(07-08-2014 03:36 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(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:  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.

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.

I was just wondering. Thanks for answer. In 98 I vomited in my mouth a little when the media started referring to ECU as a lesser football school then temple and Rutgers simply because a new system was created that destroyed honest reporting in college football

Brazil gave up plain and simple

Yes, these terms like "smaller conference", "lesser teams", "power", "non power" are so made up and arbitrary it's not funny. Things are not as cut and dried as these terms make them out to be. So, WSU and thier 30K stadium is a "power program", when ECU (for example), with 50K is a "smaller program"??? What a scam. What a crock. Quit labeling people/programs. Let them be who they are going to be. Labels are made up by a select few big wigs in order to pigeonhole the masses into where they think they should be. And if you don't think that is accurate, I have some land in Arizona I want to sell you.

(07-08-2014 02:18 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(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.

Tip of the cap. Where did you do undergrad?

(07-08-2014 03:47 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  Yes, these terms like "smaller conference", "lesser teams", "power", "non power" are so made up and arbitrary it's not funny. Things are not as cut and dried as these terms make them out to be. So, WSU and thier 30K stadium is a "power program", when ECU (for example), with 50K is a "smaller program"??? What a scam. What a crock. Quit labeling people/programs. Let them be who they are going to be. Labels are made up by a select few big wigs in order to pigeonhole the masses into where they think they should be. And if you don't think that is accurate, I have some land in Arizona I want to sell you.

nice. Like how u switched swamp land in Florida with land in Arizona! Been to both states many, many times. Florida is nicer looking in my opinion but damn, the land is so much more expensive in AZ.

(07-08-2014 04:03 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(07-08-2014 02:18 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(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.

Tip of the cap. Where did you do undergrad?

Florida.

(07-08-2014 01:09 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  Mid-major is a basketball term from the 70s. How has it infiltrated college football?

Great question. It is regularly misused by the media and the general public in basketball, and it is completely misapplied in football.

It was originally used to describe the different levels of D-1 conferences in basketball. The top 11 (or so) conferences were called high-major (a term still used in recruiting), the next 11 were called mid-major, and the rest were called low-major.

Now, low-major has disappeared, and all not in the top 6-8 basketball conferences are called mid-majors.

How any of those terms ever got applied to contemporary football is beyond me, too.

(07-08-2014 03:41 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  I was just wondering. Thanks for answer. In 98 I vomited in my mouth a little when the media started referring to ECU as a lesser football school then temple and Rutgers

I see your point here very clearly.

(07-08-2014 09:23 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(07-08-2014 04:03 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(07-08-2014 02:18 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

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

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

Tip of the cap. Where did you do undergrad?

Florida.

good selection

(07-08-2014 10:50 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(07-08-2014 09:23 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(07-08-2014 04:03 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(07-08-2014 02:18 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

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

Tip of the cap. Where did you do undergrad?

Florida.

good selection

Apparently, we associate ourselves with the Ivy League.