http://www.si.com/college-football/2014/...mid-majors

That is a fair article. There also could be a season where a couple of the P5 conferences feature teams with 2 losses.
Also Mandel said UCF beat UC last season. They did not play.

(07-08-2014 11:59 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  That is a fair article. There also could be a season where a couple of the P5 conferences feature teams with 2 losses.
Also Mandel said UCF beat UC last season. They did not play.

I agree that is a fair article. Anyone in the American would certainly need to be undefeated and would need a couple of signature OOC wins to have a chance. More than likely they would have needed a good season the year prior as well just to be high enough in the polls to start the season. If you are starting in the 40's or 50's it is probably unlikely even if you go undefeated.

Mid-major is a basketball term from the 70s. How has it infiltrated college football?

If UCF (might start season ranked), SMU, CINCI, or ECU can go undefeated, I think one of those schools could get a shot because of their OOC. It would also take multiple losses by ranked P5 schools. Unfortunately, not have a CCG game might hurt us this year because a lower ranked P5 school that wins its CCG would get select before an undefeated American school in my opinion.

Mid Major is not or ever had been a football term. In basketball AAC is not a mid major. That's the only way it applies to AAC.

(07-08-2014 11:59 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  That is a fair article. There also could be a season where a couple of the P5 conferences feature teams with 2 losses.
Also Mandel said UCF beat UC last season. They did not play.

Didn't he go to UC?

(07-08-2014 01:38 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(07-08-2014 11:59 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  That is a fair article. There also could be a season where a couple of the P5 conferences feature teams with 2 losses.
Also Mandel said UCF beat UC last season. They did not play.

Didn't he go to UC?

Northwestern. He views UC as a second class citizen. When he went to Sycamore HS I am sure his circle of friends thought the same way. He is another local or former local who thinks UC should never be any good in football. Luckily the local perception has changed dramatically since he graduated from high school about 20 years ago.

(07-08-2014 01:12 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  Mid Major is not or ever had been a football term. In basketball AAC is not a mid major. That's the only way it applies to AAC.

I don't like the term either.

(07-08-2014 01:44 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(07-08-2014 01:12 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  Mid Major is not or ever had been a football term. In basketball AAC is not a mid major. That's the only way it applies to AAC.

I don't like the term either.

Concur

You were either....................

FBS - FCS or lower

FBS BCS AQ

FBS BCS NonAQ

FBS contract

FBS noncontract

No Mid-Major / No Group of Five / No Power 5

stewart_mandel@simail.com <stewart_mandel@simail.com>;

(07-08-2014 01:42 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(07-08-2014 01:38 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(07-08-2014 11:59 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  That is a fair article. There also could be a season where a couple of the P5 conferences feature teams with 2 losses.
Also Mandel said UCF beat UC last season. They did not play.

Didn't he go to UC?

Northwestern. He views UC as a second class citizen. When he went to Sycamore HS I am sure his circle of friends thought the same way. He is another local or former local who thinks UC should never be any good in football. Luckily the local perception has changed dramatically since he graduated from high school about 20 years ago.

I grew up with the guy (middle, jr high and high school), I couldn't remember where he went to college. I think UC should always be good in fb.

(07-08-2014 01:51 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  stewart_mandel@simail.com <stewart_mandel@simail.com>;

I wonder why he is trying so hard to bring over a basketball term to football, when it doesn't, and has never, even applied to football.

I hate labels. They are nothing but made up terms coined by a few with an agenda to pigeonhole the masses into slots that they believe they should be. Just let a school's/conference's performance speak for itself, rather than trying to give it a label that may or may not apply.

STOP MAKING LABELS. I don't care if the AAC is termed "power" or not. Just let actual performances speak for themselves, rather than have a few elites with an agenda label everyone.

(07-08-2014 02:28 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(07-08-2014 01:51 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  stewart_mandel@simail.com <stewart_mandel@simail.com>;

I wonder why he is trying so hard to bring over a basketball term to football, when it doesn't, and has never, even applied to football.

I hate labels. They are nothing but made up terms coined by a few with an agenda to pigeonhole the masses into slots that they believe they should be. Just let a school's/conference's performance speak for itself, rather than trying to give it a label that may or may not apply.

Why don't you e-mail him and ask him. His response might be interesting.

(07-08-2014 02:28 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(07-08-2014 01:51 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  stewart_mandel@simail.com <stewart_mandel@simail.com>;

I wonder why he is trying so hard to bring over a basketball term to football, when it doesn't, and has never, even applied to football.

I hate labels. They are nothing but made up terms coined by a few with an agenda to pigeonhole the masses into slots that they believe they should be. Just let a school's/conference's performance speak for itself, rather than trying to give it a label that may or may not apply.

Are you guys serious? The mainstream media has been using the "mid-major" term in college football for over a decade. It was replaced somewhat by "non-BCS" and more recently by "Group of 5." I agree that it has been used more extensively in college basketball, but mid-major has been used in college football media since at least the early 2000's.

I agree that it is a derogatory term and doesn't represent well the teams and conferences that did not have automatic bids to the BCS and that do not have contracts with the New Year's Six bowl games.

(07-08-2014 02:36 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(07-08-2014 02:28 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(07-08-2014 01:51 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  stewart_mandel@simail.com <stewart_mandel@simail.com>;

I wonder why he is trying so hard to bring over a basketball term to football, when it doesn't, and has never, even applied to football.

I hate labels. They are nothing but made up terms coined by a few with an agenda to pigeonhole the masses into slots that they believe they should be. Just let a school's/conference's performance speak for itself, rather than trying to give it a label that may or may not apply.

