Harrelson per Catspause.com

[Marc Maggard]

I'm not interested in debating whether SLU is considered a mid major or a high major. I am interested in hearing your opinion on whether or not you think facilities should play a role in categorizing a program.

I'm sure they play SOME role, but mostly with the people who SEE those facilities. There are plenty of mid majors with elite facilities.....once those facilities start attracting good players....then the coach develops them using those facilities....then they start winning big games....

then that program pulls a Gonzaga and Xavier and goes from mid major, to high major......

mm

[Clock_Tower]

Conference affiliation has far less to do with it...but it does help an otherwise low major land some better players if they are in a major conference.

Xavier, Gonzaga, Memphis and Butler are all high majors. Gonzaga wasn't a decade ago...they were a mid major when I started in 1997.

Penn St and Seton Hall are high majors by most standards....South Florida and Northwestern are considered mid majors by most I speak to.

No, SLU has not been considered a high major in the 15 years I've been involved in basketball scouting....regardless of the CUSA affiliation.

Again, there isn't anything wrong with being mid major. Most schools would KILL to be a mid major.

HOWEVER, I'd like to hear why some of you who object think that SLU should be classified as a high major program. I'm no SLU expert, so maybe I'm missing something.

hope that helps a little.

mm

Where do you get all of this? Has SLU been good the last 15 years? No. Has Penn State ever been good? No. Has Seton Hall done anything since PJ left years and years ago? No.

While you're at it, can you give us any proof that someone other than you thinks Butler is "high major" because everything I have ever read is that they are a mid-major.

[Marc Maggard]

Where do you get all of this? Has SLU been good the last 15 years? No. Has Penn State ever been good? No. Has Seton Hall done anything since PJ left years and years ago? No.

While you're at it, can you give us any proof that someone other than you thinks Butler is "high major" because everything I have ever read is that they are a mid-major.

I'm pretty sure I made the point that being in the Big 10 is what propelled Penn State into the "high major" category.....however, they were pretty good in 2001.....top 25....but I feel ya. I'm certainly not pimpin Penn State as the posterchild for high major programs.

It's just that it's hard to be a mid major when you are competing against the top schools in the nation in conference....sorry if that doesn't seem fair, but it's accurate. Sometimes you are guilty by association in the eyes of recruits.

You have to admit, SLU would have a much easier time recruiting if they were in the SEC or Big East or something like that.......it matters to recruits.

Butler is making the same move that Xavier and Zaga have made...they are on the track to being high major. It's helping them a ton in recruiting. They just signed Shevin Mack who UK was after (late in the game, but still after a bit)......Butler is on the right track to be a high major.....but I got no problem with you calling them the best mid major in the nation if you want.

mm

[Bay Area Billiken]

I'm pretty sure I made the point that being in the Big 10 is what propelled Penn State into the "high major" category.....however, they were pretty good in 2001.....top 25....but I feel ya. I'm certainly not pimpin Penn State as the posterchild for high major programs.

It's just that it's hard to be a mid major when you are competing against the top schools in the nation in conference....sorry if that doesn't seem fair, but it's accurate. Sometimes you are guilty by association in the eyes of recruits.

You have to admit, SLU would have a much easier time recruiting if they were in the SEC or Big East or something like that.......it matters to recruits.

Butler is making the same move that Xavier and Zaga have made...they are on the track to being high major. It's helping them a ton in recruiting. They just signed Shevin Mack who UK was after (late in the game, but still after a bit)......Butler is on the right track to be a high major.....but I got no problem with you calling them the best mid major in the nation if you want.

mm

Interesting discussion, but IMO Butler is not really ahead of SLU. Butler is the beneficiary of playing in a far weaker league, the Horizon League, a league that SLU abandoned long ago. When Butler and SLU have played each other, SLU has more than held its own with Butler.

Butler is still a mid-major; it plays in a mid-major league.

Also, I don't see how you can say Gonzaga isn't still a mid-major, playing in the WCC, a league I follow fairly closely out here. Again, Gonzaga to a large extent is a product of being able to dominate that weaker league over the years, to a much larger extent than Butler, which only has more recent dominance in the Horizon. And Gonzaga's slip is showing because a number of the other WCC schools have basically all but caught Gonzaga, finally.

