MusicCityBilliken Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 I think this was asked earlier so I picked this off the A10 Board. http://www.wral.com/sports/blogpost/2498926/ Someone also broke down the distribution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
satrap Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 I think this was asked earlier so I picked this off the A10 Board. http://www.wral.com/sports/blogpost/2498926/ Someone also broke down the distribution. Without getting into specifics, it's obvious that, from a basketball quality perspective, this conference has the potential to be THE mid major conference in the nation. X, UMass, St. Joes, Temple, GW, SLU, Dayton. RI, Richmond, Charlotte, wow. That is both great quality and potentially great quality. I am very impressed with the current and future state of the league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billikenfan05 Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 THE A-10 is NOT MID MAJOR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majerus Magic Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 THE A-10 is NOT MID MAJORSorry man. Xavier might not be a Mid Major, but everyone else in the league is a Mid Major. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kshoe Posted March 24, 2008 Share Posted March 24, 2008 THE A-10 is NOT MID MAJOR Well the A-10 certainly is not a "power conference" or BCS conference. In my mind its the BCS and everyone else. I agree with the original poster that the A-10 has the potential to be the best non BCS conference year in and year out but some significant improvement will have to come from the bottom fo the conference if that is truly going to be the case every year. ITs too bad A&M could'nt pull out the win over UCLA last night. If they had Xavier would be the top seed remaining in their draw and would have an open road to the Final 4. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidnark Posted March 24, 2008 Share Posted March 24, 2008 That means each game a team plays in the NCAA tournament is collectively worth over $1 million in payout (over six years). A trip to the sweet sixteen is worth over $3 million! It quickly makes you realize why going five straight seasons without an NCAA appearance equates to failure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pistol Posted March 24, 2008 Share Posted March 24, 2008 Sorry man. Xavier might not be a Mid Major, but everyone else in the league is a Mid Major. This is why 'Mid Major' is such a flawed and useless term. Here's why: Who serves as the Mid Major police? Who gets to thumb through the conferences and point at who gets tagged and who doesn't? Is it a team by team or whole conference decision? What's the bottom end of Mid Major (certainly Savannah State is the lowest of the low, so what do you call them?)? What about a program like Northwestern in the Big Ten- a BCS conference school that wouldn't have made the A10 tournament in our conference- are they a Mid Major even though they're in a BCS conference? I'd like to see the term "Mid Major" eliminated from basketball discussion. It's a cheap tool for the big money programs and their media supporters to keep the rest of the pack down. 330+ teams all compete for the same prize, so what's the point of slapping a big chunk of them with a label of perceived limitations when so many have proven undeserving of it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slu72 Posted March 24, 2008 Share Posted March 24, 2008 This is why 'Mid Major' is such a flawed and useless term. Here's why: Who serves as the Mid Major police? Who gets to thumb through the conferences and point at who gets tagged and who doesn't? Is it a team by team or whole conference decision? What's the bottom end of Mid Major (certainly Savannah State is the lowest of the low, so what do you call them?)? What about a program like Northwestern in the Big Ten- a BCS conference school that wouldn't have made the A10 tournament in our conference- are they a Mid Major even though they're in a BCS conference? I'd like to see the term "Mid Major" eliminated from basketball discussion. It's a cheap tool for the big money programs and their media supporters to keep the rest of the pack down. 330+ teams all compete for the same prize, so what's the point of slapping a big chunk of them with a label of perceived limitations when so many have proven undeserving of it? I don't really think the big time media thinks of the A-10 as a mid major. It's more like we're "non BCS". You hardly ever see us mentioned in mid major articles on ESPN or CNNSI. We don't play in the bracket buster deal. I think the other conferences in a similar position is MWAC, if that's what Utah and New Mexico are in, and CUSA. What would you label us as? Who cares. X is going far and that's good for us. Go Muskies! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EMS67 Posted March 24, 2008 Share Posted March 24, 2008 At least according to my Sports Illustrated/Street & Smith categories there are 12 "High Major" conferences (which includes A10), 6 "Mid-Major" conferences and 14 "Low Major" conferences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NextYearBill Posted March 24, 2008 Share Posted March 24, 2008 SLU is a mid-major school, people need to get over that. Who cares anyway. It's just a label. It makes it that much better when we beat MAJOR programs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted March 24, 2008 Share Posted March 24, 2008 unless you guys have some sort of official ncaa definition of high, mid, or low, i think kshoe is right. it is really bcs or non bcs imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NashvilleBilliken Posted March 