10 team league. Good or bad idea?

**mypost** · 16/07/2008, 2:54 PM

Originally Posted by micls

The FAI are in charge now, not the clubs. It's up to them whether we go to a 10 team premier or not, its up to them to make sure its the best decision, even if it means upsetting the 'big' clubs.

I still think 10 is better than 12 though, the 3 games thing wrecks my head

You want to play UCD 4 times a year, and you want 2 treks to Derry and 8 trips to Dublin every season.

Can't understand why??

**micls** · 16/07/2008, 2:58 PM

Originally Posted by mypost

You want to play UCD 4 times a year, and you want 2 treks to Derry and 8 trips to Dublin every season.

Can't understand why??

I dont particularly want those trips, but I absolutely hate the 3 times a year. Your fixtures can decide whether you win the league or not.

We're lucky this year we have Derry and Harps both at home twice, but another year with that backwards it could seriously affect you.

Im not hugely bothered about the size of the league(a bit bigger would be better) but it should always be the same amount of home and away games against each team.

The fixture list shouldn't have a big affect on who wins the league.

**mypost** · 16/07/2008, 3:05 PM

Originally Posted by micls

I dont particularly want those trips, but I absolutely hate the 3 times a year. Your fixtures can decide whether you win the league or not.

We're lucky this year we have Derry and Harps both at home twice, but another year with that backwards it could seriously affect you.

Im not hugely bothered about the size of the league(a bit bigger would be better) but it should always be the same amount of home and away games against each team.

The fixture list shouldn't have a big affect on who wins the league.

We had the 4-team league for two seasons, it was a complete disaster when it came to re-scheduling games. The 3-tier is far better. At the end of the day, you win the league over 33 games, not on how many times you have to travel to x and y.

**micls** · 16/07/2008, 3:08 PM

Originally Posted by mypost

We had the 4-team league for two seasons, it was a complete disaster when it came to re-scheduling games. The 3-tier is far better. At the end of the day, you win the league over 33 games, not on how many times you have to travel to x and y.

But over the 33 games some teams play more home games than others. Surely you see the benefit of playing games at home? 3 out of the last 4 leagues were decided on the last day, with less than 3 points in it. hat extra home game can make all the difference

The 10 team league is far from ideal, but I prefer it to the 12 team one.

**mypost** · 16/07/2008, 3:44 PM

Some teams do better away from home.

When you won the league in 2005, you were complaining about having to go to Shels twice, but it turned out that Derry were your challengers, and you had them at home twice. So it's won on the pitch, not on paper.

**micls** · 16/07/2008, 3:49 PM

Originally Posted by mypost

Some teams do better away from home.

When you won the league in 2005, you were complaining about having to go to Shels twice, but it turned out that Derry were your challengers, and you had them at home twice. So it's won on the pitch, not on paper.

What? Of course its won on the pitch, it depends what pitch though. There are many Derry fans who thought if that last match had been at the Brandywell they would have won it, and they may be right.

We'l never know but most teams see playing at home with the backing of the crowd as an advantage. Even if a team plays better away from home-some team will have more away games than home.

Either way its uneven. Fair enough if you think it has no effect on the league, but I strongly disagree, especially given how close our league is most years

**mypost** · 16/07/2008, 4:02 PM

We've won 3 league games at home in 12 months, and 5 away. I will accept that home advantage is important in the cup, but in the league, you get what you deserve after 33 games, regardless of how many you played at home or away. We've used it for most of the past 20 years, and it's survived a 16-team league, a 10-team league, and top/bottom 6. It is not perfect, but it's the best solution available.

**micls** · 16/07/2008, 4:03 PM

Originally Posted by mypost

We've won 3 league games at home in 12 months, and 5 away. I will accept that home advantage is important in the cup, but in the league, you get what you deserve after 33 games, regardless of how many you played at home or away. We've used it for most of the past 20 years, and it's survived a 16-team league, a 10-team league, and top/bottom 6. It is the best solution available.

I disagree. I think travel and the amount of home games do have an effect.

**mypost** · 16/07/2008, 4:16 PM

This series we got a 1-1 draw in Cork. We don't have to go there again, but in reality, it's the same use as the 0-0 draw at home to Cobh. It's still a draw and only worth a point. In 2001 Shels had two home games in the last week to win the title, whereas their rivals had 2 away. Shels still lost the league.

In theory, playing at home is an advantage, but not always the case.

**micls** · 16/07/2008, 4:25 PM

Originally Posted by mypost

This series we got a 1-1 draw in Cork. We don't have to go there again, but in reality, it's the same use as the 0-0 draw at home to Cobh. It's still a draw and only worth a point. In 2001 Shels had two home games in the last week to win the title, whereas their rivals had 2 away. Shels still lost the league.

In theory, playing at home is an advantage, but not always the case.

Of course not, its football. But that doesnt mean it has no affect.

