CI.com Mid-Major Top 25 - someone is noticing!

[TheAsianSensation]

TAS, so your telling us that no recruiter for a "bcs" team uses the term when talking with a recruit in an attempt to sway him.

Recruit-"I have been looking at Bradley and I think I'd fit in there."

Recruiter-"That's great, but I don't consider you a mid major player, I think you're better than that. I think you'd fit here at our MAJOR program".

I know you don't think the above conversation never happens. You are much smarter than that.

Oh, it happens. The implication is not just that the team is "mid major", but that the EXPOSURE the player will get and his resulting NBA opportunity will be "mid major" compared to if he goes plays for the big boys.

[Braves4Life]

TAS, so your telling us that no recruiter for a "bcs" team uses the term when talking with a recruit in an attempt to sway him.

Recruit-"I have been looking at Bradley and I think I'd fit in there."

Recruiter-"That's great, but I don't consider you a mid major player, I think you're better than that. I think you'd fit here at our MAJOR program".

I know you don't think the above conversation never happens. You are much smarter than that.

Dead on Versace. You must have been a BCS recruiter in another life

[dogsrus]

Ok, everybody. The most common usage of "mid-major" referrs to the budget of the program and the media recognition the program gets. Not the actual caliber of play of the program.

Thank you and its what I have been saying over and over again. Its all about RESOURCES but people have been lead to believe or have somehow just started believing that its based on the level of play.

I think it was Bill Self that said SIU was NO mid major following the KU/SIU game in the NCAA's a few years ago. That statement furthered the myth that its based on your play...so if SIU had NOT given KU a game that nite would they then be a mid major?

Its resources....MIDS (yes I hate it to) don't have the $$ to throw at the athletic budgets like the BCS types do.

I hate the term Mid primarily becuase its mis-interpreted, as Asian pointed out, that you somehow play/perform at a lower level.

We are ALL D1...some just have more money. Society loves to label.....lower class...middle class...upper class....aren't we all human beings?

[dogsrus]

I don't fully understand the distinction of mid-major versus high major.....or mid versus low-major for that matter. I do know, however, that Xavier and Gonzaga should not be considered mid-majors. They've sustained success long enough to be considered graduates of the mid-major class....whatever that means! One thing I will say with great authority and confidence though: NJIT is still a low-major.

Classic example......with all due respect you CAN'T play your way out of the intended definition of the term.

BU could go to 5 final 4's in a row (hope they do) and they'd still be a mid becuase we don't and never will have the $$$ to throw at basketball like KU, OSU, Illinois, etc.

Frankly I prefer BCS and NON BCS........check that...I actually prefer D1 university but IF they must label us...we are non BCS.

[tornado]

When someone can define a 'major' versus a 'midmajor', then I will give the term some credence.

I accept the term and understand it to mean...

mid-major - school whose athletic dept spends less than $25 mil per year or they are in a conference whose average is less than $25 mil per year, and whose basketball budget is under $2.5 mil per year.
and who play in one of the non-power conferences - defined as ACC, BE, BT, B12, SEC, P10.
As with most rules, there are some borderline exceptions....but only a few (Memphis, Gonzaga) are even worth debating.

as with most terms (such as "irregardless") even if it NOT a word, after it comes into sufficient widespread use, it establishes itself as a word.

[georgethedog]

How does the Valley, which finishes in the 8th-10th place slot nationally, still garner the name MM? This name is an insult to our program. It is simply used by the media and the "bcs" conferences to keep us down. And some of us gladly accept it. Sad.

I don't know, but maybe a "major" conference is a "top 5" conference? 5/31 (conferences) is top 16% (let's round to top 15% to make it easier). An argument could be made that the top 15% would be considered the class of college basketball and thus "high-majors".

Finishing 8-10 would be in the top 25-32%. Is that high enough? Probably not. In a course (or on a job) I would not consider that a "high" achieving student or worker, but more of a mid-level student/employee. Still very good, but not the best. Lower students/workers would be down to 50% or so, (low-majors in college baskeball), and the rest just are bad.

So, I would consider the MVC a mid-major based on those statistics even though it is subjective. BY the way, I know it is early but the MVC is #7 on RealtimeRPI right now. That's 22.5%, or in the upper 77.5%. Is that a "high-major" league?

[georgethedog]

Finishing my thought. I don't think it is as easy as saying the top 33% of legues are high-majors, the next 33% are mid-majors, and the bottom 33% are low-majors (I know--I am missing 1%).

Why? becuase you have the word "major" in the title of all. First, in order to define what a mid-major is we must define what a "major" is. Then, you can start to seperate the 3 categories and define conferences that are not majors as something else. They could be called "ISU scheduled teams" or something like that... Kidding of course...

[TheAsianSensation]

I accept the term and understand it to mean...

mid-major - school whose athletic dept spends less than $25 mil per year or they are in a conference whose average is less than $25 mil per year, and whose basketball budget is under $2.5 mil per year.
and who play in one of the non-power conferences - defined as ACC, BE, BT, B12, SEC, P10.
As with most rules, there are some borderline exceptions....but only a few (Memphis, Gonzaga) are even worth debating.

as with most terms (such as "irregardless") even if it NOT a word, after it comes into sufficient widespread use, it establishes itself as a word.

This is the "best" way to define the term, and I wish everyone would use the term properly according to this definition.

The whole intent of the term was to differentiate between teams that have varying amounts of resources. The ability of a team to play the game can change drastically from year to year. The resources the team has to draw from doesn't. So use the resources to label.

The problem is people want to associate ability with the term when the term was meant to describe something else.

[houstontxbrave]

Classic example......with all due respect you CAN'T play your way out of the intended definition of the term.

BU could go to 5 final 4's in a row (hope they do) and they'd still be a mid becuase we don't and never will have the $$$ to throw at basketball like KU, OSU, Illinois, etc.

Frankly I prefer BCS and NON BCS........check that...I actually prefer D1 university but IF they must label us...we are non BCS.

If you cant play your way out of the label then what exactly have Xavier, Gonzaga and Butler done? Their in non BCS conferences, at Non BCS football playing schools but they get BCS type exposure... that didnt happen with the wave of some magic sword. It happened they get big time exposure, expecially X and Gonzaga because of continual consecutive winning seasons that included success in the NCAA tourney.

You can play your way out of that stigma or the intended definition of the term, but it requires long term success.