Given that so many comments in recent threads concern being in the first division at all costs, it might be useful to point out a number of widespread conceptions about the first division that don't really stack up.

It's often argued, for example, that it's easier to be selected for England if you're playing in the top tier, but where is the evidence for this? On balance, I suspect it was easier for Ravi Bopara or Eoin Morgan to bring themselves to the selectors' attention than it has been for the likes of Jonathon Trott, Stephen Moore, Paul Horton or Andrew Gale. Similarly, Monty Panesar came to prominence without doing much bowling in the top flight, as did Stuart Broad. And it's improbable that England would lose interest in Adil Rashid if Yorkshire were relegated or in Matt Prior if Sussex went down.

Dave Callaghan also suggested the other day that it would be harder to attract a top player from overseas into the second division. Yet Glamorgan have had Herschelle Gibbs, Middlesex the Aussie wunderkind Hughes, Essex Hashim Amla and Danish Kaneria, and Surrey André Nel, all of whom are surely cricketers of a bit more substance than Warwickshire's Jeetan Patel, Notts's Adam Voges or Worcestershire's Ashley Noffke, good players though these latter may be.

Obviously, the one thing that's self-evident is that you can't win the championship from the Second Division, but Notts. and Somerset have both made bids for the championship more recently than we have, after spending a year or two rebuilding in the second tier.

Your three points are valid, I think. Relegation isn't a reason to cut our throats; indeed there may be opportunities and benefits from the lower division - not least, the opportunity for some of our youngsters to develop in a less pressured environment. But therein lies the reason why I very much want Yorkshire to stay up. The cricket is better; there are more top-class players to measure the true quality of our youngsters against.
Let's hope that some of the younger players manage to pull us out of the hole we're currently in at Hove. The situation may still work to our advantage. If we can force a victory, next week at Headingley will be an altogether more relaxed affair and contract negotiations may proceed more beneficially for the Club

The genral worry of many 'regulars' is that if we are relegated we'll drop down the the level of the rest of division 2 ... friends who visit Derby, Leceister & Northants say the standard is much lower

Agreed. I'm not suggesting the second division is a good idea. But why players think they wouldn't get picked for England or commentators think a good overseas player would be unavailable defeats me completely.

To be honest the fact that Division 2 players are just as likely to get England call ups means little if the players don't believe it.

If the players think they only get a chance to play for England if their in Div 1 then they will want to play there irrespective of whether that is actually the case.

That is why it is important to be in the top flight.

Also if we go down who knows how long it will be before we get back out, with only 2 teams going up its tougher than the last time we got out.

Also, winning the Div 2 is really no great achievement in my book (or the history books). We are the proud holders of the most county championships. I want to extend that, not be faffing around in Division 2.

Thankfully we should now have secured another year in Division 1

There is also the not-so-small consequence of winning the Championship pennant and the £500,000 prize that goes with it.

Besides it's more important to Yorkshire than to perhaps any other side to be in the top flight. We have fantastic cricket traditions in the broad acres, and we've won more titles than any other county by far.

Obviously the fans think it's important to stay in the top flight as evidenced by the record number of "hits" at both the WRF and the YCCC over the past four days.

Maybe it's being simplistic but IMO

we go down and both Shahzad and Hoggie use it as an excuse to leave

we stay up and at least one of them stays

Could I point out again that my original post was only attempting to deal with the question of misperceptions about what it might mean to be in the second division? I wasn't advocating aiming for relegation as a strategy!

The item that particularly prompted my post was a discussion between Dave Callaghan and John Lees, in which it was simply assumed that only first division counties could attract good overseas players, which seems to me to be downright wrong.

Money attracts the top overseas players. They are nowadays not around long enough to care who they are playing for and Australia are unlikely to drop say, Ponting because he only played in division two.

Money is very much the determining factor when attracting overseas players or English players for that money.
Other factors too apply,but it will always be those with the biggest income and Test Match grounds ,such as Warwickshire and Surrey who pay the most.
Two divisions to my mind is wrong and creates an invidious position where the rich get richer and the poor will eventually go to the wall.
A return to one division with a realistic points structure and all play all,with the biggest prize available for every county should be the way forward.
However those who run our game have a different agenda which should be apparent to all.

Disagree totally about going back to 1 division, Durham would have won the league with months to spare and the rest of the league would have been non competitive rubbish. At least with 2 divisions we have some live games towards the end of the season

Totally agree with Loiner - 2 divisions is one of the most successful things done to domestic cricket in recent years. To reverse it would a very foolish decision in my opinion and one that thankfully doesn't look likely to happen.

