Last year we stoked the fires of those people who love to debate who are the champions at the end of a league season, the team that finishes top of the League or those who win the finals series.
In the Football West State Premier league this year the Western Knights won the League title and Perth won the finals series. Both sides deserving to win their respective titles. Although the finals format used this year probably needs reviewing with one less game being played as it seems strange that the top team plays two games and if they lose one they fails to be Champion, while the teams that finish second and third get an extra chance to take the title.
As we said a year ago it may be semantics, but surely if you finish the League season top of the log you deserve more recognition than a term such as “Minor Premiers.” Why not call them League Premiers, especially as there is no team currently called “Premiers” at the end of the season. The team winning the finals series currently being crowned the “Champions.”
Please don’t give us comments such as this is the way it’s done in other codes reasoning. Does that mean its right?
Ask people you know who play sport how often they have won a league title over a whole season, it is a rare feat, and does not warrant being belittled by having the word ‘Minor’ preface that achievement.
Very Valid points Mike thanks.
I see for the Gold Medal night tonight “Minor” has been dropped, would like to think we had some influence!
Totally agree with calling the winners of the league, premiers and the winners of the finals champions. Both awards should be placed on an equal footing and if you achieve both you’ve achieved the double.
In AFL, there is no problem calling the league winners minor premiers because they don’t play each other home and away. In the state league where you do, the team that cames out on top have proven they are the most consistent and they deserve an accolade!