I’m curious why everyone keeps focusing on the unplayed games and what “could” have happened. All of that is completely irrelevant. The season ended. We were in first. That debate is now the equivalent of saying “I bet my team would have won if the season went an extra two weeks” In any other year. Everything else is a moot point because the rest of the games were cancelled. So the only point of contention is whether it is fair and sporting to award the trophy based on the season that was played. Very hard to justify that it isnt fair and sporting when teams had played 85-91% of their games and it seems there are some other leagues that agree with that. The fact that we are one of the very few leagues that awards a champion based on the regular season and not a playoff, the rationale for not awarding it becomes even more difficult to justify. I think the league and it’s fans are poorer for the decision.
I don’t expect anything to change. We drive on with the knowledge that we finished first and we look forward to doing it again next year. As I’ve said, the decision of men in suits that own teams that lost to us does not change anything. Certainly more important things in the world but fun to debate to take the mind off of things.
Sorry Steve, this is going to go down like a lead balloon on here as you're a popular figure, (and rightly so), but with that being said, i'll try and put together a rational response so that people don't turn up at my door with pitchforks...
The season was not complete unfortunately, it's not so much what 'could' have happened, as looking as last year we know how our final run in went, not that we want to remember that. We were top at the time the season was cancelled with games in hand, to my knowledge (pretty much football only) no other league titles have been awarded (happy to be corrected here though as i genuinely haven't looked.
HOWEVER, i understand the rationale, Formula 1, Speedway... are just 2 sports off the top of my head that will award a result as long as X% of a race is complete - however, would this translate to an entire season being awarded? OR, is that not similar to a hockey match being awarded X% of the way if there is a reason the game can't continue?
I also agree to a point that the league PR (link:
https://www.eliteleague.co.uk/article/731-eihl-cancels-all-matches-for-rest-of-season ) they did indeed cancel the GAMES for the remainder, and not the league as a whole, however, as anyone that competes in any sport should hopefully say, winning on a technicality is not winning at all.
Yes we finished in 1st, yes that deserves it's place in the record books, but I can't agree with awarding a league title.
Awarding an entire season based on %played cancelled games is 100000000% something that should be agreed upon by all teams at the start of the season (maybe there's a lesson there moving forward), unfortunately Cardiff are the team that are bringing this unlikely issue to the forefront due to unforeseen circumstances. But if there are other leagues that are awarding championships - is this not something that would have been pre-agreed before any knowledge of any crisis?
Once again - I apologize to the inferno for putting this forward, this is purely for the purpose of discussion on the most unusual of issues, I know the vast majority back Steve and his loyal point of view, and most importantly, i hope the league can learn from this and not "decide to not award the title" and put clarity on the issue if this ever happens again (a clear % of games must be paid overall for a league title to be awarded".