24, 2008 Share Posted March 24, 2008 SLU is a mid-major school, people need to get over that. Who cares anyway. It's just a label. It makes it that much better when we beat MAJOR programs.That's what we're discussing here, NYB. What makes us mid-major? Is it lack of recent success? If so, then I agree that we are "mid-major". But, there are other schools with even worse records than us that are considered major...so I don't buy that as a criteria. Is it the amount of our bball budget? Well, I'd have to say that with our renewed commitment to men's hoops, our bball budget probably exceeds that of other so-called "major" programs. Is it based on whether you have a football team? If that's the case, there are several "major" programs without a d-1 football program. How about facilities? Not an issue for SLU anymore. Recruiting? Our last coach sucked at recruiting, so we've been in a hole there. However, we've had our share of high major players in the past and will undoubtedly in the future. The A-10 has had two national players of the year in the last 15 years. So, NextYearBill, explain to me why we are mid-major. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slu72 Posted March 24, 2008 Share Posted March 24, 2008 That's what we're discussing here, NYB. What makes us mid-major? Is it lack of recent success? If so, then I agree that we are "mid-major". But, there are other schools with even worse records than us that are considered major...so I don't buy that as a criteria. Is it the amount of our bball budget? Well, I'd have to say that with our renewed commitment to men's hoops, our bball budget probably exceeds that of other so-called "major" programs. Is it based on whether you have a football team? If that's the case, there are several "major" programs without a d-1 football program. How about facilities? Not an issue for SLU anymore. Recruiting? Our last coach sucked at recruiting, so we've been in a hole there. However, we've had our share of high major players in the past and will undoubtedly in the future. The A-10 has had two national players of the year in the last 15 years. So, NextYearBill, explain to me why we are mid-major. Major is determined by what conference you're in. And face it the big conferences dominate the NCAA as they do the bowls. The BCS schools have more money, more media time, more big name coaches, more everything, especially more good looking cheerleaders. This labelling only hurts though in recruiting. Which is no small matter as that tends to keep the biggies on top. But still it doesn't hurt schools like X, Gonzaga, Butler, etc. Just means you have to be more resourceful. My biggest fear is someday the BCS'ers will so totally dominate the NCAA that they'll hold their own tournament, make their own TV deal, and the college hoops scene will lose a lot of it's appeal. Kind of like the glory days of boxing where the Heavies dominated the sports section and the $$$$. No one really cared who was the light heavy weight champ, just the bigs. So that's where the money flowed to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonwich Posted March 24, 2008 Share Posted March 24, 2008 And, as I post about three or four times a year, there really is a "Mid-Major" definition and a Mid-Major Top 25, created and maintained by CollegeInsider.com. And by that definition, the A-10 is not one of the Mid-Major conferences: NOTE: The Mid-Major Poll is made up of teams from the following conferences: America East, Atlantic Sun, Big Sky, Big South, Big West, Colonial, Horizon, Independents, Ivy, Metro Atlantic, Mid-American, Mid-Eastern, Missouri Valley, Northeast, Ohio Valley, Patriot, Southern, Southland, Southwestern, Summit League, Sun Belt, West Coast. That said, the world really has divided into BCS and non-BCS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pistol Posted March 24, 2008 Share Posted March 24, 2008 Major is determined by what conference you're in. And face it the big conferences dominate the NCAA as they do the bowls. The BCS schools have more money, more media time, more big name coaches, more everything, especially more good looking cheerleaders. This labelling only hurts though in recruiting. Which is no small matter as that tends to keep the biggies on top. But still it doesn't hurt schools like X, Gonzaga, Butler, etc. Just means you have to be more resourceful. My biggest fear is someday the BCS'ers will so totally dominate the NCAA that they'll hold their own tournament, make their own TV deal, and the college hoops scene will lose a lot of it's appeal. Kind of like the glory days of boxing where the Heavies dominated the sports section and the $$$$. No one really cared who was the light heavy weight champ, just the bigs. So that's where the money flowed to. From a fan standpoint, the second most important thing in sports to winning is perception. That's why, as much as I detest the Mid-Major label, I don't want to be dismissive of it (the "who cares?" argument). As awful and unfair as the term can be, most armchair fans actually do figure there's some credibility to the term if the ESPN analysts are tossing it around in conversation. If I'm Rick Majerus and working my butt off to build a winner at SLU and one of my buddies over at ESPN gives SLU the dreaded Mid-Major label, that pisses me off as a guy who has to go out and convince teenage basketball players that we're the place to come play. It also pisses me off as a guy who has to fill seats at a new arena that carries with it high expectations. In my earlier post, I tried to point out a number of reasons the Mid-Major label doesn't make sense. If it is by conference, as a few in this thread have suggested, then what about all the exceptions? There's nothing