The A-10 is not considered a mid-major. It is the best non-BCS league. Mid-major is a label the big BCS football schools have stuck on non-football playing schools.

When SLU averaged 17,000 fans during the Spoonball days, there is no way that SLU could legitimately be considered to be a mid-major.

[Marc Maggard]

Interesting discussion, but IMO Butler is not really ahead of SLU. Butler is the beneficiary of playing in a far weaker league, the Horizon League, a league that SLU abandoned long ago. When Butler and SLU have played each other, SLU has more than held its own with Butler.

Butler is still a mid-major; it plays in a mid-major league.

Also, I don't see how you can say Gonzaga isn't still a mid-major, playing in the WCC, a league I follow fairly closely out here. Again, Gonzaga to a large extent is a product of being able to dominate that weaker league over the years, to a much larger extent than Butler, which only has more recent dominance in the Horizon. And Gonzaga's slip is showing because a number of the other WCC schools have basically all but caught Gonzaga, finally.

The A-10 is not considered a mid-major. It is the best non-BCS league. Mid-major is a label the big BCS football schools have stuck on non-football playing schools.

When SLU averaged 17,000 fans during the Spoonball days, there is no way that SLU could legitimately be considered to be a mid-major.

Butler was 29-3 last year with a 17 RPI and a top 10 ranking during the year.....

The year before they were 25-6 with a 27 RPI and a top 10 ranking during the year...

I know you are a SLU fan, but you can't possibly think that Butler and SLU are on the same level right now.

If you want to argue that Butler is a "Johnny come lately" into the High Major rankings, or that they are the best mid major in america, I won't fight ya....but they have CLEARLY turned a corner and are viewed in a much more favorable light than any other mid major....and many other high majors

Gonzaga under Few is absolutely a high major in basketball.

They have been in the top 10 in RPI three times in this decade and have NEVER been lower than 80....and only 2 times have then not been in the top 50 in RPI...(top 35 actually). They have spent more weeks IN the top 25 than they have out of it over the past few years.

Gonzaga is a high major, regardless of league.

mm

[Bay Area Billiken]

Butler was 29-3 last year with a 17 RPI and a top 10 ranking during the year.....

The year before they were 25-6 with a 27 RPI and a top 10 ranking during the year...

I know you are a SLU fan, but you can't possibly think that Butler and SLU are on the same level right now.

If you want to argue that Butler is a "Johnny come lately" into the High Major rankings, or that they are the best mid major in america, I won't fight ya....but they have CLEARLY turned a corner and are viewed in a much more favorable light than any other mid major....and many other high majors

Gonzaga under Few is absolutely a high major in basketball.

They have been in the top 10 in RPI three times in this decade and have NEVER been lower than 80....and only 2 times have then not been in the top 50 in RPI...(top 35 actually). They have spent more weeks IN the top 25 than they have out of it over the past few years.

Gonzaga is a high major, regardless of league.

mm

I'll play Butler any time. Yes, I've seen Butler play several times on TV. I saw them lose at home to Drake this past season. Bring them to STL and we'll see who wins. Just who do you think all those Butler wins have been against? And I know about the Butler upsets of Indiana and Notre Dame in that tournament (in Indianapolis) two seasons ago. I also have seen the alleged "talent" on that Butler team. Again, Butler lost at home at Hinkle Fieldhouse to Drake.

Put Butler in the A-10, and Butler last season would have been a slightly better than middle of the pack team. And yes, SLU would have beaten Butler in St. Louis.

The RPI has been proven to be a self-perpetuating, flawed criteria to the advantage of the big BCS leagues and to the clear detriment of others.

Gonzaga has clearly slipped. Yes, Gonzaga has been a powerhouse, but last season's Gonzaga team was not that great, really no better than St. Mary's, which specifically calls itself a mid-major. If you are talking about Gonzaga when Adam Morrison was there, that is one thing; but Morrison is gone, and Gonzaga is nowhere near the same team. Gonzaga barely won this past season at Santa Clara, a sub-.500 team, thanks to a bizarre referee's whistle way at the other end of the court at the end of regulation.

