Talk:Mid-major
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Oversight in article
This article discusses "mid-major" as if it were an official term in intercollegiate athletics. In fact, it was invented by the sports media and was later taken up in fan and coaching circles, but is not recognized by the NCAA. Given that, I added a minor qualifier to the first paragraph of the article.
70.251.247.184 01:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- I also agree with the above statement. I also feel that this article should not list the conferences that are labeled "mid-major". It is a subjective categorization that has no place in an encyclopedia. Truthfully, I do not believe this article belongs on Wikipedia at all. X96lee15 02:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- The earliest use of the term "mid-major" in the New York Times archives is this article from 1991, which quotes Jim Delaney, who was the head of the tournament selection committee that year, using it to describe Northern Illinois, who was in the Mid-Continent Conference (now the Summit League) at the time. While this doesn't necessarily disprove the claim that the term was invented by the sports media and is unofficial, it shows that it was apparently used in official circles several years before it became commonly used by the media, coaches and fans. A search on Google Groups also shows 1991 as the earliest date for the use of the term on Usenet, with only a handful of other uses up until the late 1990s. Maybe someone with access to more resources (e.g. LexisNexis) can try to further pinpoint the origin of "mid-major".Ezclee4050 (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Definition
This was a poor article that read more like a discussion board argument about which teams are or are not mid-majors. Wiki is an encyclopedia, not an editorial page. Listing or not listing a conference does nothing to help define the informal term 'mid-major'. 70.200.23.168 19:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Many of the so called definitions of what a mid-major is are purely opinion of one person. No college expert lists the major conference as just the BCS conferences. This article needs to refrain from opinions and stick to the facts. The facts are, the definition of what a mid major is constantly changes and there is no true way to define the term. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:216.68.161.10 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
The term mid-major gets thrown around too loosely when you put the Ivy, Big Sky, and Colonial Leagues into the mix. If the Ivy League isn't lower than Mid-major than who is? FancyPants 04:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- To list EVERY OTHER conference besides the BCS and the few "disputed" confences as mid-majors is confusing, unnecessary and, to put it bluntly, wrong. I agree with FancyPants here. Please open this up to discussion, but I'll chop a number of those conferences off the list in short time depending on what people say here. Enough with the vandalism and revert wars. Masonpatriot 14:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- A few of the conferences currently listed as mid-major (Mid-Con, OVC, etc) are regularly rated in the bottom 1/3 of the 31 D-I conferences, so I am removing them. I also agree that listing all of the remaining 31 conferences as mid-major is wrong, as the term "mid", by definition, means middle. Which those are not. CollegeSportsGuy 13:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I am right, thankyou for finally seeing the light. There are indeed 7-11 Major conferences, 11 true mid-majors and 10-11 low Major conferences. It really is not a hard concept to understand. I am surprised it took you so long to see this truth. Better late than never I guess. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:216.68.161.10 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] You know, after giving it some thought, you're right
A few of us were wrong and outdated in our thinking that conference's like C-USA and the A-10, which regularly recieve multiple NCAA bids, Elite Eight and Sweet Sixteen appearances, and even have "buy" games with "true" mid-major conference teams, could EVER be considered mid-major's themselves. Thank you for taking the time to finally convince all of us of the backwardness of our thinking, and for sharing your immense knowlegde on this complicated subject. In fact, if it weren't for you, I would have never realized that C-USA even existed in 1985, nor would I have known that the way in which a given conference and its schools' administrators, coaches, and players view their own league helps determine that league's status. In fact, I probably would have even continued believing that C-USA was somehow diminished when it lost 8 of its 14 schools to BCS conferences during last years realignment. I will correct this article immediately, and appropriatley move all conferences that fit your correct qualifications of a Major into the Major category, and also move the remaining "non-major" conferences accordingly. CollegeSportsGuy 20:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
THANK YOU AGAIN, 216.68.161.10
It is not just me that decides, it is college basketball experts, coaches, players and administrators that all regard the A10 as above the mid-major level as well as CUSA. I am sorry if your belief system is stuck in 1985 on the subject but there have been 9-11 Major Conferences in basketball for a number of years now, regardless of an arbitrary line drawn by Wikipedia at BCS leagues. It is inccorect and outdated for college basketball. Sorry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:216.68.161.10 (talk • contribs) 12:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] So only *YOU* get to decide which conferences are major and mid-major, based completely upon your one-sided arguments and cherry-picked "facts", all of which are historical in nature?
