SPL Reconstruction: Everything Changes, Everything Stays The Same

Much more to write on SPL reconstruction when I get the time. Unscientific in the field polling suggests that Rangers' Martin Bain loves the proposals he helped write. Derek Longmuir of the Scottish Football League doesn't like them and doesn't think his clubs will either.

Many fans seem to think the new proposals are a bit of a muddle that fail to address the real issues. "Rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic" and "Revolution? I suppose you can revolve backwards" are a flavour of the comments I've heard so far.

A couple of quick points: when people (like me) argued for a streamlining of football administration in Scotland they probably weren't advocating the SPL land grab that these proposals would deliver.

Why the rush? Surely the SPL didn't want to get their ideas out before the second part of the McLeish Report delivers a different set of findings based on much wider consultations? We'll see.

And given the state of many of our SPL clubs and their rickety finances why are their chairmen and chief executives the best people to decide the future of the national game? It's like making Bernard Madoff chancellor.

Right, that's enough for now.

But no apologies for pointing you in the direction of a couple of articles on the Scottish Football Archive:

Scottish Top Division Reconstruction: Championships

Statistically, in terms of non-Old Firm dominance, the 9 year period of the 16 team format between 1946-47 and 1954-55 was the best.

The league has been through twenty reconstructions and this is only the 113th season and both stability and change have shown varying degrees of success in terms of breaking the Old Firm dominance over the league - but the Old Firm dominance appears to be something that Scottish football fans have to live with, while hoping for brief periods of change.

Scottish Top Division Reconstruction - Attendances

Four of the seven seasons after a reconstruction, the attendances have dropped.

So, as well as highlighted in the earlier post than the 9 year period of the 16 team format (30 games a year) were the best for non-Old Firm dominance, that 9 year period was also one of the most successful for attendances.

It would also point towards the fact that less games (only 30 in a 16 team format) actually causes higher attendances, in terms of simple supply and demand perhaps?

Lied, damned lies and statistics? Possibly (and I'm quoting selectively but I think give a flavour of their findings) but some interesting theories nonetheless. Football, and society, have changed to such an extent that comparisons can only tell us so much. But it does provide a counter argument to the idea that a ten team league has delivered our nearest brush with footballing utopia.

Vote for Scottish Football Blog at Top Ten Scottish Football Web Awards

You win again

When I guested on the twofootedtackle podcast last week (what I've done there is use the blog to plug a podcast that I plugged the blog on - nice) I mentioned that I didn't think the Old Firm dominance of the game was a massive problem in Scottish football.

Obviously Rangers or Celtic winning the league every year Is Not A Good Thing. But my point was that it has ever been thus so there's no real reason why even this extended period of dominance should have produced the current default feelings of doom and gloom.

Thinking about it a bit more I decided to do a quick check of the Old Firm dominance through the decades.

In terms of non-Old Firm dominance, the 9 year period of the 16 team format between 1946-47 and 1954-55 was the best:

• Four non-Old Firm winners in nine seasons
• No season where the Old Firm finished 1st and 2nd together
• Celtic had 5th, 6th, 7th (twice), 8th, 9th and even a 12th finish during this period

But what has each decade produced in terms of sustained challenges to the duopoly? Time to go back to the beginning, starting with the first championship in 1890/91 when Dumbarton and Rangers shared the spoils:

1890/91 to 1899/1900: Celtic (4), Rangers (3 - including 1 shared), Hearts (2), Dumbarton (2 - including 1 shared). Rangers or Celtic finish second 6 times.

1900/91 to 1909/10: Celtic (6), Rangers (2), Hibs (1), Third Lanark (1). Rangers or Celtic finish second 3 times.

1910/11 to 1919/20: Rangers (5), Celtic (5). Rangers or Celtic finish second 7 times.

1920/21 to 1929/30: Rangers (8), Celtic (2). Rangers or Celtic finish second 4 times.

1930/31 to 1938/39: Rangers (6), Celtic (2), Motherwell (1). Rangers or Celtic finish second 5 times.

1946/47 to 1949/50: Rangers (3), Hibs (1). Rangers or Celtic finish second 1 time.

1950/51 to 1959/60: Rangers (4), Hibs (2), Hearts (2), Aberdeen (1), Celtic (1). Rangers or Celtic finish second 4 times.

1960/61 to 1969/70: Celtic (5), Rangers (3), Dundee (1), Motherwell (1). Rangers or Celtic finish second 6 times.

1970/71 to 1979/80: Celtic (6), Rangers (3), Aberdeen (1). Rangers or Celtic finish second 5 times.

1980/81 to 1989/90: Celtic (4), Rangers (3), Aberdeen (2), Dundee United (1). Rangers or Celtic finish second 4 times.

1990/91 to 1999/2000: Rangers (9), Celtic 1). Rangers or Celtic finish second 5 times.

2000/01 to 2009/2010: Celtic (6), Rangers (4). Rangers or Celtic finish second 9 times.

In no ten year period (discounting the Second World War years) have the Old Firm won fewer than half the titles, their lowest combined total coming in the fifties when they only snaffled five.

What is more marked now is their domination of the top two places with only six sides breaking into the top two in the last 20 years and only one in the last ten.

Does all this prove anything? Probably not much except to satisfy my own curiosity. And to show that, whatever else is wrong with the game, the problem of other teams not getting much of a look in when it comes to the championship is as old as the league itself.