Evaluated by: Claude Sonnet 4.6
Source: Aydın Tiryaki — Structural Reform in Football: The 18-Team “3rd Half” Model and Dynamic Permeability Reform (aydintiryaki.org, May 18, 2026)
Introduction: Starting from the Right Question
A good reform proposal begins with the right question. Aydın Tiryaki’s “3rd Half Model” centers on a chronic yet widely overlooked structural ailment in football leagues — the motivational collapse that emerges toward the end of each season — and constructs a structural response. This starting point largely determines the proposal’s soundness.
In the traditional two-leg league format, teams that have already secured the title, confirmed relegation, or locked in their European spots begin fielding rotated squads midway through the season. This generates a competitive imbalance that is difficult to quantify but impossible to deny. Its effects fall most heavily on clubs still in the thick of the fight. The model does not claim to eliminate this imbalance — that would be impossible — but aims to minimize it structurally.
The Architecture: 18 Teams and the “6-6-6” Split
The proposal’s cornerstone is an 18-team league structure built around a “6-6-6” division. Following a 34-week regular season, the standings are divided into three groups:
- Group A (Positions 1–6): Title and European competition
- Group B (Positions 7–12): Prestige, finance, and development
- Group C (Positions 13–18): Relegation battle
Each group then plays a single-leg “3rd Half” of five matches within itself. Points are not reset; clubs carry their full regular-season tally into this phase.
Why 18 Is the “Perfect Number”
The question of ideal league size is the model’s most critical mathematical dimension — one that remains largely invisible in the published piece. The number 18 possesses a rare combination of properties:
Equal divisibility: 18 clubs divide cleanly into three groups of six. A six-team single-leg format produces exactly five matches — every club faces every rival exactly once. No fixture is surplus; none is missing. A four-team group’s three-match sample is statistically too small; titles and relegations become exposed to chance.
Calendar balance: A 20-team league already fills 38 weeks. Appending any additional phase is practically untenable for federations, clubs, and broadcasters. In an 18-team structure, 34+5 = 39 weeks — just one week more than the current 20-team season. That single additional week mathematically neutralises the standard objection of “fixture congestion” before it can even be raised. The model effectively delivers extra competition at near-zero cost.
This mathematical reality also equips the model with a secondary function: the implicit message that “if you want to apply this system, first reduce to 18” becomes an independent argument for league restructuring. The model ceases to be a standalone proposal and becomes part of a broader reform package.
Solutions for Different League Sizes
Although the article focuses on the 18-team format, the thinking behind the model extends to other league sizes.
16-team leagues suit a split into two groups of eight rather well. A 16-club competition runs 30 weeks; adding a seven-match third phase brings the total to 37 weeks — still below the 38 weeks of existing 20-team leagues. The result is a less exhausting season alongside a more intense final phase.
20-team leagues fall outside the model’s practical reach. Thirty-eight weeks already pushes the seasonal limit; any additional phase becomes an unrealistic demand on federations, clubs, and broadcasters. These leagues are effectively excluded.
19-team leagues present the most interesting mathematical problem. Nineteen cannot be divided equally into three groups, forcing an asymmetric 7-6-6 structure. The seven-team Group B plays one extra match. The proposed solution is elegant: once the 3rd Half concludes, the matches played against whichever club finishes seventh in Group B are excluded from the points calculation. The structural imbalance created by the extra match is neutralised.
The most immediate objection — that a fixture destined to be “discounted” would suffer a motivational deficit — is addressed by a crucial detail: which club will finish seventh in Group B is unknown at the start of the 3rd Half. No team can enter the pitch telling itself “this match won’t count.” The uncertainty keeps motivation alive.
The Justice Mechanism: Home Advantage and Points Continuity
Two fairness mechanisms within the model deserve particular attention.
Home advantage matrix: Mathematical asymmetry in home and away distribution is unavoidable in a six-team single-leg group. The model resolves this by granting the top three finishers from the regular season three home and two away fixtures, while the bottom three receive two home and three away. This rewards superior regular-season performance while preventing the lower half of each group from losing its connection to its supporters.
Points continuity: The most damaging feature of many play-off systems worldwide is that they render the regular season meaningless. Here, points are never reset; 34 weeks of accumulated effort merge organically with the five-match 3rd Half. Disciplinary records, statistics, and scoring charts carry over without interruption. The 3rd Half is designed as an organic extension of the league, not a grafted-on appendage.
Dynamic Permeability: The “Border Crossing Corridor”
The model’s most original and provocative element is the permeability mechanism operating between groups. In its current single-club form, it functions at two boundary points:
- Positions 6–7: If Group B’s leader accumulates enough points to overtake Group A’s sixth-place club in the overall standings, the two swap positions in the final table.