One or two years of success for the MVC? I understand you may be a Xavier University and A-10 Conference fan, but how in the world can you say this:
"If the MVC continues of (sic) sustains their recent success they could be considered a Major conference as well. Two good years is a nice start but it is not long enough to judge it as a whole."?
You are (blatantly) obviously biased towards the A-10 and an "old" C-USA that does not even exist anymore. Not only by your "propping up" of these two non-BCS conferences with historical data only, but also by choosing to ignore every shred of fact regarding the MVC's history, not to mention recent results in every manner of measure that has been mentioned by every person in this discussion. This includes your omission of the fact that the MVC does have teams that buy games today, just like A FEW of the teams in the A-10 and C-USA do, which was touched upon in one of the articles YOU YOURSELF posted below!!! Did you know that more teams in the A-10 *ARE BOUGHT* by BCS conferences than are teams in the MVC??? You really need to do your homework, and stop purpetuating myths and narrow-minded opinions on Wikipedia, especially when they fly in the face of current-day facts.
As you also may (or may not as your ignorance on this subject is quite astounding) know, the MVC has now had multiple bids to the NCAA's every year since 1998, something the A-10 has not. Picking and choosing historical facts to support your argument is fun, isn't it? Lets try some more. Loyola University of the Horizon League has won a NCAA D-I National Champioship in men's basketball in the 1960's, so that conference must be more of a "Major" now then the others, right? Or is there a magical cut-off date that only you know about for when facts like this become no longer pertinent?
Wikipedia is (or is supposed to be) an encyclopedia, which by definition speaks of what *IS*, not what "should be" or "needs to be", as you like to believe:
"What needs to be done is experts to refer to conference that at Major like the A10 and CUSA to be called NON BCS Majors. They may not be on the level of the ACC but they also are not on the level with the true Mid-Majors."
So once again, please stop your vandalism of Wikipedia articles immediately, and take your unjustifiable ***opinions*** somewhere else. 143.81.160.51 08:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
It is just an opinion and one that is quite outdated. Drawing the line at BCS is okay for football but certainly not basketball. What needs to be done is experts to refer to conference that at Major like the A10 and CUSA to be called NON BCS Majors. They may not be on the level of the ACC but they also are not on the level with the true Mid-Majors. There simply is nothing wrong with there being 7-10 Major conferences and most experts now see this even if you refuse to.
The merits of a conference are not defined by one attribute, rather a combination of many. RPI alone does not define a conference, nor does NCAA tourney success, TV package, facilities, players going to the NBA, etc.
Temple has been to 5 Elite 8's alone in the last 15 years. Rhode Island, SJU, UMASS and XU have been to the Elite 8 as well. The A10 produced back to back NATIONAL Players of the Year, a mid-major league they are not. By the way, UMASS of the A10 has a Final 4 just like George Mason. Has a CAA team been ranked Number 1 in the AP polls for numerous weeks like UMASS and SJU have been? Wake up!
Have the MVC, Horizon, CAA etc bought games like the A10 and CUSA? No. They ususally sell games, which is a huge indicator in whether a league is major or mid-major. If the MVC continues of sustains their recent success they could be considered a Major conference as well. Two good years is a nice start but it is not long enough to judge it as a whole. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:216.68.161.10 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] It's not an opinion, it's just not accepted anymore that others outside of the BCS conferences are major
And it's most definately not accepted as to which ones are, as you said yourself here just today:
"Most college basketball experts agree that the A10, Conference USA and one of two others are indeed Major Conferences."
I think the problem is, "Where do you draw the line?" The answer today is, you can't, except at BCS membership. This was also the determination that was come to by those of the Wiki before you started editting here. Every criteria stated in your previous discussion post below is THE VERY EXAMPLE of misinformed, antiquated, and biased criteria. Why? Because it is ALL opinion, and an outdated one at that. Today (not 1992, 1998, or even 2004), the Missouri Valley conference is regarded by nearly every person involved in college basketball as a much stronger conference than both the "new" C-USA and an A-10 conference that has only had 3 NCAA teams over the last two years (look it up). EVERY respected judge of college basketball agrees; I'm talking Lindy's, Athlon, Blue Ribbon Yearbook, respected rating & ranking services like Ken Pomeroy and Jerry Palm, the RPI, sports books, etc. That's also the same amount of NCAA bids for the A-10 that the Colonial Athletic Association has had during that time, but unlike the CAA, the A-10 doesn't have a Final Four to show for it.