[Pistol]

Butler was 29-3 last year with a 17 RPI and a top 10 ranking during the year.....

The year before they were 25-6 with a 27 RPI and a top 10 ranking during the year...

I know you are a SLU fan, but you can't possibly think that Butler and SLU are on the same level right now.

If you want to argue that Butler is a "Johnny come lately" into the High Major rankings, or that they are the best mid major in america, I won't fight ya....but they have CLEARLY turned a corner and are viewed in a much more favorable light than any other mid major....and many other high majors

Gonzaga under Few is absolutely a high major in basketball.

They have been in the top 10 in RPI three times in this decade and have NEVER been lower than 80....and only 2 times have then not been in the top 50 in RPI...(top 35 actually). They have spent more weeks IN the top 25 than they have out of it over the past few years.

Gonzaga is a high major, regardless of league.

mm

Marc, doesn't this whole thread just make it all the more clear what a completely, utterly flawed term "Mid-Major" is? That term is the by-product of flat-out lazy sports journalism. There is no point in sub-classifying programs within Division I basketball because all 330+ teams play for the exact same prize. The only separation I would be willing to make in conversation, let alone professional journalism, is between those programs in the BCS conferences and those in non-BCS conferences (in terms of revenue and the structure of athletic programs). No matter what other parameters you use to divide high-, low-, or mid-majors, there are ALWAYS exceptions to the rule (many of which have already been mentioned).

You can't do it just based on BCS conferences and non-BCS conferences: Northwestern, Oregon State, and South Florida would be lousy in most leagues. Xavier, Memphis, Gonzaga, and Butler would compete for any conference's title. There are plenty more examples for both sides.

You can't do it based on the current BCS conferences, for that matter. The conferences shift too frequently to make that possible. What about C-USA up until the big split a few years ago? Cincinnati, Louisville, Memphis, Marquette, DePaul, Charlotte, Saint Louis, South Florida, Southern Miss, UAB, Houston, Tulane, TCU, East Carolina- where do you even begin to draw the line?

You can't do it based on where programs currently stand, or even tradition, because power is too cyclical, as in most other sports. Utah made the finals a decade ago, Houston was a power in the 1980s, St. John's was a traditional powerhouse, Loyola Marymount set scoring records every year, and so on- is it unreasonable to think that some programs will ever be back in the top tier, or that powerhouses now could be terrible in a few years? If all these things change so much, then why would anyone who claims to be a sports journalist stamp some programs with a label that imposes a perceived limit on potential success? All it takes is one coach, one recruiting class (hell, one player for that matter), one athletic director, or one big-money donor and things can change very fast at any program, for better or worse.

Instead of being dismissive and taking the easy way out, I challenge you and your peers to stop using the term "Mid-Major" as a label on any college basketball team. Tell the boys at ESPN; they are the worst violators of overuse of this nonsensical term, and they're also the ones with the most clout and who can make a real change. As a Kentucky fan, Marc, you should realize that there's no need to put a useless label on teams you perceive to be below your standards; your team lost to Gardner-Webb, Houston, UAB, and San Deigo this season- all teams that sports journalists and fans would probably consider to be "Mid-Majors."

But you'll probably ignore my arguments and dismiss me as an over-sensitive SLU fan who had his feelings hurt by being called "Mid-Major" by a big, bad, entitled Kentucky fan. That would be much easier.

[Marc Maggard]

I'll play Butler any time. Yes, I've seen Butler play several times on TV. I saw them lose at home to Drake this past season. Bring them to STL and we'll see who wins. Just who do you think all those Butler wins have been against? And I know about the Butler upsets of Indiana and Notre Dame in that tournament (in Indianapolis) two seasons ago. I also have seen the alleged "talent" on that Butler team. Again, Butler lost at home at Hinkle Fieldhouse to Drake.

