Say 'No' to a Champions League style SFC

'Champions League, Champions League' seems to be the favoured war cry when it comes to revamping the SFC.  I'm pretty certain that most people advocating this system have not thought this option through properly, or else are incapable of doing so.  

To begin, let me nail my colours firmly to the mast on 2 key points:  

• 1)  The current system which greatly favours Munster and Connaught sides is a farce, and it is time that Croke Park acted to remove any connection between the provincial championships and the AI series.  
  
  2)  I am 99% certain that, should it be introduced, a Champions League style SFC would be done away with within 3 years, amidst a cacophony of public protest.
  

It is the 2nd of these points that I wish to expand upon here, in the vain hope that someone with some administrative influence may read and take heed of it.

The most strongly suggested format for the Champions League (CL) style championship is to have 8x4 seeded groups, with the top 2 teams in each group advancing to a straight knockout conclusion.  I've heard many suggestions for the seedings, ranging from last 10 years' results to current league positions.  For simplicity, and some modicum of sense, I'm going to assume that we use the current league standings.

Home or Away
Consider a group with Dublin/Armagh/Sligo/Waterford.  Each side has 3 games, but are these played at home, away, or at a neutral venue?  Playing games at neutral venues will reduce attendances - for instance, if Armagh were at home to Waterford, you might get 6,000 at the game, but if the game was played in the midlands, you might get 2,000 at it.  Likewise, Dublin v Sligo in Croke Park might draw 30,000, but in Breffni Pk you might only attract 15,000.  So, to ensure crowds and atmosphere, we decide to have home & away fixtures, but that instantly means that some sides will have 2 home games, and others 1.  

Well, I hear you say, how about if sides play 1 match at home, 1 away and 1 at a neutral venue?  This will be another disaster as, for example, the venue for Sligo/Armagh could play a huge part in deciding which of them qualifies.  Fair enough if it happened to be drawn at a neutral venue, but if it was in the Athletic Grounds or Markievicz Pk it would be a different story.  

Dead Rubbers
No matter in which order they come, Dublin will win their first 2 games in this group, and have secured qualification with a game to spare.  Their last match will then be a formality, especially if it is against a side who can no longer qualify.  What a waste of time that would be if Dublin (on 4 pts) took on Waterford (0 pts).  I fail to see how games like that will add anything to the championship, yet such is the gulf in class between the top 6-7 sides and the rest, almost every group will end up with such a scenario.

This is also an argument against those who say that all sides will have at least 3 games.  How meaningful will the extra game be to the side who is already out?  

Tiebreakers
3 games doesn't provide much opportunity for sides to establish a clear 1-4 pecking order.  For example, a very possible situation would see Waterford beat Sligo, Sligo beat Armagh, and Armagh beat Waterford (all 3 losing to the Dubs).  So, Dublin finish on 6 points, while the other sides all end up on 2.  Who qualifies?  Well, you can't use head-to-head, as they have all beaten each other.  So do we use scoring difference?  I guess we could, but are we really going to have sides knocked out of the SFC on scoring difference?  Is this what we want?  Is this going to make for a better championship?

The scenario above will be common.  As will the situation where 3 sides finish level on 4 points.  Then you'll also have the occasional scenario where Armagh and Sligo draw with each other, having both lost to Dublin and beaten Waterford.  Which of them goes through?  The side who beat Waterford by 10 points as opposed to 9?  Surely this is not how we want sides to be eliminated, after they have trained like demons for 8 months.

(And please, let no-one suggest having each side play 6 matches in the group stage - 3 x home & away - in some vain attempt to avoid ties.  All this will do is lead to more dead rubbers, and less club football.)

The Outcome
And what is all this leading to anyway?  Do people in favour of a CL format actually think that the 16 sides who qualify will be shocks.  Let's be honest, in most groups, we will know the top side and bottom side before a ball is kicked.  The division 2 and 3 sides may be more closely matched, but there is still a big gap between teams at the top of D2 and the bottom of D3, so only in a few groups will there be any real uncertainty as to who will qualify.  All the CL will lead to are the usual suspects advancing, and the AI quarters and semis will still be populated with sides in division 1.