You want to talk about today? It's TODAY, that the Horizon League has more Sweet 16 teams in the last four NCAA tournaments than the Mountain West Conference, the WAC, and the same exact amount as the A-10. And it's that same Horizon League that over the last 4 years has had a better winning % in the NCAA tournament than the A-10. It's today that other non-BCS conferences that are NOT named the A-10 and C-USA have signed a national TV deal with CBS to televise their conference's tournament. It's today that these conferences are opening, or have already opened, multi-million dollar facilities that 90% of the schools in the A-10 could only dream of (check out the MVC's facilities, and the two new ones that are being built for UNI and SIU right now). It's today that schools in the MVC, Horizon League, MAC and WAC now average more for attendance than 90% of the schools in C-USA and the A-10. And it's TODAY that the A-10 has finished behind the MVC in attendance average for over a decade. I understand their #'s used to be close (back in the 90's), but it's grown to over 2,000 people per game a year. All these factors, including 5 NCAA at-large bids for the Valley the last two years compared to the A-10's 1, add up to show that the MVC is a more dominant (or "major", if you prefer) league than the two conferences you repeatedly speak of. So I think it is you, sir, that needs to be welcomed to the new "millinium" (sic).
But you are right on one account: It's also today that independent polls, websites, newspaper articles, columnists, and reporters on TV list different conferences as being "major", or "mid-major", or "low-major", never including the same conferences as the guy before, or the guy after him. Take Andy Katz, the Mid-Majority, the Mid-Major Top 25, or any other sources you want and compare them, you will find different conferences making the cut almost every single time. This shows that no, most college basketball "experts" do not agree, as you claim.
So without writing a book about why it is that SOME college basketball talking heads on TV, sportswriters, independent unofficial polls, etc. choose to occasionally still list SOME of these conferences as "major" (while at the same time considering many of the teams in them to NOT be major), lets just say it is COMPLETELY BIASED AND SUBJECTIVE to only include one or two non-BCS conferences as "major" while not including several others, that are considered by every objective source, to be higher-rated conferences in every single quantifiable, assessable aspect of NCAA Division I college basketball. In the regular season, in the NCAA tournament, in the NIT, in the RPI, in the # of teams qualified for any postseason tournaments, in attendance figures, and on and on and on. You can cling to your subjective "some of these teams "buy" games in this league, while a few less teams do in this league" argument, but it's in no way worthy of being the reasoning for altering any encyclopedia, even this one. ;)
Oh yeah, and as if to give a perfect example of your biased judgment here (in favor of the one or two conferences you keep speaking of), you say that this line of reasoning is only "wishful thinking by fans of BCS leagues". My team is not in a BCS conference, yet I could not see through you more. Your prejudicial attitude, comments, and edits to this article are so obvious, it's laughable. Please stop, before you discredit Wikipedia even more with your completely baseless and often times factually inaccurate edits to this article. And I also do not appreciate having my discussion comments on this Talk page completely deleted, as you already did once. CollegeSportsGuy 16:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
The opinion and it is only an opinion that only the BCS conferences are Major is aniquated, misinformed and no where near correct. There are over 30 DI conferences and to think on the top 6 are Major is wishful thinking by those fans of the BCS Leagues. Most college basketball experts agree that the A10, Conference USA and one of two others are indeed Major Conferences. Teams from those leagues "buy" games from the Mid or low majors, have great TV deals, have had good NCAA tourney experience recently and historically and have far greater basketball budgets than the true mid-majors. Furthermore, A10 and Conference USA teams have never appeared in the ESPN Mid-Major top 25 despite having great teams in the AP Top 25 for the last decade. It is time for some to wake up and smell the new millinium. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:216.68.161.10 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Further proof that only BCS conferences are "major" today
These articles only prove the point that no non-BCS conference has a solid claim on "major" status any more than the others. Several years ago, this was not the case. But today is not several years ago. Two years ago wasn't even several years ago in this case. These articles are so dated they might as well be pointless. Since obsolete perceptions obviously will always be in dispute, other evidence must be relied on, such as facts. How's this statement from one of the articles look today?