Are you guys serious? The mainstream media has been using the "mid-major" term in college football for over a decade. It was replaced somewhat by "non-BCS" and more recently by "Group of 5." I agree that it has been used more extensively in college basketball, but mid-major has been used in college football media since at least the early 2000's.

I agree that it is a derogatory term and doesn't represent well the teams and conferences that did not have automatic bids to the BCS and that do not have contracts with the New Year's Six bowl games.

It could be that I just wasn't paying attention since USF was on the so called good side of the divide. Since getting demoted, I find these arbitrary, made up terms really bother me.

(07-08-2014 02:43 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(07-08-2014 02:36 PM)YNot Wrote:  Are you guys serious? The mainstream media has been using the "mid-major" term in college football for over a decade. It was replaced somewhat by "non-BCS" and more recently by "Group of 5." I agree that it has been used more extensively in college basketball, but mid-major has been used in college football media since at least the early 2000's.

I agree that it is a derogatory term and doesn't represent well the teams and conferences that did not have automatic bids to the BCS and that do not have contracts with the New Year's Six bowl games.

Since getting demoted, I find these arbitrary, made up terms really bother me.

Amen!

I don't have any problem with calling Alabama or Ohio St. or Texas a "major" program or a "power." They are.

The frustration comes when you lump mid-major programs like Wake Forest or Washington St. or Indiana into the "major" or "power" labels, because of conference affiliation. They are not. No way! The "mid-major" label fits those schools better than many G5 programs.

(07-08-2014 02:50 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(07-08-2014 02:43 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(07-08-2014 02:36 PM)YNot Wrote:  Are you guys serious? The mainstream media has been using the "mid-major" term in college football for over a decade. It was replaced somewhat by "non-BCS" and more recently by "Group of 5." I agree that it has been used more extensively in college basketball, but mid-major has been used in college football media since at least the early 2000's.

I agree that it is a derogatory term and doesn't represent well the teams and conferences that did not have automatic bids to the BCS and that do not have contracts with the New Year's Six bowl games.

Since getting demoted, I find these arbitrary, made up terms really bother me.

Amen!

I don't have any problem with calling Alabama or Ohio St. or Texas a "major" program or a "power." They are.

The frustration comes when you lump mid-major programs like Wake Forest or Washington St. or Indiana into the "major" or "power" labels, because of conference affiliation. They are not. No way! The "mid-major" label fits those schools better than many G5 programs.

Thank you! My thoughts exactly.

PS...we need BYU to bust open the so called P5 and fight the system they have made as an obstruction. What are your thoughts on BYU joining as a quasi member (5 AAC games a year like ND), with the potential to join fully, if the chips fall right.

(07-08-2014 02:43 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(07-08-2014 02:36 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(07-08-2014 02:28 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(07-08-2014 01:51 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  stewart_mandel@simail.com <stewart_mandel@simail.com>;

I wonder why he is trying so hard to bring over a basketball term to football, when it doesn't, and has never, even applied to football.

I hate labels. They are nothing but made up terms coined by a few with an agenda to pigeonhole the masses into slots that they believe they should be. Just let a school's/conference's performance speak for itself, rather than trying to give it a label that may or may not apply.

Are you guys serious? The mainstream media has been using the "mid-major" term in college football for over a decade. It was replaced somewhat by "non-BCS" and more recently by "Group of 5." I agree that it has been used more extensively in college basketball, but mid-major has been used in college football media since at least the early 2000's.

I agree that it is a derogatory term and doesn't represent well the teams and conferences that did not have automatic bids to the BCS and that do not have contracts with the New Year's Six bowl games.

It could be that I just wasn't paying attention since USF was on the so called good side of the divide. Since getting demoted, I find these arbitrary, made up terms really bother me.

how come you weren't paying attention to USF before the big east lotto win in 05? Was it because you didn't think they were worthy of following in their first few years? Was it because you didn't follow teams in CUSA? Maybe your a younger fan? Just curious, not being a hater.

(07-08-2014 03:34 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(07-08-2014 02:43 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(07-08-2014 02:36 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(07-08-2014 02:28 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(07-08-2014 01:51 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  stewart_mandel@simail.com <stewart_mandel@simail.com>;

I wonder why he is trying so hard to bring over a basketball term to football, when it doesn't, and has never, even applied to football.

I hate labels. They are nothing but made up terms coined by a few with an agenda to pigeonhole the masses into slots that they believe they should be. Just let a school's/conference's performance speak for itself, rather than trying to give it a label that may or may not apply.

Are you guys serious? The mainstream media has been using the "mid-major" term in college football for over a decade. It was replaced somewhat by "non-BCS" and more recently by "Group of 5." I agree that it has been used more extensively in college basketball, but mid-major has been used in college football media since at least the early 2000's.

I agree that it is a derogatory term and doesn't represent well the teams and conferences that did not have automatic bids to the BCS and that do not have contracts with the New Year's Six bowl games.

It could be that I just wasn't paying attention since USF was on the so called good side of the divide. Since getting demoted, I find these arbitrary, made up terms really bother me.

how come you weren't paying attention to USF before the big east lotto win in 05? Was it because you didn't think they were worthy of following in their first few years? Was it because you didn't follow teams in CUSA? Maybe your a younger fan? Just curious, not being a hater.

No, it's just that I didn't worry about labels in the BCS. When you are part of the BCS, you don't worry about stuff like that. That's just reality. And before that, I was just excited about the USF program. Everything was exciting and new and USF seemed to have limitless potential. didn't worry a whole lot about labels and things like that then. Getting demoted makes you look around and realize some of the scams that are going on. Labels being one of them.

BTW, I've been a USF since the first year of the program, 1997 and watched the very first game, so no, I am not what you would term a younger fan.