Conclusion
A CL SFC will result in many hammerings and almost as many meaningless games.  The current structure has plenty of hammerings but, thankfully, none of the games are meaningless, as they all impact either provincial or AI ambitions.  It will also result in sides being unfairly dumped out on scoring difference, which I can't accept would be fair on the players in any circumstance.  Certainly, by the time the knockout stages come around we'll get to see the big teams go head-to-head, but how about we jump straight to that point, without having to endure them handing out a few beatings in a boring group stage.

My own preferred alternative to the current structure would be something like the below.

Jan:         Pre-season Cups
Feb-Apr:   NFL (No playoffs)
May-June: Provincials (Standalone competition - straight knockout)
July-Sept: AI (32 team straight knockout)

This would ensure that the provincials can remain, but that their imbalance doesn't impact the AI.  It also means that the AI carries an element of excitement again, as sides will have to go unbeaten to win it.  The impact on club football would be no greater than it is currently, as teams will pretty much have the same amount of games to play as they do at present.

Anyway, that is just a thought, but my main point is that a CL SFC would be a boring, pedantic, unfair and, ultimately, predictable disaster.  Let's blow the whistle on this one now.  Oh, and don't get me started on Kevin McStay's idea of Senior, Intermediate & Junior championships...

Those that suggest Champions League format are probably sunshine supporters that follow soccer clubs more than their own county. I would go along with that preference it certainly makes more sense than CL one anyways.

1982 world cup (hybrid)

Top 14 in league qualify for AI series
Bottom 2 in division 2 and top 2 in 3 play for two spots
Qualifier series for remaining 8 spots losers if above get a second bite.
16 teams play for 8 spots seeded by league finish
6 groups of 4. 3 games per group. Top 2 x6 go through to knockout
4 best losers which hopefully party resolves tc's break of tie question
Using points and point difference. If you finish fourth with one draw and one win you stand a chance.

Competition 1 is based on current provincial set-ups.

Retain provincial system, straight knockout, tighter scheduling ending at end of June.
You then have 4 provincial champions, end of that saga.

Competition 2 is based on NFL positions after Leagues conclusion.

Accept the fact that the top two divisions will produce the eventual A/I winners and move to an open draw, no reprieves, between the top 16 until we reach an A/I final pairing.

A secondary competition for the bottom two tiers on the same lines, for a revived Tommy Murphy Cup. All counties get at least two games, one of which should be winnable, whether in provincial or in open draw.

This concept, while probably poorly outlined, should limit the drubbings we're witnessing, while pitting the lesser counties against something akin to what they're used to.

Boxtyeater wrote:
This concept, while probably poorly outlined, should limit the drubbings we're witnessing, while pitting the lesser counties against something akin to what they're used to.

It would also increase the importance and competitiveness of the league, given that your position will affect your championship aspirations.

While still not sold on a tiered championship, what you've described above would be much preferable to a Champions League farce.

Champions League style, round robin, group stage, whatever you call it would never work on my opinion due to everything stated by TC under Dead Rubbers.

They had it in the Derry SFC for 2 years and had to pull it due to that very reason, too many dead rubbers coupled with a drop in intensity.

bald eagle wrote:
They had it in the Derry SFC for 2 years and had to pull it due to that very reason, too many dead rubbers coupled with a drop in intensity.

I didn't realise that, but the abandonment obviously doesn't surprise me.

I genuinely think that anyone in favour a CL championship format either haven't thought in any depth about it, or are mentally challenged.

Well I wouldn't go that far but aside from the name (seriously round-robin has existed as a term for ages) and group based format that doesn't leave the teams in 3rd/4th with something to play for afterwards is a worry due to the dead rubber issue. Now that naturally brings up the Tommy Murphy Cup which wasn't exactly a raging success, unless you are a Wicklow man, but something has to be at stake for the teams with no hope of making the last 16.

The way to avoid dead rubbers is if seeding for first two determines draw in sudden death and for 3/4 determines seeding for next time. Problem is what does this make if league. One solution is that round robins determines league placing. Ie finish third
Gets division three status and league determines seeding for next championship. The hope of making second spot may be much easier if you are a third seed rather than second

OMAR wrote:The way to avoid dead rubbers is if seeding for first two determines draw in sudden death and for 3/4 determines seeding for next time. Problem is what does this make if league. One solution is that round robins determines league placing. Ie finish third
Gets division three status and league determines seeding for next championship. The hope of making second spot may be much easier if you are a third seed rather than second

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, and I'm not sure such a convoluted hypothesis deserves it (nor, to be fair, am I sure you are actually advocating such an idea), but you are still left with the problems of venues and tiebreakers.

