Is it time to crown the League champions as minor premiership winners?

I undersatnd that in the Jeff when they first introduced the playoffs they crowned a league winner, and then the main winner of the playoffs as the champions. However this lead to confusion with some fans unable to grasp that the playoff champions were the overall champions.

However in Australia for the football A-League, they crown the league winners present a trophy, and top 6 play off for the main prize the be crowned champions.
They do the same in Aus Rugby league, At the end of the regular season, the club which is ranked highest on the ladder is declared minor premiers.
Aus Ice hockey, and in a few other sports do the same, though not using the term minor premiership.


We've had the playoffs now for a few years in the Jeff and Pro 12, personally I think its time that there should be an award for the minor premiership, with play off winner winning the main prize and "major premiership".

Imagine if a team topped the table by quite some margin (say unbeaten) and lost in the play offs, should they not show something for topping it?

A minor award for topping the league table, minor champs, and then play off winner winning athe major prize makes more sense to me.

For years and years and years ( ) I've been banging on about this.

Certainly at the very least the regular season league winners should be recognised as such. Wasps, for instance have been Jeff 'Champions' on multiple occasions but have won the regular season league.

League winners
and (if you must)
Grand Final Champions ( )

I'd be happy with it termed Minor winners and Major winners like they do in Oz.

Btw, I've thought this since playoffs were introduced in the Pro 12, not just because Ulster look like winning it this year. Honest.

wodevva, Kingshu.

But at the very least, the seasonal slog of the league should be recognised imo.

Kingshu wrote:I'd be happy with it termed Minor winners and Major winners like they do in Oz.

Btw, I've thought this since playoffs were introduced in the Pro 12, not just because Ulster look like winning it this year. Honest.

I believe you

Seriously yeah I think it should definitely be recognised in some way.If say Glasgow topped the league and then lost in the playoffs at least they would have some silverware to show for it,he teams that aren't historically successful would benefit most imo.

Kingshu wrote:I'd be happy with it termed Minor winners and Major winners like they do in Oz.

Btw, I've thought this since playoffs were introduced in the Pro 12, not just because Ulster look like winning it this year. Honest.

I've never been hot on the play-off deal even though.....*yawn* it's great for the game and fans and...yada, yada.

I don't like the word Minor for any Winner Title either though. I'd prefer just say what it is. Pro12 League Winners - then Pro12 Championship winners.

Backdate that and I'll be satisfied

The team who finished top of the english league used to get a trophy, but seeing as it counted for nothing and the real winner was the finals day winner, it was quietly dropped.

I think it should be 1 thing or another, so if playoffs are here to stay (I think they are) then there should be no trophy for merely gaining a home semi final.
Conversely if its a proper league then so be it, just drop the playoffs.

You think thats bad...look at the championship fiasco....

Bathman_in_London wrote:The team who finished top of the english league used to get a trophy, but seeing as it counted for nothing and the real winner was the finals day winner, it was quietly dropped.

I think it should be 1 thing or another, so if playoffs are here to stay (I think they are) then there should be no trophy for merely gaining a home semi final.
Conversely if its a proper league then so be it, just drop the playoffs.

Which would you personally prefer, Bathman? Play-offs or stopping at top of the Leader board?

This seems fair

I have to agree with you GeordieFalcon, as i think we agreed on another thread, playoffs for only one team to be promoted are a joke.

If Newcastle went unbeaten and then lose a play off it would be ridulcious, play offs for promotion should only there if more than one team is promoted, league winner auto promotion, next 3 join second bottom from prem, in playoffs for 2nd promotion spot. Think that would be fair.

Kingshu, does your opinion of this have anything to do with where Ulster are likely to finish in the league?

I still stick to it should be the league champions, and the top four (or eight etc) should not be called the play-off by the league cup. That way the League winners, and the League Cup winners, both get recognision for their achievements.

No the winner needs to be the grand final winner, otherwise it devalues the play off system.

SecretFly wrote:

Bathman_in_London wrote:The team who finished top of the english league used to get a trophy, but seeing as it counted for nothing and the real winner was the finals day winner, it was quietly dropped.

I think it should be 1 thing or another, so if playoffs are here to stay (I think they are) then there should be no trophy for merely gaining a home semi final.
Conversely if its a proper league then so be it, just drop the playoffs.