"...and the Missouri Valley (Creighton and Southern Illinois of late) can't make a serious claim about leaping out of mid-major status. They don't have the television exposure, lack the big-time facilities and the overall funding to be categorized with, say, an SEC school. The NCAA Tournament and regular season television games remain the great equalizer."
Let's see where these "facts" stand today: -Lack of TV exposure? Didn't see the A-10 or C-USA's conference tournament games on CBS. -Lack of "big-time" facilities? The new arenas for Creighton, WSU, UNI, and (soon to come) Southern Illinois, combined with existing facilities, makes the A-10 and C-USA look more like the SWAC than the WAC, let alone a BCS conference. -"Overall" funding? You mean like the kind of multi-million dollar, six year pay outs that you get for having 4 teams in the NCAA tournament and two in the Sweet 16? Or the kinds you get for having one team in one year (2005 A-10) or 2 teams in 2006? -Categorized with, say, an SEC school? Actually, Vanderbilt, an SEC school, would have a hard time competing with 8 of the 10 MVC schools in nearly all of these fields today. And I think the last statement in that four year old quote was answered quite well by the displays of Bradley, Wichita St, and George Mason in this years NCAA tournament.CollegeSportsGuy 22:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
When studying the facts of where non-BCS conferences have finished in the last 4 years in every measurable statistic and fact, it is CLEAR that no one conference has stood out above the other, save the old version of C-USA that has now been dismantled. Using all the available facts from its performance last year, it is a lower tier mid-major, at best. Below is one of the better examples of those facts, one the places a judgement on each conference as a whole: college basketball RPI ratings, power ranking, and other rating systems. Feel free to investigate other measurable statistics, such as the number of NCAA tournament qualifiers, performances, and attendance figures yourself. But please DO NOT base your changes to this article off of varying degrees of perception, an immeasurable substance if there ever was one.
2005-2006 NCAA Men’s Basketball - Year End Rankings
1. RPI
Average Avg Non-Conf Average
Rnk Conference W-L Pct Overall RPI SOS (Rank) Non-Conf RPI
1 Big Ten 105-26 .802 .5802 .5149 ( 7) .5784 ( 1)
2 Big East 148-43 .775 .5744 .5185 ( 5) .5711 ( 2)
3 Atlantic Coast 118-30 .797 .5703 .4944 (19) .5615 ( 4)
4 Southeastern 113-36 .758 .5690 .5208 ( 4) .5675 ( 3)
5 Big XII 102-32 .761 .5566 .5070 (12) .5583 ( 5)
6 Missouri Valley 66-27 .710 .5506 .5110 ( 8) .5570 ( 6)
7 Pac 10 71-31 .696 .5439 .5103 (10) .5421 ( 7)
8 Mountain West 63-40 .612 .5225 .4848 (23) .5065 (13)
9 Western Athletic 57-49 .538 .5204 .5219 ( 3) .5261 ( 8)
10 Colonial 67-49 .578 .5162 .4856 (22) .5125 (11)
11 Atlantic 10 91-73 .555 .5147 .5088 (11) .5160 ( 9)
12 West Coast 49-52 .485 .5044 .5278 ( 2) .5135 (10)
13 Conference USA 75-69 .521 .5015 .5036 (15) .4963 (15)
14 Metro Atlantic 45-46 .495 .5012 .5024 (16) .5098 (12)
15 Horizon League 46-51 .474 .4963 .5056 (13) .4982 (14)
16 Mid American 53-55 .491 .4944 .4881 (21) .4921 (17)
17 Big Sky 47-46 .505 .4929 .4683 (29) .4863 (18)
18 Sun Belt 59-67 .468 .4911 .4981 (18) .4935 (16)
23 Big West 44-52 .458 .4648 .4414 (31) .4494 (28)
2. POMEROY RATINGS
