Jump to content

so what IS a mid-major conference?


Recommended Posts

Sadly, the other thread is not very helpful in actually answering that question, which I am genuinely interested in, as opposed to drivel about and by so-called "gangstas" and suchlike.

Since Conference USA and A10 teams are not included, then they are perceived as major conferences? is that a fact? So there are 8 major conferences, and the rest are mid-major? So Duquesne is major, and Gonzaga a mid-major, simply due to their conferences!?

So what IS a mid-major conference? I am genuinely interested in a serious response or 2.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say that 1-A football doesn't even make you a major. I would consider the MAC, WAC, CUSA, and Mountian West all mid-major. A major would be a BCS conference. So I would consider Marquette and Villinova major programs even without football. The coference closes the deal.

I wonder if alot people around the country right now would consider the A-10 a low mid-major or high mid-major. The lack of recent post season success of the conference has me worried about how people precieve it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"The lack of recent post season success of the conference has me worried about how people precieve it."

Where does this come from? I guess it is what have you done for me lately. Both Xavier and St. Joe were in the Elite 8 two years ago. St. Joe was #1 in the country. I will agree last year wasn't very good for the A10 but neither was the B12.

Link to post
Share on other sites

First off since this is my first post let me say that I am and always will be a Southern Illinois fan. I am however an allumni of SLU and love following the team still so don't hate me.

I think what defines a mid major conference is simply, does your conference consistantly have someone who is projected as a national title contender (ie ACC, Big East, Big 12, SEC, Big 10, PAC 10). If you cannot consistantly say that then your conference is mid major. I don't mean that someone from your conference cannot contend for a national title, just that it doesn't happen every year.

This is just may opinion curious as to other people's views.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I think the term is not useful as a descriptive term any longer. It has been misused by so many for so long that it is only possible to use it as insult (wielded against teams) or a badge of pride (see Kyle Whelliston, now of ESPN, nice rambling essay http://www.midmajority.com/season1/archive...site/index.php). Most people seem to use it as purely subjective ("I think XXXX is midmajor") or about teams (which is incorrect technically).

It began as a term used within the NCAA and was most definitely a term used to describe CONFERENCES not teams. 8 conferences (the 6 BCS'ers as well as C-USA and MWC) all had at least one member on all committees and they were called "major" conferences. The conferences that had limited representation in committees saw themselves as "mid-majors" although I have no idea who coined the term. In this story, A-10 and WAC should have been considered mid-major BUT they were also enjoying tremendous success (early to mid 90's) in basketball. Sites like the one in the other thread have created their own definitions (reasonable and conference based).

About 6 years ago people starting talking about bad teams in major conferences as "mid-majors" even though they weren't and the term was been sliding toward meaning less and less over time. Adding terms like "high mid" or "low mid" are examples of the uselessness of the term. Some national commentators sadly started using the term as a putdown and as a response some very good teams (like in the MVC and WCC) re-appropriated the term as a badge of pride. Although, people at Gonzaga have actively discouraged the use of the term about them (and are a tad sensitive about it).

Link to post
Share on other sites

How would you lay out criteria with out give out examples.

Also, you don't have to have football to be a major. I just dont think any such exist right now. The Valley is getting close. I would have consider the Great Midwest a major. Never consider the CUSA a major, it didn't have the same focus on top flight hoops as the Great Midwest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the point is still the same. Three years ago, the conference had 2 elite 8 teams. I would still say that is recent.

If the A10 doesn't rebound to previous levels (3-4 bid conf) over the next two years, then I think there is some reason to suspect the conference is in an overall decline. There are too many solid schools to think the A10 won't rebound. I would still love to see the A10 drop Duquesne, Fordam or other bottom dwellers and get back to a 12 team conf.

Link to post
Share on other sites

>I was under the impression that there was something of

>actual substance that determined if a conference was or was

>not a major conference and not just based on perception.

