Fewer mid majors

[ElDonBDon]

Quoted from SI.com today

"Quite simply, conference realignment killed the traditional mid-major. The new look Big East -- which includes Creighton, Butler and Xavier -- and the brand new AAC absorbed many teams we used to consider mid-majors into what are now power conferences. The Atlantic 10, on the strength of Saint Louis and VCU, doesn't exactly pass the smell test as a mid-major either. Add those to the traditional power conferences, and there just isn't a ton of room for the mid-majors of 2013-14 to make the dance."

Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/colleg ... z2w8EU8TEV

What do you think, agree disagree - My opinion, A10 has not been a mid major for years...

Strongly disagree. The A10 is a mid major plain and simple. There seems to be the assumption in this article that if mid majors achieve some success, they're no longer mid majors. How's that? That seems to be taking a pejorative attitude toward mid majors, suggesting that mid majors can't achieve some success in their own right.

There also seems to be some confusion in the article between mid majors and low majors. The A10 of course is not to be confused with the Summit Conference, but it isn't to be confused either with the ACC. While in any given year the a10 may get multiple teams into the tournament, it is still a conference with a ceiling. Getting a team to the elite 8 was a cause for celebration, but other than the '96 UMass team, which later vacated its FF, the a10 has not been a league that produced national champions nor sent teams to the Final Four to challenge for national championships.

The most successful mid major in the past 15 years has been Gonzaga, but their success has not made them into a power program. They broke through in 1999 with a run to the elite 8, but they have never been back their since despite their success in getting to the tournament every year. They play in a decidedly mid major conference where home attendance for everyone else in the conference falls between 1500-3500 except for them and the newly added BYU. They're simply a very successful mid major, not a power program.

I generally agree with all of this, but Temple used to compete regularly in the tourney when they were in the A10. I don't know the exact number off the top of my head, but they seemed to have a host of Elite 8 appearances in the 90s and I think one in 2002.

Anyway, the thing that really sucks about the label "mid-major" is that schools like Mississippi State and Clemson are "high major" programs by virtue of their conference affiliation, while Gonzaga is called "mid-major." I'm confident that the Zags (and BYU for that matter) would sweep a 7-game series of many of the bottom-feeders of the power conferences/high-major programs.

[Bill Marsh]

Quoted from SI.com today

"Quite simply, conference realignment killed the traditional mid-major. The new look Big East -- which includes Creighton, Butler and Xavier -- and the brand new AAC absorbed many teams we used to consider mid-majors into what are now power conferences. The Atlantic 10, on the strength of Saint Louis and VCU, doesn't exactly pass the smell test as a mid-major either. Add those to the traditional power conferences, and there just isn't a ton of room for the mid-majors of 2013-14 to make the dance."

Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/colleg ... z2w8EU8TEV

What do you think, agree disagree - My opinion, A10 has not been a mid major for years...

Strongly disagree. The A10 is a mid major plain and simple. There seems to be the assumption in this article that if mid majors achieve some success, they're no longer mid majors. How's that? That seems to be taking a pejorative attitude toward mid majors, suggesting that mid majors can't achieve some success in their own right.

There also seems to be some confusion in the article between mid majors and low majors. The A10 of course is not to be confused with the Summit Conference, but it isn't to be confused either with the ACC. While in any given year the a10 may get multiple teams into the tournament, it is still a conference with a ceiling. Getting a team to the elite 8 was a cause for celebration, but other than the '96 UMass team, which later vacated its FF, the a10 has not been a league that produced national champions nor sent teams to the Final Four to challenge for national championships.

The most successful mid major in the past 15 years has been Gonzaga, but their success has not made them into a power program. They broke through in 1999 with a run to the elite 8, but they have never been back their since despite their success in getting to the tournament every year. They play in a decidedly mid major conference where home attendance for everyone else in the conference falls between 1500-3500 except for them and the newly added BYU. They're simply a very successful mid major, not a power program.

I generally agree with all of this, but Temple used to compete regularly in the tourney when they were in the A10. I don't know the exact number off the top of my head, but they seemed to have a host of Elite 8 appearances in the 90s and I think one in 2002.

Anyway, the thing that really sucks about the label "mid-major" is that schools like Mississippi State and Clemson are "high major" programs by virtue of their conference affiliation, while Gonzaga is called "mid-major." I'm confident that the Zags (and BYU for that matter) would sweep a 7-game series of many of the bottom-feeders of the power conferences/high-major programs.