1 Southeastern Conference 59.38 17 Big Sky Conference 49.25 2 Big East Conference 59.22 18 Sun Belt Conference 48.97 3 Atlantic Coast Conference 58.61 19 Big West Conference 48.27 4 Big Ten Conference 57.81 20 Southern Conference 46.63 5 Pac 10 Conference 57.42 21 Southland Conference 46.19 6 Big XII Conference 57.04 22 Ohio Valley Conference 45.98 7 Missouri Valley Conference 55.17 23 Big South Conference 45.92 8 Mountain West Conference 52.96 24 Patriot League 45.44 9 Atlantic 10 Conference 52.32 25 America East Conference 44.86 10 Western Athletic Conference 52.21 26 Mid-Continent Conference 44.74 11 Colonial Athletic Association 51.89 27 Northeast Conference 44.71 12 West Coast Conference 51.85 28 Ivy League 44.61 13 Conference USA 51.07 29 Atlantic Sun Conference 42.06 14 Metro Atl.Athletic Conference 50.34 30 Independents 41.41 15 Horizon League 50.14 31 Mid-Eastern Athl. Conf. 41.21 16 Mid American Conference 49.95 32 Southwestern Athl. Conf. 39.93
3. SAGARIN RATINGS (Post-season taken into account)
CONFERENCE CENTRAL MEAN SIMPLE AVERAGE TEAMS 1 SOUTHEASTERN = 83.87 83.87 ( 1) 12 2 BIG EAST = 83.36 83.30 ( 2) 16 3 BIG TEN = 82.49 82.04 ( 4) 11 4 ATLANTIC COAST = 82.43 82.99 ( 3) 12 5 PACIFIC-10 = 80.53 80.88 ( 5) 10 6 MISSOURI VALLEY = 80.07 79.54 ( 7) 10 7 BIG 12 = 80.03 80.39 ( 6) 12 8 MOUNTAIN WEST = 76.36 76.04 ( 8) 9 9 ATLANTIC 10 = 76.34 75.80 ( 9) 14 10 COLONIAL = 75.45 75.28 ( 10) 12 11 WESTERN ATHLETIC = 75.08 74.51 ( 12) 9 12 WEST COAST = 73.90 74.68 ( 11) 8 13 MID-AMERICAN = 73.85 73.27 ( 14) 12 14 METRO ATLANTIC = 73.33 73.63 ( 13) 10 15 HORIZON = 72.96 73.07 ( 15) 9 16 CONFERENCE USA = 71.48 72.86 ( 16) 12 17 BIG SKY = 71.37 71.68 ( 17) 8 18 SUN BELT = 70.90 71.29 ( 18) 11 19 BIG WEST = 70.45 70.26 ( 19) 8 20 OHIO VALLEY = 68.91 68.44 ( 20) 11 21 SOUTHLAND = 68.55 68.26 ( 21) 11 22 BIG SOUTH = 68.33 68.22 ( 22) 9 23 SOUTHERN = 68.30 68.13 ( 23) 11 24 PATRIOT = 67.34 67.89 ( 24) 8 25 MID-CONTINENT = 67.22 67.29 ( 25) 9 26 NORTHEAST = 66.97 66.92 ( 27) 11 27 IVY LEAGUE = 66.87 67.27 ( 26) 8 28 AMERICA EAST = 66.62 66.67 ( 28) 9 29 ATLANTIC SUN = 62.82 62.47 ( 29) 11 30 INDEPENDENTS = 62.78 62.41 ( 30) 10 31 MID-EASTERN = 62.61 62.35 ( 31) 11 32 SOUTHWESTERN = 61.48 61.27 ( 32) 10
4. WARREN NOLAN RPI
# Conference RPI 1 Big Ten 0.5801 2 Big East 0.5748 3 ACC 0.5702 4 SEC 0.5688 5 Big XII 0.5566 6 MVC 0.5506 7 Pac 10 0.5438 8 Mountain West 0.5227 9 WAC 0.5208 10 Colonial 0.5166 11 Atlantic 10 0.5145 12 West Coast 0.5042 13 MAAC 0.5013 14 C-USA 0.5013 15 Horizon 0.4963 16 Mid-American 0.4944 17 Big Sky 0.4929 18 Sun Belt 0.4912 23 Big West 0.4648
5. RealTime RPI
Conference Avg.RPI Avg.SOS SOS Rank Teams 1 Big Ten 0.5797 0.5737 1 11 2 Big East 0.5749 0.5713 2 16 3 ACC 0.5704 0.5631 4 12 4 SEC 0.5689 0.5679 3 12 5 Big 12 0.5552 0.5576 5 12 6 MVC 0.5509 0.5484 6 10 7 Pac-10 0.5443 0.5461 7 10 8 MWC 0.5228 0.5193 9 9 9 WAC 0.5207 0.5228 8 9 10 Colonial 0.5169 0.5109 12 12 11 A-10 0.5148 0.5172 10 14 12 West Coast 0.5040 0.5123 11 8 13 C-USA 0.5021 0.5060 13 12 14 MAAC 0.5015 0.5005 14 10 15 Horizon 0.4959 0.4973 15 9 16 MAC 0.4946 0.4921 17 12 17 Big Sky 0.4925 0.4855 18 8 18 Sun Belt 0.4916 0.4928 16 11 23 Big West 0.4650 0.4577 27 8
6. Mike Greenfield’s TEAM RANKINGS.COM – RPI (Post-season taken into account)