Unfortunately mid-major is all about perception. Is Baylor any more of a major basketball team than SLU? Is Vanderbilt more major than SIU? No, neither of these teams is any good compared to SLU and SIU but they have the right conference affiliation. It's all about perception.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion, its the BCS and the rest of us. Some years the A-10 may be up, some years the Valley will be good, and sometimes either of those conferences will be better than the worst of the BCS conferences. However, more often than not the top 6 conferences will be the 6 BCS ones.

Sometimes, you'll get legitimiate national title contenders from non BCS schools like Utah, UNLV, St. Joes and Gonzaga but for the most part, the BCS schools own the Final 4.

As members of the A-10 we want to believe that we aren't mid-major (because really mid-major is just an insulting term used by the big boys) but really there isn't much difference between the A-10, MVC, WAC, Mountain West, etc. We all have difficulty scheduling home and homes with the BCS, we all feel slighted by the committee, and we are all public enemies of Billy Packer.

CUSA was the one conference that had a legitimate shot at being better than the BCS conferences over a long period but for many reasons it never worked.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that I have tried to get away from the major and mid-major labels, because there is not a good definition of those terms. I use BCS schools and non-BCS schools or conferences instead. I think everyone agrees that BCS schools generally enjoy advantages of more money and larger budgets than the non-BCS schools. I think BCS and non-BCS is probably the cleanest division to make at this point.

I also think there is an undefined group of schools that compete with the BCS schools in MBB. This group of schools are ones that over a period of time have shown an ability to be considered a top program. I would include programs like Xavier, St Joes, Gonzaga, Memphis, top 3-4 MVC schools, Nevada, and so on. In the past schools like Tulsa, UNLV and Loyola Marymount would have been included. These are the types of MBB programs that usually compete for the at large NCAA bids with the BCS schools.

As far as the mid-major top 25 poll, I think that only includes schools of conferences that want to participate in it. The A10 with Linda Bruno have refused to be called "mid-major" and will not participate in that poll. I would guess the same response with CUSA, Mt West and WAC regarding that poll. As was stated earlier, some conferences have embraced the "mid-major" name while others run scared from it. I just don't really find it very useful myself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also couldn't agree more. The Mid-Major tag isn't something you strive for in a conference like C-USA or the A-10. These are the conferences where things really change year to year, sometimes loaded with talent and tournament teams, and sometimes down in the dumps. They aren't BCS schools, so they don't have the enormous budgets and automatic media attention, so the conferences just kind of float in between the high-majors and mid-majors.

I don't see a need to define any conference, team, or school as high-major, mid-major, etc. I also don't like "Mid-Major" polls- the one that started the thread just peaked my interest because it included the Valley and not the A-10 (an argument that will never die on this board, and probably shouldn't). There are too many variables that change each year, and too many intangibles in the mix. Everyone's playing for the same thing, after all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

well, the consensus seems to be that mid-majors are those conferences that are not in the BCS.

so, if that is true, I wonder where folks would actually put us in that top 25 poll of preseason mid-majors.

Personally, I could see us somewhere in the 10-15 range, perhaps after MO State (#9) and Northern Iowa (#16).

Where do you others see us in that poll?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe we should be ahead of both of those programs. Based on last season, I could see how people could put us behind both. I think we should be a top 40 program this year.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That was not a preseason poll, but rather the end of the season poll.

http://www.midmajortop25.com/

If you want to include A10 schools, I would say GW would probably been somewhere in the top 5 and St Joe and Xavier somewhere around 10. I don't think SLU would have made the end of season "mid-major" poll top 25.

As far as trying to figure out where SLU would be this preseason, I don't really know. SLU has a lot of questions that need answers before we really know what we have. Will one of our three PF step up and earn starter minutes(25+)? Will Liddell's outside shot improve to the point of respectable(20-25% 3pt)? Can we expect more out of IV than last year(14 pts 7.5 rbs)? Will Meyer, Brown and Polk all step up especially offensively to give team some depth? I am sure everyone has more questions beyond these, but this is what I am wondering about this team.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...