.Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyD
and have a "premier" division where more teams are of bray and cobh standard than bohs and corks? no thanks
Do you want to play Bray, UCD, or Waterford, etc 6 times a season?? That's what you're getting with the 10-team league.Quote:
Originally Posted by Supersaint
I think you have read too much into that. It was a genuine question.Quote:
Originally Posted by NY Hoop
For anyone who is talking about extending the league look at the Irish League.
We currently run a 16 team league. Because of this, the already small pool of good players have been spread out across the league diluting the standard considerably.
We have teams in our league that should never have been near the league.
Loughgall, Larne, Donegal Celtic, Glenavon are all very very very poor teams.
When we had a smaller league the standard was considerably higher and the bottom teams could beat top teams. No team really run away with the league either.
When our league was reduced, we had 5 different teams win the league in row. Then it got increased and 3 teams have pulled away then it became 2 and now it seems it's only one.
Although with Republic being 3 times the size of Northern Ireland and more strength in depth, you could be a lot more successful.
Serie A, La Liga, Ligue 1, and the Premiership, fully professional, well-run, full-time club leagues all play 38 games. The 1st Division here, a semi-pro, badly run league plays 36 games. :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by NY Hoop
When we have a 10-team top division, it will mean playing more matches per season than the well-run Bundesliga, and Eredivisie, playing the same teams twice more, with half the quality on show. It's also too small for the top division in a country.
Spot on. The quality is simply not there to extend it beyond ten. If it was I'd be in favour of a 16 team premier but then what would you do with the 6 other teams?Quote:
Originally Posted by incident
When the premier is a ten team league the first division will revert what the premier is now i.e. 33 games.
KOH
So if you took the bottom two out of the current league would there be a rise in standards of the rest? No- of course not.
I have always felt that a 16 team premier was the way to go. This worked for the league in its heyday and could work again. To me- the argument is basically whether the structure should serve the needs of the big clubs or the league as a whole. The big clubs want to play each other all the time (which quickly gets boring anyway) and freeze out the smaller ones. The thing is though football is a pyramid and to screw the smaller clubs to serve the bigger ones is short sighted.
Yes but as already pointed out what would you do with the other 6 teams if you had a 16 team premier?
To be honest in a 12 team league the bottom two sometimes drift away and are just not up for it. Again the quality is not ther to have any more than 10 teams in the premier.
Bringing back the playoffs is a good idea as it gives the the top three in the first something to play for.
KOH
Wasn't their thinking is that they will get 10 really good teams and make it total quality in the Premier..... it wont happen and there are way more bad than good traits to a 10 team league
Exactly - a disaster for everyone! :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Paddyfield
Also it ruined Monaghan's best ever chance of establishing themselves.
Well, as you say, at least it wasn't all bad;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry The Saint
What's a WUM?Quote:
Wouldnt be that hard to find out unless you are a WUM.
Wind up merchantQuote:
Originally Posted by Hoops_R_Us
Serie A, La Liga, Ligue 1, and the Premiership, fully professional, well-run, full-time club leagues all play 38 games. The 1st Division here, a semi-pro, badly run league plays 36 games.
the main problem with the first div is that theres no one challenging the likes of killkenny and monaghon at the bottom.there needs to be a 2nd divison.Outside the top 4 or 5 who are pushing for promotion, that league is going nowhere.
the only way we're getting a 16 team premier is an all-island league. even then we'd be struggling for 16 quality teams.
I prefer the 12 team league. With the 10 team league you have teams playing each other 4 times at least, now with the setanta the top teams might meet as many as 8 times a year when you throw in the fai and league cup. That gets very boring after a while. When we have 10 there are plans to change to 12 and when we have 12 there are plans to change to 10. Neither a 10 team or a 12 team league is perfect but a 12 team league is less ****.