1. BIG TEN 0.5675 2. SEC 0.5654 3. BIG EAST 0.5631 4. ACC 0.5564 5. MISSOURI VALLEY 0.5448 6. BIG TWELVE 0.5364 7. PACIFIC TEN 0.5328 8. COLONIAL 0.5227 9. WAC 0.5155 10. MOUNTAIN WEST 0.5082 11. ATLANTIC TEN 0.5063 12. METRO ATLANTIC 0.5051 13. HORIZON LEAGUE 0.4990 14. WEST COAST 0.4981 15. C-USA 0.4957 16. BIG SKY 0.4952 17. MID-AMERICAN 0.4940 18. SUN BELT 0.4893 25. BIG WEST 0.4644
7. Mike Greenfield’s POWER RATINGS (Post-season taken into account)
1. SEC 85.5 2. BIG EAST 85.2 3. ACC 84.5 4. BIG TEN 84.5 5. BIG TWELVE 82.4 6. PACIFIC TEN 82.3 7. MISSOURI VALLEY 81.4 8. ATLANTIC TEN 77.9 9. MOUNTAIN WEST 77.6 10. COLONIAL 77.5 11. WEST COAST 77.0 12. WAC 76.9 13. METRO ATLANTIC 75.8 14. HORIZON LEAGUE 75.7 15. MID-AMERICAN 75.0 16. C-USA 74.9 17. BIG SKY 74.0 18. SUN BELT 73.9 19. BIG WEST 72.7
Wednesday, December 07, 2005 Is the A-10 mid-major?
Nope. Is it a major conference? Nope. So I guess it's a tweener.
I would never suggest that the A-10 is on par with the likes of the Big East, Big Ten, ACC, SEC, etc. But I wouldn't do what Eric Prisbell of the Washington Post did and say that George Washington is one of the best mid-major teams in the country.
From the WaPo chat transcript (the conversation gets a little testy if you read the whole thing):
East Meadow, N.Y.: Okay, Eric, I don't mean to say, "I told you so," but it seems like our D.C. basketball hierarchy is shaping up the same way it ended last year, with one area team distinguishing itself from the rest. I'm not sure that pick of Charlotte to win the A-10 is going to materialize; actually, I'd say that the Colonials' toughest game this season will be at Xavier, even tougher than at Charlotte or at N.C. State. With Pops becoming more integrated into the offense and Regis Koundjia eligible starting with the game in Raleigh, just what is the ceiling for this Colonials team?
Eric Prisbell: You did tell me so. I was wrong. I underestimated the play of Maureece Rice. And I overestimated the progress of Strawberry at the point. If an ACC team does not press Maryland, I'd be very surprised.
George Washington seems like an East Coast version of Nevada. GW could get to the Sweet 16 with the right matchups, they are athletic enough. After that, it's tough to envision a mid-major program winning in a regional. But they could win two in the NCAAs. The best mid-majors are GW, Nevada, Bucknell and Northern Iowa, which had a solid win last night vs. Iowa.
I hate the term mid-major because it's too often used too broadly. The best teams in conferences like the A-10, WAC and Mountain West aren't mid-major. (In the interest of full disclosure, I've made the mistake myself of referring to teams in theses leagues as mid-major in previous years but have since altered my view). They aren't on the same level as teams from BCS leagues because they don't have the football money. But they certainly aren't to be confused with the MAC, Horizon League or Patriot League.
How about this for self-promotion: Teams that buy several home games a season [read my story on guarantee games] cannot be called mid-major. This would put Xavier and George Washington and several other A-10 teams clearly outside of the mid-major spectrum (Temple is in it's own category) while other A-10 programs (Duquesne, Fordham) are mid-major.
Simply put, if a program puts forth the financial resources to ensure its own success, it's hard to call it mid-major. This is why Gonzaga, which buys several games a year, is not mid-major, but St. Mary's of the same conference, is mid-major because St. Mary's itself "gets bought" instead of buying home games.