Put Butler in the A-10, and Butler last season would have been a slightly better than middle of the pack team. And yes, SLU would have beaten Butler in St. Louis.

The RPI has been proven to be a self-perpetuating, flawed criteria to the advantage of the big BCS leagues and to the clear detriment of others.

Gonzaga has clearly slipped. Yes, Gonzaga has been a powerhouse, but last season's Gonzaga team was not that great, really no better than St. Mary's, which specifically calls itself a mid-major. If you are talking about Gonzaga when Adam Morrison was there, that is one thing; but Morrison is gone, and Gonzaga is nowhere near the same team. Gonzaga barely won this past season at Santa Clara, a sub-.500 team, thanks to a bizarre referee's whistle way at the other end of the court at the end of regulation.

You do realize that Drake was one heck of a team this year, right? They didn't do too bad in the NCAA tourny if I recall.

Butler lost 4 games all season.....SLU lost a few more than that. It's nice that you think SLU would have beaten Butler, but I doubt you'll find many people outside of St. Louis who would agree with that. And that's NOT a knock on SLU....Butler was just a good team.

Of course Gonzaga has slipped a bit....that happens to schools from time to time.....heck, UK slipped a bit too under Tubby. Gonzaga may very well slip back to mid major status...but it's too early to say that right now.

mm

[TheChosenOne]

Oh please....."your" a jackass.

I am WAY past patronizing anyone. I've BEEN insulted here....I came here to address the situation and offer any insight and talk hoops. i was greeted by rudeness by a majority of the responses to my COMPLIMENTARY remarks.

You can choose to try to view them however you want, but I don't know how you can honestly say that my remarks were anything but complmentary toward SLU....regardless of the apparent sensitivity to "mid major", which I can't understand for the life of me.

mm

What is your position? I have not read all of the posts, but I saw one where you said that your services are used by a lot of basketball programs in the NCAA and was just curious who you are what you do. I saw you live in Austin, I am currently in Las Colinas (Irving), TX and it is definitely one of the most interesting places I have ever been. I feel like Jim Carrey in the Truman Show.

[Marc Maggard]

Marc, doesn't this whole thread just make it all the more clear what a completely, utterly flawed term "Mid-Major" is? That term is the by-product of flat-out lazy sports journalism. There is no point in sub-classifying programs within Division I basketball because all 330+ teams play for the exact same prize. The only separation I would be willing to make in conversation, let alone professional journalism, is between those programs in the BCS conferences and those in non-BCS conferences (in terms of revenue and the structure of athletic programs). No matter what other parameters you use to divide high-, low-, or mid-majors, there are ALWAYS exceptions to the rule (many of which have already been mentioned).

You can't do it just based on BCS conferences and non-BCS conferences: Northwestern, Oregon State, and South Florida would be lousy in most leagues. Xavier, Memphis, Gonzaga, and Butler would compete for any conference's title. There are plenty more examples for both sides.

You can't do it based on the current BCS conferences, for that matter. The conferences shift too frequently to make that possible. What about C-USA up until the big split a few years ago? Cincinnati, Louisville, Memphis, Marquette, DePaul, Charlotte, Saint Louis, South Florida, Southern Miss, UAB, Houston, Tulane, TCU, East Carolina- where do you even begin to draw the line?

You can't do it based on where programs currently stand, or even tradition, because power is too cyclical, as in most other sports. Utah made the finals a decade ago, Houston was a power in the 1980s, St. John's was a traditional powerhouse, Loyola Marymount set scoring records every year, and so on- is it unreasonable to think that some programs will ever be back in the top tier, or that powerhouses now could be terrible in a few years? If all these things change so much, then why would anyone who claims to be a sports journalist stamp some programs with a label that imposes a perceived limit on potential success? All it takes is one coach, one recruiting class (hell, one player for that matter), one athletic director, or one big-money donor and things can change very fast at any program, for better or worse.