Yes, temple did 5 Elite 8's between 1988-91. Ranked #1 in the country when Mark Macon was there. A very successful mid major.

I don't see the mid major tag as demeaning. If anything, I see it as a badge of honor. I guess it's all in your POV. To me, it suggests the level at which you compete more than anything else. Big fish in a small pond, small fish in a big pond kind of thing.

As for Mississippi State and Clemson, I think of them as bad majors who have occasionally achieved some success. I don't think of bad programs as being significant even if they play in a power conference.

Major vs mid major may imply big time vs small time to some. I think of most majors as being sports factories with distorted values while I think of mid majors as schools who are truer to their mission of educating student athletes. There are exceptions of course and I think of the Big East as being the exception among major conferences.

[ElDonBDon]

Quoted from SI.com today

"Quite simply, conference realignment killed the traditional mid-major. The new look Big East -- which includes Creighton, Butler and Xavier -- and the brand new AAC absorbed many teams we used to consider mid-majors into what are now power conferences. The Atlantic 10, on the strength of Saint Louis and VCU, doesn't exactly pass the smell test as a mid-major either. Add those to the traditional power conferences, and there just isn't a ton of room for the mid-majors of 2013-14 to make the dance."

Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/colleg ... z2w8EU8TEV

What do you think, agree disagree - My opinion, A10 has not been a mid major for years...

Strongly disagree. The A10 is a mid major plain and simple. There seems to be the assumption in this article that if mid majors achieve some success, they're no longer mid majors. How's that? That seems to be taking a pejorative attitude toward mid majors, suggesting that mid majors can't achieve some success in their own right.

There also seems to be some confusion in the article between mid majors and low majors. The A10 of course is not to be confused with the Summit Conference, but it isn't to be confused either with the ACC. While in any given year the a10 may get multiple teams into the tournament, it is still a conference with a ceiling. Getting a team to the elite 8 was a cause for celebration, but other than the '96 UMass team, which later vacated its FF, the a10 has not been a league that produced national champions nor sent teams to the Final Four to challenge for national championships.

The most successful mid major in the past 15 years has been Gonzaga, but their success has not made them into a power program. They broke through in 1999 with a run to the elite 8, but they have never been back their since despite their success in getting to the tournament every year. They play in a decidedly mid major conference where home attendance for everyone else in the conference falls between 1500-3500 except for them and the newly added BYU. They're simply a very successful mid major, not a power program.

And DePaul, St Johns, Seton Hall, are not mid major material (no success in the past 10 years for each) come on lets be honest here

I think he's saying "well if you are calling the A10 mid-major, then what the hell do you call DePaul, StJ, and SHU? These guys have had zero success the past ten years and thus they, too, are mid-majors."

[RDinNY]

Bad teams in a power conference are not the same as mid-majors.

[Bill Marsh]

Strongly disagree. The A10 is a mid major plain and simple. There seems to be the assumption in this article that if mid majors achieve some success, they're no longer mid majors. How's that? That seems to be taking a pejorative attitude toward mid majors, suggesting that mid majors can't achieve some success in their own right.

There also seems to be some confusion in the article between mid majors and low majors. The A10 of course is not to be confused with the Summit Conference, but it isn't to be confused either with the ACC. While in any given year the a10 may get multiple teams into the tournament, it is still a conference with a ceiling. Getting a team to the elite 8 was a cause for celebration, but other than the '96 UMass team, which later vacated its FF, the a10 has not been a league that produced national champions nor sent teams to the Final Four to challenge for national championships.

The most successful mid major in the past 15 years has been Gonzaga, but their success has not made them into a power program. They broke through in 1999 with a run to the elite 8, but they have never been back their since despite their success in getting to the tournament every year. They play in a decidedly mid major conference where home attendance for everyone else in the conference falls between 1500-3500 except for them and the newly added BYU. They're simply a very successful mid major, not a power program.

And DePaul, St Johns, Seton Hall, are not mid major material (no success in the past 10 years for each) come on lets be honest here

I think he's saying "well if you are calling the A10 mid-major, then what the hell do you call DePaul, StJ, and SHU? These guys have had zero success the past ten years and thus they, too, are mid-majors."

If that's what he's saying, then I would say, No, they are not mid majors.

I'm just speaking for myself and it's a vague concept. So, to each his own. For me, major or mid major status is defined as much by the conference a school competes in as by the program itself. Recently, those 3 programs have been bad programs more or less, but I don't see major or mid major status as something that fluctuates with up cycles and down cycles. Those 3 programs happen to be going through down cycles. It happens to most programs.