What would we have been talking about over the last few days and weeks if the Sussex game had been 7th versus 8th in a 18 team division ?

Plus look at Division 2 - with just 1 game to go, 5 teams have a chance of gaining promotion !!

And in Division 1, there are still mathematically 4 teams who must play for something next week. But deep down we know that thanks to yesterday the Fat Lady will be making her way to Trent Bridge !!

The 1/2 Division split interests me. On the one hand 1 division play effectively makes the end of the season a waste of time with three quarters of the league having nothing to fight for at the end. With no relegation many teams may have nothing to play for for half the season.

But the problem with soccer-esque divisions is, as stated, that the rich get richer, the poor get poorer and fans of the poor teams have less hope each year for success.

The best structured sport in the world in my opinion is the NFL. A draft system and salary cap which keeps parity and every season provides genuine hope to struggling teams, and a playoff system which keeps the whole season exciting right up to the Superbowl finale.

Meamingless matches is a very good reason for two divisions. However, you would see more positive cricket with one division. More declarations behind on first innings, more innings being forfeited, more last day declarations and more run chases. Take away the fear of losing and positive cricket happens. A better way to promote positive cricket is to eliminate bonus points completely and get nothing for a draw, just 12 points for a win (4 points each if rain takes a big part out of the play).

Another option to consider would be a 'conference' system, perhaps based on a rough North/South or East/West configuration. Nine teams per Conference each playing the other twice (though my preference would be 12 games) with the top two in each conference going through to a round-robin Championship deciding round of matches.
This would minimise the increasing tendency toward a rich/poor environment yet maintain the key element of tight competition throughout the season. No relegation, but a great deal to play for. The Championship round for the top clubs could be a very exciting climax to the season.
If the games were played with a more 'win-friendly' points system it would be all the better. I'd suggest 16 points for a win; two points for a draw; 3 points each for batting and bowling. Thus, minimum points for a win would be 16; maximum points for a draw would be 8.

Perhaps it's the result of studying the dismal science in university and later teaching economics for 25 years, but I'm a firm believer in the basic economics mantra that people (even cricketers) respond to both incentives and disincentives.

That said, I like two divisions but do not like promotion and demotion. Like others on this forum, I firmly believe that the threat of demotion in County cricket (as well as one of the worst points systems in sports) acts as a significant disincentive to captain's taking a positive, results-oriented approach. Yorkshire's tactics over the past two seasons certainly seem to support this notion.

With the certain loss of any chance to win the £500,000 prize and the County Championship pennant, the bleed off in fan support that may occur, and the lower level of competition in the second division on offer to the paying fan, demotion is a very severe penalty in both a sporting and an economics context.

Throw in a points system that makes 'bonus' points ridiculously easy to obtain (3 bowling points is more or less automatic), and that encourages teams to bat on, and on and you have a prescription for an absurd scenario. A scenario whereby more than 60% of matches played are drawn i.e. neither side wins or loses - and this in an expanded 4-day format!

Besides, a comparatively short 16-match season and the vagaries of the weather, being demoted is far too harsh a result when so much of a team's success depends on the climate; and considering the huge margin of error that comes along with such a short competition sample.

I would stick with two divisions, and have a playoff between the two divisional champions, with a points allocation such that even if it were drawn, there would be a "winner."

I would also revamp the dubious bonus points system such that there would be more incentive to go after a result by not batting on ad infinitum: This would include reducing the points threshold to 100 overs, and having bonus points kick in at 5-6,7-8, 9-10 wickets; and 250, 300 ... etc. runs. A win would be worth 16 points, so that it would be worth exactly twice what a team could earn on first (i.e single innings) innings performance.

I'm yet to be convinced as to the benefit of bonus points at all.
The system as it is remains a nonsense with 12 points available for a high-scoring draw against possibly 18 or less for a low-scoring win what incentive is there for teams to go for the latter,when a negative approach and the advantage of batting on as long as one feels like it in the first innings is by far the safest option,and it's the spectators that suffer in viewing the unacceptable level of draws.
The ECB have set -up a sub -commitee to look into the present points system with a view to improving the competitive nature of games and are due to report back in the new year.
Many favour the Australian system with points for first-innings lead
Let's hope common sense prevails and trastic change is introduced.

the 2 division structure was one of the best things they have introduced to cricket in the last 20 years. If it did not exist then i bet most of us would not be bothering to contribute to the WRF now as our season would have ended ages ago and the possibility of relegation would not have existed.

It means the players are playing in meaningful games which improves their competitiveness should they go on to a higher level.