Which would you personally prefer, Bathman? Play-offs or stopping at top of the Leader board?

To be honest I used to be against the playoffs, for all the usual reasons. But I'm quite used to the playoffs now and think it provides a really good end to the season, as well as meaning the winning team can win in knock out pressure situations as well as a weekly league. I also think the clubs are now used to the system and play for it accordingly. Now the aim is top 2 and a home semi final, so in the last few seasons we have seen less of a team being miles ahead, flogging their best players and then getting mugged at the finish line by Wasps (or An.other!). So now the clubs have bought into it, I am pro the playoffs.

I can't say I'll ever support the playoffs. I've no problem with a team doing what Wasps did, i.e. enough to qualify then playing brilliantly when required. That is winning on merit, even if the system isn't my favourite. My concern is that a team that is by far and away the best over the course of the season (and more than capable of winning the key matches at the end) can be beaten by an unfortunately timed spate of injuries or an absolute howler of a decision from the ref in the dying minutes of a game. For me that is fine in a cup where that's part of the process and you are playing far fewer games, but I find it disturbing that it can happen at the end of a long season.

Season Playoff Winner Score Runner-up First place in table
2000–01* Leicester Tigers 22–10 Bath Leicester Tigers
2001–02* Gloucester 28–23 Bristol Leicester Tigers
2002–03 London Wasps 39–3 Gloucester Gloucester
2003–04 London Wasps 10–6 Bath Bath
2004–05 London Wasps 39–14 Leicester Tigers Leicester Tigers
2005–06 Sale Sharks 45–20 Leicester Tigers Sale Sharks
2006–07 Leicester Tigers 44–16 Gloucester Gloucester
2007–08 London Wasps 26–16 Leicester Tigers Gloucester
2008–09 Leicester Tigers 10–9 London Irish Leicester Tigers
2009–10 Leicester Tigers 33–27 Saracens Leicester Tigers
2010–11 Saracens 22–18 Leicester Tigers Leicester Tigers
2011–12 Harlequins 30-23 Leicester Tigers Harlequins

*until and including 2001–2002, first in league table were champions. Since then, the playoff final winner are the champions.

Emboldened - Season League winner is not Playoff winner.

Kingshu they also do the minor premiership in the Super League.


In Super League the team that tops the table gets league leader's shield.

I like it as a concept.

It's not as important as winning the playoff final obviously but it still means the team who finishes top gets something.

An idea I have had for a while but can not be bothered to organise is a collection from supporters to buy an award of some sort(ie cup/shield). Call it the Supporters Award to be given to the team that came top.It could be an award worth only a fiver but could imagine that it meant alot to the clubs because it came from the supporters. This would get round the problem of different sponsers for two awards. The winning club would be liable for engraving costs and upkeep.

Big wrote:I can't say I'll ever support the playoffs. I've no problem with a team doing what Wasps did, i.e. enough to qualify then playing brilliantly when required. That is winning on merit, even if the system isn't my favourite. My concern is that a team that is by far and away the best over the course of the season (and more than capable of winning the key matches at the end) can be beaten by an unfortunately timed spate of injuries or an absolute howler of a decision from the ref in the dying minutes of a game. For me that is fine in a cup where that's part of the process and you are playing far fewer games, but I find it disturbing that it can happen at the end of a long season.

Yeah, I share that view. A League is designed to give time for a side to prove its worth over the duration of a season - the season is the testing ground for worthiness as it's designed as a building mechanism - managing a season the best allows the team that is best to go to the top and stay there. That's the test of a league structure itself - that gives a league meaning.

That a consistently good/best side in a league can then be dropped from the prize because of one bad day at the final, if a ref decides to be controversal or if a key player is missing. It does always leave a sour taste in my stomach... and not just for my own side.

If Ulster finish this league season on top it'll be because they managed the League season best. That deserves a prize - maybe THE prize in my eyes but certainly a recognition in officlal terms.

Big wrote:I can't say I'll ever support the playoffs. I've no problem with a team doing what Wasps did, i.e. enough to qualify then playing brilliantly when required. That is winning on merit, even if the system isn't my favourite. My concern is that a team that is by far and away the best over the course of the season (and more than capable of winning the key matches at the end) can be beaten by an unfortunately timed spate of injuries or an absolute howler of a decision from the ref in the dying minutes of a game. For me that is fine in a cup where that's part of the process and you are playing far fewer games, but I find it disturbing that it can happen at the end of a long season.