Instead of being dismissive and taking the easy way out, I challenge you and your peers to stop using the term "Mid-Major" as a label on any college basketball team. Tell the boys at ESPN; they are the worst violators of overuse of this nonsensical term, and they're also the ones with the most clout and who can make a real change. As a Kentucky fan, Marc, you should realize that there's no need to put a useless label on teams you perceive to be below your standards; your team lost to Gardner-Webb, Houston, UAB, and San Deigo this season- all teams that sports journalists and fans would probably consider to be "Mid-Majors."

But you'll probably ignore my arguments and dismiss me as an over-sensitive SLU fan who had his feelings hurt by being called "Mid-Major" by a big, bad, entitled Kentucky fan. That would be much easier.

Way to take a decent post and end it with crappy points.....

I'm not "journalistic". I'm a basketball scout. The terms we use are specific and required. You HAVE to be able to label a player at a certain level for college coaches who have never seen a kid to know how good he is. Elite, High Major, Mid Major, Low Major and so forth are the terms my profession uses. I don't know why or how those terms spilled over into the journalists, nor do I know who was using them first....I just know in my line of work, they are needed.

And you can save the "your team lost to" crap. I've told you time and again that "mid major" isn't a slam....and I really don't care if you believe it or not. SLU is a mid major program. Sorry if that bothers someone. It doesn't mean they are worthless or won't ever be good. It simply means they attract a certain level of player on a daily basis. You don't have kevin love and Michael Beasley lining up to commit....which is fine. But don't try to get me riled up cause you're not comfortable with your level of play. I'm a fan of all levels of play. I came here to talk hoops and give my impression....not to be confronted due to your frustrations.

mm

[Bay Area Billiken]

Butler was 29-3 last year with a 17 RPI and a top 10 ranking during the year.....

The year before they were 25-6 with a 27 RPI and a top 10 ranking during the year...

I know you are a SLU fan, but you can't possibly think that Butler and SLU are on the same level right now.

If you want to argue that Butler is a "Johnny come lately" into the High Major rankings, or that they are the best mid major in america, I won't fight ya....but they have CLEARLY turned a corner and are viewed in a much more favorable light than any other mid major....and many other high majors

Gonzaga under Few is absolutely a high major in basketball.

They have been in the top 10 in RPI three times in this decade and have NEVER been lower than 80....and only 2 times have then not been in the top 50 in RPI...(top 35 actually). They have spent more weeks IN the top 25 than they have out of it over the past few years.

Gonzaga is a high major, regardless of league.

mm

We wouldn't want the facts to get in the way of the opinions, would we?

Consider this:

All-Time Head to Head Series Record:

SLU 16 wins, Butler 11 wins.

That's a fairly decent sample size, 27 games. That record speaks for itself re which school has the better program.

And since you are a Kentucky fan, how about this all-time series head to head record?

Alleged "Mid-Major" SLU 9 wins; All hallowed, Holy Grail Kentucky 8 wins.

You see, some of us mere mortal fans, albeit not self-described scouts, do know a thing or two about hoops, or at least know where to find it, don't we?

[Marc Maggard]

What is your position? I have not read all of the posts, but I saw one where you said that your services are used by a lot of basketball programs in the NCAA and was just curious who you are what you do. I saw you live in Austin, I am currently in Las Colinas (Irving), TX and it is definitely one of the most interesting places I have ever been. I feel like Jim Carrey in the Truman Show.

I operate Roundball Recruiting....a scouting service which tracks the top 400 kids in the jr/sr class and the top 200 in the soph class. Colleges buy those reports and call me for my opinion of players.

Yeah, I'm living in Austin Texas, but travel every weekend to watch basketball.

mm

[Marc Maggard]

We wouldn't want the facts to get in the way of the opinions, would we?

Consider this:

All-Time Head to Head Series Record:

SLU 16 wins, Butler 11 wins.

That's a fairly decent sample size, 27 games. That record speaks for itself re which school has the better program.

And since you are a Kentucky fan, how about this all-time series head to head record?

Alleged "Mid-Major" SLU 9 wins; All hallowed, Holy Grail Kentucky 8 wins.