4 day cricket, Kolpaks, bonus point structures, ECB central contracts, all have their pros and cons but I don't see what the cons are for 2 division cricket in comparison.

As with all changes the 2 division structure has had good & bad points

Good ...

It means that far more counties have something to play for at the end of the season .. Sussex, Yorks & Lancs would probably in 'lets try new players' mode rather than ensuring first division status ... the 2nd divisoon promotion is equally as complicated.

There has been an big improvement in standard in the first division teams.

Bad

There is a fear of losing which results in more games ending up as draws. The Notts vs Yorks game is the classic example ... Yorkshire were terrified to give anything away as the 4 points could be vital.

The 2nd division is visibley weaker .. so often a relegated team comes straight back up (Kent) or a promoted team goes straight back down (Worcs)

The stronger teams are more likely to try & tempt away someone else's star or employ Kolpack (British/EU passport etc etc) a rather than try to blood a youngster.

So should we keep it ... on reflection I'd say yes.

"...meaningful games?" More bore draws seems to be the status quo in the second half of the season.

that brings us back to flat dead pitches that last for ever. i would take one more of those at headingley this week, and produce fairer pitches next season. taunton is a disgrace the bowlers have no chance.

of 68 games in the LVCC div 1 so far this season, there have been 27 results and 41 draws. Of course, Durham and Worcts have contributed to most of the results but weather etc also have an impact on boosting the number of draws.

I don't think its as apparent as some suggest that there are far more bore draws now - just we at Yorkshire tend to be involved in them as we are over cautious and opposition sides hate losing to us because of centuries of hatred at our success.

I like dpresseds concern that 2 divisions means there is an obvious gap in the quality between div 1 and div 2 - of course there is or the div 2 sides would be in div 1 surely?

I also look forward to seeing Shah, Ramprakash, Finn, Bopara etc joining new counties in 2010 in division 1. Yes, Worcts have lost 3 or 4 players but this is more to do with financial reasons rather than division of the county (or why else would Davies and Batty go to Surrey especially in view of their Director of Cricket?).

The argument re Kolpaks can be instantly removed as and when we remove their ability to play for any county at all.

On further thought I'm not really a good person to talk about all this. We've spent most of the latter half of 2009 watching a team playing 'catch up' due to poor first innings scores ... many of which have been due to 'stupid shots' as much as pitches or opposition bowlers. The result is that both the team & watchers have had to get into a siege mentality ... although even this this isn't all bad ... in past seasons the team would have lost many of the games they've fought like mad to save.

One problem is what I call pseudo-Kolpaks ... those who've aquired British or EU passports or are now 'English'

Finally Marsker makes an excelent point .... far too many pitches have either been low & slow or (as has been happening at Headingley for a few years) start off a good cricket pitches (giving both batsman AND bowlers a chance) but end up as batting paradises. At times some of us miss the old Headingley 'result' pitches .... to be a county bowler in 2009 must be bl**dy hard work

I wonder how Kent's supporters have enjoyed their brief stay in the second division?

Perhaps they will have enjoyed seeing more attacking cricket with no relegation to fear.

^^^^^^^

I post on some 'general' cricket forums .... & on one some Kent fans have posted how its been great to watch a team that's doing well#

btw There is another reason why we are getting more draws than in the past. For years a county game was 4 days of 104 overs .... its now 4 days of 96 overs .... a reduction of 24 overs a game ... this becomes vital when play is lost to bad light/weather.

How about this:

Round 1: 2 regional "conferences" (A and B) of 9 teams. Each team plays all the others in its conference once (8 games, 4 H, 4 A).

Round 2: Each team plays 6 teams from the opposite conference (6 games, 3 H, 3 A), and the points are added to the points gained in Round 1 (the teams stay in the Round 1 conferences for classification purposes). Format (the numbers indicate the finishing position in Round 1):

A/B 1-3: H v B/A 4-6; A v B/A 7-9
A/B 4-6: H v B/A 7-9; A v B/A 1-3
A/B 7-9: H v B/A 1-3; A v B/A 4-6

Play-offs:
Quarterfinals (the top 4 teams from each conference, 1 v 4, 2 v 3)

Semifinals (the QF winners in each conference play each other to decide the conference winners)

Final (between the winners of the conference playoffs)

Advantages:
There is no relegation, so there should be no fear of losing. On the other hand, there is a clear incentive to win.
Each team plays a minimum of 14 games, and all but the very poorest should be in contention right until the end of Round 2.

Disadvantages:
How to decide who gets home advantage in the play-offs; what to do if a play-off is drawn.

Wow, now that's a plan. Some great ideas here.

only drawback is the ECB would never understand it!