Nevada -- on the mid-major border. With its newfound success, the Wolf Pack has started buying home games but still struggles to get home-and-homes.
Northern Iowa -- still mid-major. The Panthers buy some games but can't get home-and-homes with major teams other than Iowa State and Iowa.
GW, Xavier and Dayton -- not even close to mid-major.
posted by Dustin Dow at 11:30 PM
Thursday, October 31, 2002 Updated: November 4, 12:58 PM ET So, just what makes a team 'mid-major'?
By Andy Katz ESPN.com
SPOKANE, Wash. -- Mark Few hates the term, can't stand it, doesn't want to hear it and, quite frankly, doesn't understand why anyone would think Gonzaga is still a mid-major program.
"It's a very poor descriptor for college basketball and has nothing to do with describing the level of a team's play and everything to do with describing the capital campaigns of the university," the feisty Gonzaga coach said.
"I just laugh. If you're going to have a mid-major poll then you might as well have polls based on the color of the uniforms. It has nothing to do with who can put the best five guys on the court and play basketball. It's silly but everyone loves to jump on it."
“
Few I just laugh. If you're going to have a mid-major poll then you might as well have polls based on the color of the uniforms. ... How many programs in the last 20 years have done what we have done? ”
— Mark Few,
Gonzaga head coach
He's right, but the problem is there has to be some sort of separation to breakdown the programs that do have the dough, the television exposures and the major conference cache from the teams and leagues that get their 15 minutes of fame for a game or two in March. But therein lies the problem, if you can even call it one, for Gonzaga.
The Bulldogs have crossed over into the mainstream by recruiting and signing top 100 players (Sean Mallon), producing a first-round NBA draft pick (Dan Dickau) and possibly more (Erroll Knight and Ronny Turiaf). Gonzaga is now a regular on the made-for-TV circuit, from getting into the final Great Eight event three years ago to the Great Alaska Shootout last season to a rare quadruple of high-profile games this season in the Maui Invitational (Utah and possibly Indiana in the first two games), Pete Newell Challenge (Stanford), the Delta Airlines Classic (Georgia) and the Jimmy V Classic (North Carolina State).
And, the Zags were in three straight Sweet 16s, including an Elite Eight, which will for the foreseeable future put them ahead of any bottom dwellers in high major conferences, let alone the majority of high-major teams.
"We're scheduling in all the major events and TV is the main thing," Few said. "How many programs in the last 20 years have done what we have done. Look at it any way you want, but the teams at the bottom of the mid-level or high-level football leagues would want to have done what we have.
"All everyone wants to focus on is the league, the facilities and how much money your league produces. What I say is, evaluate the program and what they have done."
Take out rival Pepperdine, which is trying to emulate what Gonzaga has done the past three seasons with an NCAA win over Indiana and regular-season wins over UCLA and USC, and the West Coast Conference is a mid-major conference. The facilities are mostly oversized gyms rather than arenas and hardly luxurious (outside of the new Craig Pavilion at the University of San Diego). The money pumped into the programs doesn't compare to a football playing conference.
Gonzaga, meanwhile, is building a brand new Kennel because they have outgrown the old barn. And, maybe, the Bulldogs will get new coaches' offices and locker rooms that don't have to be on equal footing with the cubicles for the rest of the sports at the quaint Jesuit school.
Gonzaga is clearly in the gray area. But, so too, are Tulsa and Hawaii and the rest of the WAC. An argument can be made that a number of programs in the Mountain West, the Atlantic 10 and certainly the MAC ride the fence, as well. There have been success stories in these leagues, like Tulsa's run to the Elite Eight in 2000; Massachusetts' Final Four in '96; Kent State's Elite Eight berth last season; and Utah's 1998 Final Four breakthrough.
But major Division I-A football, which is still a question for some schools in the WAC and MWC, see
Why was "vandalism" cited as the reason for reversion to the old entry, which contains a definition of "mid-major" used by only a small minority of college basketball analysts/writers/fans/etc.?
That's a blatant misuse of Wikipedia's administrative features.
Jakewilson 21:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Maryland Reference
The article includes a section describing how major schools will play lower-ranked mid-majors to get easy wins and effectively bypass much better mid-majors, then it sites Maryland as a case in point. However, with their defeat to mid-major VCU, I think this should be removed, at least for now as this happened in the past month. Any objections? -Eaglescout1984 5:19, 14 December 2007 (GMT)