Dead rubber really? your reason for opposing the champions league style format is dead rubber?

I could have told you the majority of results in the championship up until 2 weeks ago before the games through in and your talking about dead rubber............................gotya!

Just posted on this idea in the hurling, what about groups of three, seemed to be an argument for senior intermediate and junior.

What if we break it into 4 groups of three at each level, meaning 36 teams including london, new york and kilkenny.

as highlighted in hurling thread this would only be two games meaning a team just needs one scalp to make it into the quarters, plus im sure new york could be accomodated for two games.

The intermediate and junior finals played pre senior semi finals.

North Side Gael wrote:Dead rubber really? your reason for opposing the champions league style format is dead rubber?

I could have told you the majority of results in the championship up until 2 weeks ago before the games through in and your talking about dead rubber............................gotya!

I gave several reasons for why CL wouldn't work, and a suggested improvement on the current situation. Also, not a single championship match this year has been a dead rubber, despite many games being predictable.

North Side Gael wrote:
What if we break it into 4 groups of three at each level, meaning 36 teams including london, new york and kilkenny.

as highlighted in hurling thread this would only be two games meaning a team just needs one scalp to make it into the quarters, plus im sure new york could be accomodated for two games.

See point in my opening post under 'Tiebreakers'.  The problem would be exacerbated with just 3 sides in a group.

Thomas Clarke wrote:

North Side Gael wrote:Dead rubber really? your reason for opposing the champions league style format is dead rubber?

I could have told you the majority of results in the championship up until 2 weeks ago before the games through in and your talking about dead rubber............................gotya!

I gave several reasons for why CL wouldn't work, and a suggested improvement on the current situation.  Also, not a single championship match this year has been a dead rubber, despite many games being predictable.

Surely knowing the result before throw in is dead rubber?

On the tie breaker thing, i think the groups of three has potential, both marketing and with keeping with the tightness of championship, could be a way forward. Would have to agree re dead rubber games but groups of three would introduce the chance for people to see who they get fans to look ahead and get talking and underdogs to plot a victory over one of the powers of the game and therefore creating a massive game when the two top seeds meet.

North Side Gael wrote:

Surely knowing the result before throw in is dead rubber?

On the tie breaker thing, i think the groups of three has potential, both marketing and with keeping with the tightness of championship, could be a way forward. Would have to agree re dead rubber games but groups of three would introduce the chance for people to see who they get fans to look ahead and get talking and underdogs to plot a victory over one of the powers of the game and therefore creating a massive game when the two top seeds meet.

No, it is not the same as a dead rubber.

And you haven't answered the tiebreak problem. Give it up, NSG.

Give it up? Who are you?

A straight knock out? Are you for real? Antrim could draw donegal first round ulster and Kerry first round of 32 knock out. That would do great things for promotion of the game in antrim wouldn't it. Do you actually listen to yourself?

The game needs a format and structure similar to that of other sports to compete, it needs tiers for competitiveness , it needs consistency, extra games etc. so what if groups are decided on point difference if its tiered you only have yourself to blame.

What the game doesn't need is a replication of the format of the 1931 English FA cup. Catch yourself on, you fool! Think about this from a child's perspective, your county hasn't won a game in 10 years championship, your local soccer side are doing well, where will the child end up? Least with my idea of tiered groups kids can see local boys doing well at their level!

North Side Gael wrote:Think about this from a child's perspective...!

Apologies, you obviously find that easier than I do.

Antrim will also have the league and provincials in which to improve - they'll have as many games as they currently do, and won't have the stigma of being a 'Junior county'. Besides, Antrim are a disgrace, with their population. They don't need tiers to improve, they need a kick up the ass and a bit of hard work.

Ha ha typical thick Tyrone traditionalist keep er lit bai.

It's not about promotion it's about good old fashioned hard hitting football ya fool ya!

Inter county players want more games including antrim, ya thicko!