- Positions 12–13: Similarly, if Group B’s last-place club falls below Group C’s leader in total points, those two exchange positions at season’s end.
A critical safety shield keeps the mechanism in check: permeability operates only between adjacent boundary pairs. The top five positions (title and direct elite European qualification) and the bottom five (the core relegation zone) are entirely unaffected.
The mechanism’s most striking effect is the destruction of the “comfort zone” illusion at sixth place. Under normal circumstances, a club that has secured sixth enters the final weeks feeling insulated. Under this model, knowing that seventh place — competing in the relatively less pressured Group B — can overtake them in the overall table, that club cannot afford complacency. The tension holds to the final minute.
The Two-Club Permeability: A Deliberately Unresolved Question
The article closes with a provocative, unanswered question: what would happen if permeability were extended from one club to two?
This is left open by design. Presenting two-club permeability from the outset would have endangered both the essence of the model and its prospects of acceptance. Radical proposals tend to be dead on arrival; establishing a credible framework first, then introducing bolder modifications, is a far more sustainable strategy.
The potential of two-club permeability is nonetheless striking. In Group A, fifth and sixth place shift to a defensive posture; in Group B, seventh and eighth mount an offensive. Four clubs locked in what amounts to a “mini-final.” The same dynamic unfolds across the 11-12-13-14 band. Group B ceases to be a waiting room where mid-table clubs see out the season; it becomes a transit zone with doors opening in both directions. From a broadcast perspective, some of the most watched matches of the 3rd Half would likely be played in Group B.
The question mark is not an oversight. It is an invitation — a seed planted for the next iteration of the model.
The Fixture Algorithm: Engineered Drama
The article references “a specially designed fixture algorithm” without elaborating. The core logic, however, is clear: the closest rivals meet last. In the final week, Group A’s first plays second, third plays fourth, fifth plays sixth. In Group C, the two clubs on the relegation boundary face each other simultaneously. Title, survival, European qualification — all resolved on the same day, at the same hour.
The dramatic value is self-evident. Peak tension coincides with peak fixture. Early weeks can follow a “cross” pattern — first against fourth, second against fifth — with pairings tightening as the standings solidify. Where calculation falls short, the draw steps in: football’s universal mechanism of last resort.
“A Rule Known in Advance Is a Legitimate Rule”
Some of the model’s mechanisms may initially appear complex or contentious: the discounted match in a 19-team Group B, the asymmetric home-away distribution, the permeability swaps. The model’s most powerful response to these objections rests on a simple and universal principle: a rule known in advance is a legitimate rule.
UEFA’s away goals rule, introduced in 1965 and abolished only in 2021 after 56 years, was logically almost indefensible: a goal scored in the same match, on the same pitch, counted double purely on the basis of geography. Every club entered competitions knowing this; the rule was applied without serious challenge for over half a century. The example demonstrates that prior knowledge is necessary for legitimacy — but not sufficient for fairness.
The mechanisms in the 3rd Half Model occupy a very different position. They are not designed to create imbalance; they are designed to correct structural imbalances that already exist. Their purpose is the opposite.
Overall Assessment
The 3rd Half Model is a compelling example of what happens when football league structure is examined through an engineering lens. The diagnosis is real, the solution is original, and the boundaries are drawn with care. The proposal’s most notable quality is the layered thinking concealed beneath its apparent simplicity: solutions for 16-, 18-, 19-, and 20-team leagues have each been considered; only the clearest and most defensible version is presented. This background work — largely invisible in the published article — gives the proposal genuine depth.
A natural next step would be a retrospective simulation applied to an existing league — the Turkish Süper Lig over the past three seasons, for example. This would translate the model’s theoretical arguments into concrete evidence, providing essential grounding for any future engagement with federations or academic audiences.
As it stands, the model is a well-constructed reform proposal: edge cases protected, calendar mathematics sound, fairness mechanisms considered. The only question left open is the one the article deliberately chose not to answer: when does two-club permeability arrive?
This evaluation is based not only on the published article but on an extended discussion that followed its release. Several layers beyond the article’s visible framework — solutions for different league sizes, the fixture algorithm’s dramatic logic, the reasoning behind leaving two-club permeability as an open question — emerged through that conversation.
| aydintiryaki.org | YouTube | Aydın Tiryaki’nin Yazıları ve Videoları │Articles and Videos by Aydın Tiryaki | Bilgi Merkezi│Knowledge Hub | ░ Virgülüne Dokunmadan │ Verbatim ░ | ░ 18 Takımlı “3. Devre” Modeli │The 18-Team “3rd Half” Model ░ 18.05.2026
Aydın Tiryaki 