There are certainly programs that are in over their heads in major conferences, but that still doesn't change the fact that they compete at the major conference level. Just as there are mid major programs that stand head and shoulders above their peers like Gonzaga. But that doesn't change the fact that they compete at the mid major level.

St. John's, for example is the premier program in a major population center. It has a history of enormous success with national championships and Final Fours. It competes in a conference with some of the best programs in the country, past national champions with Final four histories. The conference has a major TV contract which will keep the program well financed for years to come. None of that changes during a period in which they've struggled. Their W/L record could and may change 180 degrees next year. They'll still be the same program, but one that is now winning at a higher rate. Even major programs have their ups and downs.

[BillikensWin]

Mid-major is a severe insult to any program who is hit with the label. It is no different than saying this: "Your program is not good enough to deserve tournament bids, but we have to take somebody." Those who use the term mid-major are attempting to put down any conference below the "line".

I've let quite a few people have it about the A-10 being a "mid-major". There is no such thing. It's either you are a major conference or you aren't.

This "middle ground" does not exist. When the word mid-major is used, it's comparing the A-10 or MWC to the MEAC or SWAC.

[Bill Marsh]

Mid-major is a severe insult to any program who is hit with the label. It is no different than saying this: "Your program is not good enough to deserve tournament bids, but we have to take somebody." Those who use the term mid-major are attempting to put down any conference below the "line".

I've let quite a few people have it about the A-10 being a "mid-major". There is no such thing. It's either you are a major conference or you aren't.

This "middle ground" does not exist. When the word mid-major is used, it's comparing the A-10 or MWC to the MEAC or SWAC.

The guy who invented the term didn't agree with you. He coached at a mid major.

If some of the football schools use it that way, that's their problem. Most of them are idiots anyway and their attitude isn't going to change by arguing over a label.

[stever20]

As I've said all year long, the difference between the traditional major and the mid major is a lot smaller now than it's ever been. There may be a line, but it's a really thin line. I mean, case in point, as a "mid-major" EVER been expected to get 6 bids in a year? I sure don't think so. The A10 really isn't a mid-major like the mid-majors used to be. Big East fans may not like it, but the A10 is ahead this year of the SEC and AAC, and is just .0010 behind the ACC in the RPI(which is nothing).

I think of a mid-major quite frankly as more like a Gonzaga or Wichita now. To me, there's 8 major conferences, then WCC, MVC, MWC as mid-majors, and then the rest. Before we had like 6 major conferences, a pretty fair line before things like the A10, MWC, CAA, CUSA, etc, and then the rest.

[ElDonBDon]

As I've said all year long, the difference between the traditional major and the mid major is a lot smaller now than it's ever been. There may be a line, but it's a really thin line. I mean, case in point, as a "mid-major" EVER been expected to get 6 bids in a year? I sure don't think so. The A10 really isn't a mid-major like the mid-majors used to be. Big East fans may not like it, but the A10 is ahead this year of the SEC and AAC, and is just .0010 behind the ACC in the RPI(which is nothing).

I think of a mid-major quite frankly as more like a Gonzaga or Wichita now. To me, there's 8 major conferences, then WCC, MVC, MWC as mid-majors, and then the rest. Before we had like 6 major conferences, a pretty fair line before things like the A10, MWC, CAA, CUSA, etc, and then the rest.

I don't know about expectations of 6 bids, but I remember Conference USA got 6 in the tourney back in '04 (last time DePaul made it)

I swear that I have been watching college basketball since I was a kid (the mid-90s) and I think the first time I remember hearing the term "mid-major" was in reference to UW-Milwaukee's 2005 Sweet 16 run, or around that time (I think SIU had a run around that time, too). I think it really picked up steam when Boise State beat Oklahoma in the Tostitos bowl, followed by George Mason making its FF run.

When Conference USA put 6 teams in the tourney, nobody even thought it was noteworthy because I don't think the term 'mid-major' had been invented yet. Or, if it had, it certainly was not widely used.

[XUFan09]

"Mid-major" is often a patronizing term, a label that Xavier worked hard to remove in the media when they were still in the A10 because it hurt them on the recruiting trail (and that includes a couple players with whom they now, ironically enough, share a conference).

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/w ... r.tourney/

Winners don't like being the David versus Goliath, the "little engine that could." That makes it sound like they're lucky to be there.