Fewer mid majors

[Bill Marsh]

"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.

I'm not sure what the point is. Do majors and mid majors come and go, changing their status as their programs rise and decline? There are very few programs that don't do that.

If a program is a winner, the record speaks for itself and there is no need to worry about the label. If winning is what defines a programs status, then why not use a term that refers to that, such as "perennial tournament team", or "nationally ranked", or perennial 20 game winner?

[BillikensWin]

"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.

I'm not sure what the point is. Do majors and mid majors come and go, changing their status as their programs rise and decline? There are very few programs that don't do that.

If a program is a winner, the record speaks for itself and there is no need to worry about the label. If winning is what defines a programs status, then why not use a term that refers to that, such as "perennial tournament team", or "nationally ranked", or perennial 20 game winner?

The point is that mid-major is an insulting, embarrassing term to those that it is forced on. There will be no need to worry about the label when it goes away.

[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.

I'm not sure what the point is. Do majors and mid majors come and go, changing their status as their programs rise and decline? There are very few programs that don't do that.

If a program is a winner, the record speaks for itself and there is no need to worry about the label. If winning is what defines a programs status, then why not use a term that refers to that, such as "perennial tournament team", or "nationally ranked", or perennial 20 game winner?

There is when the label is forced upon the team repeatedly despite the record, simply due to its conference affiliation. It simply needs to go away. I'm not concerned with its origins in the 1970s, because that doesn't matter. Today, right now, it is demeaning to good programs, not to mention the fact that it is lazy reporting. It's way too often used as a subtle way to justify big-conference biases.

[Bill Marsh]

"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.

I'm not sure what the point is. Do majors and mid majors come and go, changing their status as their programs rise and decline? There are very few programs that don't do that.

If a program is a winner, the record speaks for itself and there is no need to worry about the label. If winning is what defines a programs status, then why not use a term that refers to that, such as "perennial tournament team", or "nationally ranked", or perennial 20 game winner?

The point is that mid-major is an insulting, embarrassing term to those that it is forced on. There will be no need to worry about the label when it goes away.

It's only that if you take it that way. I certainly don't feel that way.

Can Gonzaga, for example, really be a "major" when they play in a conference whose games don't draw flies and most of the teams are non-competitive?

[Bill Marsh]

"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.

I'm not sure what the point is. Do majors and mid majors come and go, changing their status as their programs rise and decline? There are very few programs that don't do that.

If a program is a winner, the record speaks for itself and there is no need to worry about the label. If winning is what defines a programs status, then why not use a term that refers to that, such as "perennial tournament team", or "nationally ranked", or perennial 20 game winner?

There is when the label is forced upon the team repeatedly despite the record, simply due to its conference affiliation. It simply needs to go away. I'm not concerned with its origins in the 1970s, because that doesn't matter. Today, right now, it is demeaning to good programs, not to mention the fact that it is lazy reporting. It's way too often used as a subtle way to justify big-conference biases.

I agree with that. But the problem for those who use it that way is that college basketball is not college football. The bias doesn't matter. The selection committee doesn't choose on that basis. Everyone gets to compete. And in the end, the results speak for themselves

[LeMoyne00]

As the regulation and governance of the NCAA begins to change, I think we're going to begin hearing the talking points from the power leagues and ESPN that mid-major is any conference without football. They'll want to change the NCAA payouts much like they've rigged the football payouts.

[Bill Marsh]

As the regulation and governance of the NCAA begins to change, I think we're going to begin hearing the talking points from the power leagues and ESPN that mid-major is any conference without football. They'll want to change the NCAA payouts much like they've rigged the football payouts.

We may, but most observers seem to think this will not happen, believing that the inclusion of everyone is precisely what accounts for the widespread appeal of the basketball tournament.

[XUFan09]

Bill, I understand your point, but even if Gonzaga, et. al., just say, "Whatever," and ignores it, it still affects them. Media perception is a powerful thing, for both TV money and for recruiting, two of the biggest drivers of program success.

[stever20]

1 thing that I think will be interesting to watch is if we see the 1st round changed from it's current 1st 4 format to just the 8 worst auto bid teams playing. We've never seen such a bad group of 15/16's this year- seems like they're getting worse and worse.