You see, some of us mere mortal fans, albeit not self-described scouts, do know a thing or two about hoops, or at least know where to find it, don't we?

hahah...you got me. Clearly I was saying that Butler is a HISTORICAL high major. I was not talking about how teams ebb and flow from one level to another based on recent play.....way to get me!!!

As well, due to SLU's 9 wins against UK, they are the ELITE program over UK (most wins in college history and 7 NCAA titles) and UK is a mid major.

Wow......great logic you got there.

Now would you people please stop trying to bait me into a flamefest.

mm

[moytoy12]

I came here to talk hoops and give my impression....not to be confronted due to your frustrations.

mm

Did you think that frustration wouldn't spill over? lol. that's a tad naive.

[Bay Area Billiken]

In response to Marc re that RPI, Kentucky's RPI (per kenpom.com) was 57 on Selection Sunday. That means that Kentucky should not have been in the 2008 NCAA Tournament. But there Kentucky was, an at large selection.

You see, that in itself illustrates the problem. If a so-called Mid-Major had an RPI of 57 on Selection Sunday, that school would have no hope of getting an NCAA at large selection. But that criterion does not apply to a Kentucky.

Finally, the A-10 has rejected the Mid-Major label, rightly so IMO. So whenever an outsider labels SLU a "mid-major," there is going to be a response.

[billiken_roy]

I operate Roundball Recruiting....a scouting service which tracks the top 400 kids in the jr/sr class and the top 200 in the soph class. Colleges buy those reports and call me for my opinion of players.

Yeah, I'm living in Austin Texas, but travel every weekend to watch basketball.

mm

so basically you are the stlhi or vtime or austin texas.

[Marc Maggard]

In response to Marc re that RPI, Kentucky's RPI (per kenpom.com) was 57 on Selection Sunday. That means that Kentucky should not have been in the 2008 NCAA Tournament. But there Kentucky was, an at large selection.

You see, that in itself illustrates the problem. If a so-called Mid-Major had an RPI of 57 on Selection Sunday, that school would have no hope of getting an NCAA at large selection. But that criterion does not apply to a Kentucky.

Finally, the A-10 has rejected the Mid-Major label, rightly so IMO. So whenever an outsider labels SLU a "mid-major," there is going to be a response.

Fine.....my final post....

SLU sucks. that's why you lost Harrellson. Your school has always been and will always be a mid major.

You have nowhere near the history or tradition to even be mentioned as a high major program. Your head coach is a fat dude who coaches with his junk hanging out and the entire recruiting world is laughing at that SI article...it's killing your recruiting, so there. You won't be doing any better anytime soon and you deserve it. I came here to discuss hoops and talk about Harrellson with what I thought would be interesting fans with good opinions....no wonder you guys are proverbial mid majors. Hell, Josh even said in the final podcast that Majerus messed up by not paying attention to him personally.....great job fat boy. UK has been handing Majerus his ass for a decade and this is just another in a long line of Majerus gets a UK beat down....

Have a great day other than all that....lol

mm

ps....I don't really think all that, but it's obvious that most of you want me to be a villan.

[Bay Area Billiken]

hahah...you got me. Clearly I was saying that Butler is a HISTORICAL high major. I was not talking about how teams ebb and flow from one level to another based on recent play.....way to get me!!!

As well, due to SLU's 9 wins against UK, they are the ELITE program over UK (most wins in college history and 7 NCAA titles) and UK is a mid major.

Wow......great logic you got there.

Now would you people please stop trying to bait me into a flamefest.

mm

Come on, Marc. The SLU-UK all-time record was just a throw-in for your (and other UK fans) benefit (and consternation). No claim was made that SLU has a better basketball program than Kentucky (at least over the last 4 decades). Those SLU wins over UK came at a time when SLU would have been considered an "elite" program, and we SLU supporters hope to reach that level again. That's why we don't ever want to be branded a "mid-major."

However, it remains my strong opinion, as confirmed by the factual head to head record over 27 games, that SLU has had, and still has, a better basketball program than Butler of the Horizon League, and frankly, always will have.

[Marc Maggard]

so basically you are the stlhi or vtime or austin texas.

i'm not sure what that means......

mm

[moytoy12]

Now would you people please stop trying to bait me into a flamefest.

mm

yet, you go for the bait each time.

