Quote Paul Thexton="Paul Thexton"To me the playoffs + Grand Final is a re-badged, and highly successfully re-marketed premiership competition. With a far uglier trophy. (Seriously, is it just me that thinks the SL trophy itself is a colossal, unimaginative, tacky eye-sore?)
That being said, I'd be beside myself if Warrington ever won it.
The Luddite in me agrees with the view-point that first past the post is the only fair way to determine who the league champions are. However, it's simply not an arguable point, the word "minor" in the title given to the first past the post team is indicative of how little it really means to the competition organisers and how little they want us the fans to think of it as well.
Those who point to premiership competitions being used in RL to decide the overall champs up until the mid 70s, rather miss the point that this was a situation born from travel difficulties (at the time of course) across the pennines and so was very similar in effect to how the yanks pull together the winners from various regionally separated divisions to contest the super bowl. We have no such travel difficulties these days.'"
I don't see why they even need to call it the Minor Premier. Doesn't the word "premier" mean first and foremost anyway? Whereas "champion" means the winner of a contest? Surely both words can be used and rightly praised? Being called the Premiers doesn't mean they won the SL, it just means they came first. And being called Champions doesn't mean they finished first, but it does mean they won SL.
I don't see why we have to talk one down in order to talk the other up when we can surely talk both up? The more trophies we have that are "worth" winning (to players, fans, chairmen, media, etc) the more interest that will be generated.
I just hate the whole "minor premier" title, and the pathetic hub-cap that is the LLS. Especially when you look at the shield they use in the NRL:
