http://www.collegeinsider.com/mens-mid-major-top-25.php
William and Mary, Towson, and Charleston also receiving votes.
VOTING PANEL: Casey Alexander (Lipscomb), Roman Banks (Southern), Randy Bennett (St. Mary's), Will Brown (Albany), Jamion Christian (Mount St. Mary's), Jon Coffman (IPFW), Jim Engles (Columbia), James Fox (Appalachian State), Tyler Geving (Portland State), Derrin Hansen (Nebraska-Omaha), Steve Hawkins (Western Michigan), Jason Hooten (Sam Houston State), Brian Jones (North Dakota), James Jones (Yale), Mike Jones (Radford), Robert Jones (Norfolk State), Greg Kampe (Oakland), Danny Kaspar (Texas State), Tod Kowalczyk (Toledo), Greg Lansing (Indiana State), Jim Les (UC Davis), Dan Majerle (Grand Canyon), Gregg Marshall (Wichita State), Bob Marlin (UL-Lafayette), Ritchie McKay (Liberty), Niko Medved (Furman), Rob O'Driscoll (Drexel), Jimmy Patsos (Siena), G.G. Smith (Loyola), Damon Stoudamire (Pacific), Jay Spoonhour (Eastern Illinois).
Wow we are in good company. Behind only NCAA regulars Gonzaga, St Mary's, and Wichita St
Winning does that.
Winning also has our coach's name being rattled around - a lot - on other teams' boards as they find increasing displeasure with their current coaching situations. Which all-in-all qualifies as a "first world problem"....
(11-22-2016 06:57 AM)solohawks Wrote: [ -> ]Wow we are in good company. Behind only NCAA regulars Gonzaga, St Mary's, and Wichita St
And a strong argument can be made that Gonzaga and Wichita State are not mid-majors. When you're not in a P5 conference BUT have a budget equal or bigger than the big boys, you're no longer a mid-major. Just check this out about Gonzaga:
Quote:Donors have swollen the college’s coffers to $173.3 million, nearly doubling its endowment. The university’s budget has almost tripled.
And generous pledges have enabled Gonzaga to build a $25 million basketball arena, a baseball complex, student apartments, an applied science building and other projects. A $60 million student center is under construction.
As for Wichita State:
Quote:That doesn't mean the Final Four run and this year's undefeated season hasn't increased the program's coffers. Although home games were sold out, more people actually showed up this season. You can tell just by looking at the concession revenue, up $40,000 to $130,000 this season. Sponsorship is also on pace to hit a record $2 million, up from $1.4 million just a year ago. So too are donations to the athletic department, which hit a record $4.7 million in 2013.
Does that sound like those are mid-majors to you?
St. Mary's is certainly getting bigger too. They have a $9.1M athletic budget, which is pretty large for a non-football school.
(11-22-2016 08:08 AM)Seahawk Nation 08 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-22-2016 06:57 AM)solohawks Wrote: [ -> ]Wow we are in good company. Behind only NCAA regulars Gonzaga, St Mary's, and Wichita St
And a strong argument can be made that Gonzaga and Wichita State are not mid-majors. When you're not in a P5 conference BUT have a budget equal or bigger than the big boys, you're no longer a mid-major.
St. Mary's is certainly getting bigger too. They have a $9.1M athletic budget, which is pretty large for a non-football school.
Yeah and they have BYU has #5. BYU is most certainly not a mid major.
Gonzaga is not a mid-major. An argument can be made for WSU, but Gonzaga is not. They've been a perennial power out West for years. WSU hasn't had that sustained success that Gonzaga has had, but I see your point in terms of their budget. Those two schools also get a lot of attention from the media. It's really hard to even consider them mid-majors, but... it is nice to be in their company.
Keep winning Seahawks!
Oh, and in case you're wondering, our athletic budget is $13.4M. Larger than St. Mary's, but they only have 11 sports and don't care about much other than Men's Basketball. We have 18 sports.
So we'll still count St. Mary's as a mid-major, but they're not too far away from taking a leap.
My revised Top 10:
1. Saint Mary's (8) 3-0 748 2 West Coast
2. UNCW 3-0 663 6 Colonial
3. Valparaiso 3-1 569 7 Horizon
4. Ohio 3-0 541 13 Mid-American
5. Illinois State 1-1 490 9 Missouri Valley
6. Belmont 1-1 476 11 Ohio Valley
7. Chattanooga 3-2 449 8 Southern
8. Monmouth 1-3 430 4 Metro Atlantic
9. Northern Iowa (1) 3-1 399 17 Missouri Valley
10. UT Arlington 1-3 375 5 Sun Belt
(11-22-2016 08:14 AM)CoastGuardHawk06 Wrote: [ -> ]Gonzaga is not a mid-major. An argument can be made for WSU, but Gonzaga is not. They've been a perennial power out West for years. WSU hasn't had that sustained success that Gonzaga has had, but I see your point in terms of their budget. Those two schools also get a lot of attention from the media. It's really hard to even consider them mid-majors, but... it is nice to be in their company.