High-Major about Northwestern, but they're in the Big Ten. There's nothing Mid-Major about Memphis, but they're in CUSA with a bunch of schools Jay Bilas would like to call Mid-Majors. There are plenty more examples, too. So I don't buy the conference argument because there are too many exceptions to make it work. Anyone who calls the A10 Mid-Major sure has a short memory- back-to-back national players of the year this decade alone, plus quite a few single digit seeds in the NCAA Tournament including a #1 in 2004 and a #3 this year. Roy, I think "BCS" or "Non-BCS" make a little more sense as you suggest, but the fact of the matter is that those aren't the terms the media and fans are using. Why use labels at all, though? Labels don't help make logical arguments. The problem is that no one understands what a Mid-Major is because there are too many exceptions, too many gray areas, and too many programs gaining and losing power regularly. So many of the same networks, analysts, and journalists that swore the A10 had lost its glory and was a Mid-Major conference the past three seasons were the ones adamantly stating the A10 is not a Mid-Major based on its performance this year. Instead of stopping to listen to the nonsense they're trying to sell as analysis, they just argue about which teams or conferences deserve a meaningless label. Even the terms themselves are either redundant (High-Major) or oxymorons (Low-Major or Mid-Major). People who know the game (like coaches!) absolutely hate the term Mid-Major and realize it's just a phrase used by ESPN and its peers to fill air space. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted March 24, 2008 Share Posted March 24, 2008 the bcs'rs would have dumped the non bcs'rs long ago if they didnt need them. the truth is that the non bcs'rs create the charm of the tourney and is the real money maker that hooks the fans each year. what i dont understand is why the non bcs'rs havent threatened to start their own ncaa. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NashvilleBilliken Posted March 24, 2008 Share Posted March 24, 2008 Instead of stopping to listen to the nonsense they're trying to sell as analysis, they just argue about which teams or conferences deserve a meaningless label. Even the terms themselves are either redundant (High-Major) or oxymorons (Low-Major or Mid-Major). People who know the game (like coaches!) absolutely hate the term Mid-Major and realize it's just a phrase used by ESPN and its peers to fill air space.That's a lot like what Jay Wright said yesterday. He basically said that the seeding is meaningless nowadays because all the programs are top notch. He said the seeding only matters in the location you get. I pretty much agreed other than the 1 vs 16. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billiken Rich Posted March 24, 2008 Share Posted March 24, 2008 what i dont understand is why the non bcs'rs havent threatened to start their own ncaa. C'mon Roy. There is little charm in a David Vs David struggle......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moytoy12 Posted March 24, 2008 Share Posted March 24, 2008 Hey Pistol, you have been spot-on lately. Great posts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kshoe Posted March 24, 2008 Share Posted March 24, 2008 C'mon Roy. There is little charm in a David Vs David struggle......... Thats exactly right Rich. Both need eachother. Nobody really wants to see Davidson play Butler (although that would be a great game) just like nobody wants to see Arkansas play Villanova (two middle of the pack BCS teams). What people want to see is the Davidsons, Western Kentuckys and Butlers of the world knock off the over-rated middle BCS teams and occasionally knock off the G-towns, Tennessee and Dukes of the world. That is the magic of the first weekend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NextYearBill Posted March 24, 2008 Share Posted March 24, 2008 That's what we're discussing here, NYB. What makes us mid-major? Is it lack of recent success? If so, then I agree that we are "mid-major". But, there are other schools with even worse records than us that are considered major...so I don't buy that as a criteria. Is it the amount of our bball budget? Well, I'd have to say that with our renewed commitment to men's hoops, our bball budget probably exceeds that of other so-called "major" programs. Is it based on whether you have a football team? If that's the case, there are several "major" programs without a d-1 football program. How about facilities? Not an issue for SLU anymore. Recruiting? Our last coach sucked at recruiting, so we've been in a hole there. However, we've had our share of high major players in the past and will undoubtedly in the future. The A-10 has had two national players of the year in the last 15 years. So, NextYearBill, explain to me why we are mid-major. Mid-Major: basketball program of a conference that can put at least one at-large bid in the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament as well as have a team or teams advance fairly regularly, while not garnering the attention and television dollars of a major conference. When SLU is on ESPN 12x a year, or the A-10 gets 5 bids - call me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 Mid-Major: basketball program of a conference that can put at least one at-large bid in the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament as well as have a team or teams advance fairly regularly, while not garnering the attention and television dollars of a major conference. When SLU is on ESPN 12x a year, or the A-10 gets 5 bids - call me. how many schools were on espn 12x this year? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.