The point is that its unequal, and that unequality could have an effect on the league. Maybe it wont, but it could and it shouldnt imo.

**pineapple stu** · 16/07/2008, 4:26 PM

Originally Posted by mypost

In 2001 Shels had two home games in the last week to win the title, whereas their rivals had 2 away. Shels still lost the league.

In theory, playing at home is an advantage, but not always the case.

Actually, if you look up the home and away records of any senior league, you'll see that it's fact that playing at home is an advantage, not theory. You can pick one or two examples, but that doesn't prove your case over the long term, which is what micls is pointing out.

**mypost** · 16/07/2008, 4:37 PM

Originally Posted by micls

What? Of course its won on the pitch, it depends what pitch though. There are many Derry fans who thought if that last match had been at the Brandywell they would have won it, and they may be right.

Both teams had more away games that season, but someone has to be at home on the last day. Derry lost the league with dropped points over the season, not on the last day. It's one game out of 33. In the cup, you might only get one game at home in a long cup run. You still have to go to the opponents and beat them.

A 10-team league is a structural nightmare, with the summer break, Europe, and postponements. Because of their cup successes, Longford in the 10-team league had to fit 6 games into the last 3 weeks of the season. So you can argue, that was unfair on them. All things considered, the 12-team division is the best there is.

**micls** · 16/07/2008, 4:55 PM

Originally Posted by mypost

Both teams had more away games that season, but someone has to be at home on the last day. Derry lost the league with dropped points over the season, not on the last day. It's one game out of 33. In the cup, you might only get one game at home in a long cup run. You still have to go to the opponents and beat them.

A 10-team league is a structural nightmare, with the summer break, Europe, and postponements. Because of their cup successes, Longford in the 10-team league had to fit 6 games into the last 3 weeks of the season. So you can argue, that was unfair on them. All things considered, the 12-team division is the best there is.

I give up. You've been given statistics that prove that playing at home gives an advantage over a series of games.

Yet you still claim that having an extra home game can have no effect in a league that is regularly decided by 1 or 2 points.

You can use as many one off games, or seasons as you want it doesnt change the fact that the inequality of the fixture list CAN affect who wins the league.

You think the 12 team is the best option, I disagree. I think its one of the worst.

**mypost** · 16/07/2008, 5:20 PM

Originally Posted by micls

you still claim that having an extra home game can have no effect in a league that is regularly decided by 1 or 2 points.

The reason it's settled by few points, is because it's a highly competitive league, not because of the home/away difference. Everybody starts on zero, and plays 33 games for 90 minutes. If you win enough points over the season, you'll win the league, if you don't, you won't. 22 games is too short, 44 games is too many, so 33 is the only way you can run a 12-team league.

**pineapple stu** · 16/07/2008, 5:23 PM

You're as bad as dcfcsteve for trying to overcome maths through English...

**micls** · 16/07/2008, 5:24 PM

Originally Posted by mypost

The reason it's settled by few points, is because it's a highly competitive league, not because of the home/away difference. Everybody starts on zero, and plays 33 games for 90 minutes. If you win enough points over the season, you'll win the league, if you don't, you won't.

Can we have a head banging against wall smilie please?

Of course you win if you get enough points, the point being teams playing at home generally(statistically) win more points. This is a fact. And if a league is decided by only a couple of points then this can come into play.

Look just forget about it. We have different opinions.

**The Rebel Ram** · 16/07/2008, 5:24 PM

Deff a bad idea, there are part time teams near the bottom but need to be in the Prem to have any chance of becoming Pro.
A lot of people are cracking on about Cobh's financial issues. These are being addressed and will become profit and investment within the next couple of years, relegation will be the biggest worry to our finances if we go down. (which isn't going to happen).
There needs to be room for clubs to make the move up and to make money. If it is managed right, like Cobh is being now then it can be lucrative. The 10 team division will only drive the Prem and first Div further apart with any team going up going straight down again or else going bankrupt trying to survive as the cost difference between the two divisions will be huge

**Terry** · 16/07/2008, 7:25 PM

Originally Posted by micls

Can we have a head banging against wall smilie please?

Of course you win if you get enough points, the point being teams playing at home generally(statistically) win more points. This is a fact. And if a league is decided by only a couple of points then this can come into play.

Look just forget about it. We have different opinions.

I wish we had way more away games than home as our record away is far far better, we have only won 2 home league game in the past 2 seasons !

**mrtndvn** · 17/07/2008, 1:27 AM

I'd love to see a 20 team All Ireland league. Play each other twice, Would kepp derby attendances big etc...

**Macy** · 17/07/2008, 7:49 AM

I personally think it's a seperate argument, as it doesn't need to be 10 teams to be play an equal number of home and away games, but I thought the figures were fairly clear with the current format that it favoured teams with the extra home game? It may have been the last time a 10 team league was tried and failed, but I think only one team of recent times had won the league with the extra away game (that was Pats 2 in a row). Might have changed since the change back to 12 teams...