Conference or Championship .

[bwildered]

 For the future .
 Three divisions of six of which are played home and away.  Division one winners are County Champions , side finishing bottom of Division ( 6 th ) automatically relegated and replaced with winners of Division Two . Also runners up of Division Two play off against team finished second from bottom ( 5 th)  in Division One . Division Two side must beat Division One side in play off game with similar rules to BWT final to get promoted, game could be played over five days on neural ground or on home ground of higher Division team ,

Same goes for Division Three , winners automatically promoted to Division Two replacing side finishing bottom of Division Two . Same has Div One, Division Three runners up to play side finishing second from bottom of Division Two in play off game which Division Three side must win to replace Division Two side.

Advantage of this system is that best six sides are in top division, and nearly every game played in all divisions have some importance in positions, also has a play off interest.

[LeedsExile]

So you are happy then for their to be only 10 first class games? I am not. 

[essexfan548]

Championship. 2 divisions, each of 9 teams. Play everyone home & away, 16 first class games.
Two promoted, two relegated at the end of the season.

yep simple isn't it.

I agree

[Slogger]

Championship. 2 divisions, each of 9 teams. Play everyone home & away, 16 first class games.
Two promoted, two relegated at the end of the season.

yep simple isn't it.

I agree

Agree but wouldn't object to 3 up 3 down

[essexfan548]

Agree but wouldn't object to 3 up 3 down

What about 7th in div one plays 3rd in div 2 to decide whether they 'swap'?

[nat]

Agree but wouldn't object to 3 up 3 down

What about 7th in div one plays 3rd in div 2 to decide whether they 'swap'?

What part of 'simple' do you have a problem with?

[essexfan548]

What part of 'simple' do you have a problem with?

Your posts are tolerated .... this is a debate and everyone has a right to contribute

[stewyww]

Well I never thought I would say it, but I can see some merit in the conference plan that Chopra was describing on Sunday.
The key thing is to me is that we would play different sides to add far more variety. For example,in the first set of matches, we as presumably Seed 1 would be playing lower seeds such as 10, 13 and 16 which would be lower second division sides who we haven't seen in years.
Then assuming the cream gets to the top, in the  second block of matches, we would most likely be pitted against your Somersets, Surreys and Yorkshires as per normal.

Personally I would like to play in one division of 18, with seventeen three or four day matches, but that ain't gonna happen!
So the consolation prize is potentially seeing different sides each year, as well as the two or three regulars.

[Postman]

I'm getting resigned to the Conference idea simply because apparently all the chairmen except Lord Bramsgrove of Ageas are in favour of it and so it's almost certainly going to happen, subject to the debate re whether there should be a final as well. I'd prefer not, for the same reasons others have given. But we should note that-
* it's probably being pushed by the ECB as a blind to sneak in a reduction in red ball matches after a year or two (a certain RWT Key was advocating 10 only when commentating on Sky Youtube)
* with the likely scheduling of the T20 and Hundred, it will retain one of the most unsatisfactory features of the old system ie matches squeezed into April, May and September
* while it resurrects one of the worst features of the pre-2000 system, which was that from about half way through the programme most of the counties will have little to play for except seedings for next season. With 2 divisions since 2000, most years there have been very few "nothing" matches even in the last couple of rounds.
So, as Michael Holding says about T20, that's fine if that's what people want, but don't expect me to get all excited about it.

[LeedsExile]

Completely agree Postman and I never thought I would be on the same side as Rod Bransgrove in an argument.

[IlfordEagle]

If the seeding system is used next year then being seeded 3 would mean only facing one other CC1 county (seed 6) & effectively 4 from CC2, which on paper looks a good draw especially when you face the worst team in the country ie the likes of Glam, Leics etc. Saying that I would prefer if we are going to win it that we face (& beat) the best available then we can then say we are rightful champions.
It will be interesting to see how it pans out when next season's fixtures are produced.

[Suffolk Richard]

Championship. 2 divisions, each of 9 teams. Play everyone home & away, 16 first class games.
Two promoted, two relegated at the end of the season.

yep simple isn't it.

I agree

Agree but wouldn't object to 3 up 3 down

I think this would work if we went back to 3 day games of perhaps 105 overs a day. Each session lasting around 2 hours and 20 minutes, with first innings limited to around 90 overs.

[stewyww]

If the seeding system is used next year then being seeded 3 would mean only facing one other CC1 county (seed 6) & effectively 4 from CC2, which on paper looks a good draw especially when you face the worst team in the country ie the likes of Glam, Leics etc. Saying that I would prefer if we are going to win it that we face (& beat) the best available then we can then say we are rightful champions.
It will be interesting to see how it pans out when next season's fixtures are produced.

Can't see how it would be possible to be seeded 3.
Seeding, whether based on this year, or at most the last five years, would have to have us seeded 1.

[IlfordEagle]

If the seeding system is used next year then being seeded 3 would mean only facing one other CC1 county (seed 6) & effectively 4 from CC2, which on paper looks a good draw especially when you face the worst team in the country ie the likes of Glam, Leics etc. Saying that I would prefer if we are going to win it that we face (& beat) the best available then we can then say we are rightful champions.
It will be interesting to see how it pans out when next season's fixtures are produced.

Can't see how it would be possible to be seeded 3.
Seeding, whether based on this year, or at most the last five years, would have to have us seeded 1.

Sorry, just to clarify I meant whoever was seeded 3, I'm pretty certain we would be seeded 1.