It may not happen in the last game without the playoffs, but the same unfortunate events could equally dictate the winner of a pure league system. It's not always the case that one team is far and away the best, in fact over the last four seasons there has only been 2-4 points separating the top two sides. That is a margin that can easily be decided by one game and any unfortunate circumstances that surround it, particularly if it's in their head to head.

The long slog and knock out pressure ability are both characteristics that the best sides should be masters of, so with the absence of an English cup competition I'm happy for the competition that remains and crowns a club the best in the land that year to call for a display of both characteristics.

I'd have no objections to an award going to the team that finishes top of the league before the playoffs, but I think it would carry little cachet, except with the club bosses who got to bank any prize money.

Some people just can't grasp the concept that your not playing to be top of the table... your playing for home advantage against the lowest qualifying side. That's why there is no prize... the playoff place is the prize.

Think of it as topping your pool in the HC and your there.

rodders wrote:No the winner needs to be the grand final winner, otherwise it devalues the play off system.

Could really follow Super League kind of and have a league leaders trophy (or shield as they do) and a Grand Final winner. I think it's a pretty good system.

Metal Tiger wrote:Some people just can't grasp the concept that your not playing to be top of the table... your playing for home advantage against the lowest qualifying side. That's why there is no prize... the playoff place is the prize.

Think of it as topping your pool in the HC and your there.

Exactly.

The big kahuna is clearly the playoff finals winner. In the National Hockey League, the President's Trophy is given to the team with the best record over the length of the season. And no one cares. It is all about the Stanley Cup winner. Same here.

When we all grew up there were no playoffs, and finishing top of the league is all we knew. There is now, in my opinion, such a surge of interest in the playoffs, Rugby is better for it. There is no going back.

I hate the play offs. I do not support any particular club by the way. If you finish the league table at the top, you should be crowned champs. Just because RL do it doesnt make gold. They dont do it in soccer and they seem to be doing just fine. As for incentive, surely a Heineken cup spot should be enough?
Also at a time when player fatigue is often mentioned, it seems ridiculous we are exposing our top players to a series of intense must win games at the end of the season.
If it must be done, and no doubt the revenue it brings in means it must, then have it as a stand alone cup or something.

Metal Tiger wrote:Some people just can't grasp the concept that your not playing to be top of the table... your playing for home advantage against the lowest qualifying side. That's why there is no prize... the playoff place is the prize.

Think of it as topping your pool in the HC and your there.

I wonder then why for the last hurrah at WR in front of the two best-supported teams in the league, the crowd was down from the season's average attendance. Only a bit admittedly - but down just the same. 21495 av according to the PRL website http://www.premiershiprugby.com/stats/attendance.php compared with 20,243 yesterday according to Auntie.

Surely if there such a universal appreciation of the playoffs, there would have been a sell-out yesterday?

Well I cant speak for all ticket holders but I know a lot of them (me included) had other things going on that day (family commitments) so could not attend. Also for the majority of season tickey holders they will have had to pay extra for the day. Perhaps that contributed. Anyway...I will be going to the final...yeah!!

Think of it as topping your pool in the HC and your there.

In a sense you are right there MT.
That's why Leinster got dumped at the pool stages when they appear to be in the top three teams in Europe by any measure.

Such is the beauty of the HEC structure.

greytiger wrote:

Metal Tiger wrote:Some people just can't grasp the concept that your not playing to be top of the table... your playing for home advantage against the lowest qualifying side. That's why there is no prize... the playoff place is the prize.

Think of it as topping your pool in the HC and your there.

I wonder then why for the last hurrah at WR in front of the two best-supported teams in the league, the crowd was down from the season's average attendance. Only a bit admittedly - but down just the same. 21495 av according to the PRL website http://www.premiershiprugby.com/stats/attendance.php compared with 20,243 yesterday according to Auntie.

Surely if there such a universal appreciation of the playoffs, there would have been a sell-out yesterday?

Certainly can't speak for what happens in one match, but the finals for the past five seasons have had over 80,000 in HQ. To me, that is very significant and interest continues to grow. Twickenham is not overly difficult to get to, but is not the easiest either. If these people have been looking for a day out, there are many other things to do.