[slu72]

so basically you are the stlhi or vtime or austin texas.

Why are we flaming this guy. What was in his posts that were that offensive. I happen to mostly agree with his classification of schools like GZ, Memphis, and X. They do belong in a major category. They recruit well, they dance every year, they play a big time non con schedule. Now Butler? Yeah, some good seasons, but they ain't no Zaga.

[Marc Maggard]

Come on, Marc. The SLU-UK all-time record was just a throw-in for your (and other UK fans) benefit (and consternation). No claim was made that SLU has a better basketball program than Kentucky.

However, it remains my strong opinion, as confirmed by the factual head to head record over 27 games, that SLU has had, and still has, a better basketball program than Butler of the Horizon League, and frankly, always will have.

I have never said anyting about "all time programs"....I'm just saying that right now, Butler is High Major and SLU is mid major. That's how recruits view the schools....it's also the level of talent that each team can reasonably expect to attract.

I've said from my fist post here that I've always liked SLU....back from the Romar days when I was there a lot.....hell, it's almost like you guys WANT me to dislike SLU....lol.

And trust me, I have no problem with SLU beating UK back in the old days....doesn't bother me at all...

[Marc Maggard]

yet, you go for the bait each time.

I'm certainly not a "turn the other cheek" kinda guy....especially when it's such a ridiculous issue to get upset about......

mm

[Pistol]

Way to take a decent post and end it with crappy points.....

I'm not "journalistic". I'm a basketball scout. The terms we use are specific and required. You HAVE to be able to label a player at a certain level for college coaches who have never seen a kid to know how good he is. Elite, High Major, Mid Major, Low Major and so forth are the terms my profession uses. I don't know why or how those terms spilled over into the journalists, nor do I know who was using them first....I just know in my line of work, they are needed.

And you can save the "your team lost to" crap. I've told you time and again that "mid major" isn't a slam....and I really don't care if you believe it or not. SLU is a mid major program. Sorry if that bothers someone. It doesn't mean they are worthless or won't ever be good. It simply means they attract a certain level of player on a daily basis. You don't have kevin love and Michael Beasley lining up to commit....which is fine. But don't try to get me riled up cause you're not comfortable with your level of play. I'm a fan of all levels of play. I came here to talk hoops and give my impression....not to be confronted due to your frustrations.

mm

I honestly do want to know who was using the terms first- the scouts or the talking heads. If scouts need to use it to rank players, fine, everyone's gotta have a system, I suppose. The difference is that you used it to describe programs as well. I already gave the myriad reasons that it makes no sense to label anyone a "Mid-Major," so I don't have to get back into that. I don't think you understand the implications behind "Mid-Major," though. You say it's not a slam, but you're the one dishing it out to whomever you see fit. I remember very clearly the outrage earlier this year that UK was "losing to Mid-Majors." So I won't spare you the "your team lost to" crap until people stop calling these teams Mid-Majors.

I would never use a word or phrase that I could not define. I'm not even a scout, journalist, or anyone else who has to be held accountable for diction. I have been a college basketball fan since I was a young kid and not once have I ever heard a person clearly define what a "Mid-Major" is. Why, then, do people use it so comfortably?

Instead of a long discussion about "well, these schools are lower-level schools in high-major conferences, so they're mid-majors, and these programs are top-notch programs in low-level conferences, so they're mid-majors, and these schools are in mid-major conferences, but only some of them are mid-majors, blah blah blah..." What's the point? Scrap the term and give some actual analysis instead.

[Dungeon Yankee]

Why are we flaming this guy. What was in his posts that were that offensive. I happen to mostly agree with his classification of schools like GZ, Memphis, and X. They do belong in a major category. They recruit well, they dance every year, they play a big time non con schedule. Now Butler? Yeah, some good seasons, but they ain't no Zaga.

I agree. The guy was classy enough to come on this board, debate us, make some decent arguments, agree or disagree, and we nail him to the wall. I don't blame him for getting pissed!