How about this: - Revert to 2-tier, 'leagues of 16' - 2 'mixed quality' groups of 8 in each tier - 7 game round robin - Tier 1 'top 6s' & Tier 2 'top 2s' (12+4) to 'Sam 16' - Tier 1 'top 4s' (8) get double chance (like Rd 2A now); and 'Other 8 teams' to KO (like Rd 2B now) - 'Sam 16' play Tier 1 league the next year (4 up, 4 down) - Others to 'Tailteann 16' (T1 7/8, T2 3/4, double chance)
- Option 1: League is '8v8' inter-group (4 home, 4 away) - Option 2: Tier 2 group winners & Tailteann Finalists go or stay up (variable 2-4 up, 2-4 down)
While the prior 'Proposal B, Team 6 issue' was flawed, could we accept a possible 'Team 13' version above instead? - difference being 'Team 6' would always stay up and miss the Sam Playoffs, while 'Team 13' would always go down and play in the Tailteann Playoffs (reprieved from going down if a TC Finalist under Option 2).
Replying To Tadhg2020: "Again its all about Kerry. When will you all stop fixating on them. There are 4 provincial championships. Why diminish 3 because you dont like one county? That seems petty to me. You are diminishing your own counties achievements in doing so. Imagine Rossies got a week or so to celebrate the achievement (WM too or other 2) and 2 weeks to prepare. No Tyrone to bring everyone back down to earth. Forget about Kerry. No matter what format is applied that will remain the case. Or do you want to diminish Roscommons achievement."
Was just making an observation. Certainly not diminishing our great Connacht Final win.
Replying To Tadhg2020: "There would be a reason. They would be already qualified for the quarter final through winning the provincial championship. The other 12 teams would be battling it out to join them. If you lose your first game you are not automatically out. You need to win your last game of course but the team that beat you have to win their other game also. In a 3 team group I dont think head to head result would be agreeable at all. If you prefer 4 groups of 4 so be it. I just dont think 3 matches to lose 1 team is efficient. I also think that the preliminary qf round puts pressure on the schedule and players physically. That said, the current system is mad that way. You could, in theory , have to play extra time and pens in every single round."
Groups of 4 are not great either and splitting the field into 4 is also not great. It's why the 4 by 4 doesn't work very well and why it hasn't stuck.
It's why what I'd actually prefer is 2 groups of 8 or 2 groups of 6. You could have 3 going from those groups into a last 6 which is an high qualifying standard and you could have the bottom teams playing to maintain their place in the top tier.
We have a tiered championship in football but don't use it to get more games in by using it to decide relegation.
Replying To Whammo86: "Groups of 4 are not great either and splitting the field into 4 is also not great. It's why the 4 by 4 doesn't work very well and why it hasn't stuck.
It's why what I'd actually prefer is 2 groups of 8 or 2 groups of 6. You could have 3 going from those groups into a last 6 which is an high qualifying standard and you could have the bottom teams playing to maintain their place in the top tier.
We have a tiered championship in football but don't use it to get more games in by using it to decide relegation."
Im not sure what you mean by splitting the field into 4? If you mean seedings I think its necessary to ensure balance. The 4 groups of 4 worked okay. People just dont really know what to do and when you invite them to tinker with it tinker they will. If it had been left alone I think it would have bedded in and became normal in a few years. We are back to square one now with another seriously flawed system that will be tinkered with again. It should be given to Jim Gavins committee to sort. They have proven themselves to be competent.
Replying To Tadhg2020: "Im not sure what you mean by splitting the field into 4? If you mean seedings I think its necessary to ensure balance. The 4 groups of 4 worked okay. People just dont really know what to do and when you invite them to tinker with it tinker they will. If it had been left alone I think it would have bedded in and became normal in a few years. We are back to square one now with another seriously flawed system that will be tinkered with again. It should be given to Jim Gavins committee to sort. They have proven themselves to be competent."
Splitting the field into 4 is that there are 4 groups. It keeps top teams apart too much.
4 groups of 4 could be ok if 2 progressed and bottom of each group was relegated.
Groups of 4 with 2 through and 2 out aren't great in the GAA because there are few draws and it's regularly the case that the teams are decided before the final round of fixtures. That's why the Super 8s weren't great (and because there weren't other tiers). It's why3 teams went through from the group stage when the 4 groups of 4 system was brought in but that was low stakes with 3 from 4 progressing.
Replying To Tadhg2020: "Im not sure what you mean by splitting the field into 4? If you mean seedings I think its necessary to ensure balance. The 4 groups of 4 worked okay. People just dont really know what to do and when you invite them to tinker with it tinker they will. If it had been left alone I think it would have bedded in and became normal in a few years. We are back to square one now with another seriously flawed system that will be tinkered with again. It should be given to Jim Gavins committee to sort. They have proven themselves to be competent."