Keep winning Seahawks!
And I also very much doubt that Gonzaga or Wichita State care much to see themselves at the top of that list. They wouldn't care if they were removed from consideration. They're too busy trying to get to the Final 4.
(11-22-2016 08:18 AM)Seahawk Nation 08 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-22-2016 08:14 AM)CoastGuardHawk06 Wrote: [ -> ]Gonzaga is not a mid-major. An argument can be made for WSU, but Gonzaga is not. They've been a perennial power out West for years. WSU hasn't had that sustained success that Gonzaga has had, but I see your point in terms of their budget. Those two schools also get a lot of attention from the media. It's really hard to even consider them mid-majors, but... it is nice to be in their company.
Keep winning Seahawks!
And I also very much doubt that Gonzaga or Wichita State care much to see themselves at the top of that list. They wouldn't care if they were removed from consideration. They're too busy trying to get to the Final 4.
Exactly, and they are prepared to do so every year. Unlike say George Mason or VCU. That's the difference.
I like it just the way it is. It puts us up there with some heavy hitters. Looks much more impressive at #4 with those schools than it would at #2 without them. I think it gives us a lot more credibility.
(11-22-2016 09:02 AM)SEA33HAWK Wrote: [ -> ]I like it just the way it is. It puts us up there with some heavy hitters. Looks much more impressive at #4 with those schools than it would at #2 without them. I think it gives us a lot more credibility.
Fair point. I just think we need a better definition of "mid-major".
I would normally agree, but I think credibility has always been so hard for us to accomplish.
(11-22-2016 09:13 AM)SEA33HAWK Wrote: [ -> ]I would normally agree, but I think credibility has always been so hard for us to accomplish.
True. Even last year I thought we were slightly under-seeded in the Dance.
(11-22-2016 09:14 AM)Seahawk Nation 08 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-22-2016 09:13 AM)SEA33HAWK Wrote: [ -> ]I would normally agree, but I think credibility has always been so hard for us to accomplish.
True. Even last year I thought we were slightly under-seeded in the Dance.
I've yet to see a year where we go to the dance and don't get screwed on seeding.
(11-22-2016 02:16 PM)CoastGuardHawk06 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-22-2016 09:14 AM)Seahawk Nation 08 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-22-2016 09:13 AM)SEA33HAWK Wrote: [ -> ]I would normally agree, but I think credibility has always been so hard for us to accomplish.
True. Even last year I thought we were slightly under-seeded in the Dance.
I've yet to see a year where we go to the dance and don't get screwed on seeding.
we were given a great seed in 2006
I think seeding is cumuulative. If we return this year as CAA champs with as good a record as last year, our seeding goes up. After a 10 year absence i'm not sure how the committee could have justified our seeding any higher.
I don't want the 11th seed. I don't understand stand why, but two of the 11 seeds will faceoff in a play in game. It doesn't make any sense to me why play in games aren't relegated to all the 16 seeds.
(11-22-2016 02:16 PM)CoastGuardHawk06 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-22-2016 09:14 AM)Seahawk Nation 08 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-22-2016 09:13 AM)SEA33HAWK Wrote: [ -> ]I would normally agree, but I think credibility has always been so hard for us to accomplish.
True. Even last year I thought we were slightly under-seeded in the Dance.
I've yet to see a year where we go to the dance and don't get screwed on seeding.
(11-22-2016 02:29 PM)solohawks Wrote: [ -> ] (11-22-2016 02:16 PM)CoastGuardHawk06 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-22-2016 09:14 AM)Seahawk Nation 08 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-22-2016 09:13 AM)SEA33HAWK Wrote: [ -> ]I would normally agree, but I think credibility has always been so hard for us to accomplish.
True. Even last year I thought we were slightly under-seeded in the Dance.
I've yet to see a year where we go to the dance and don't get screwed on seeding.
we were given a great seed in 2006
Yep. 9 was a great seed. The problem was that GWU had no business being anything lower than a 6. The fact that the committee is allowed to "punish" teams for having players hurt is baffling. In one corner of their mouths they say that your body of work matters most, but do the exact opposite when seeding certain teams. It's absurd.
(11-22-2016 03:20 PM)SEA33HAWK Wrote: [ -> ]I don't want the 11th seed. I don't understand stand why, but two of the 11 seeds will faceoff in a play in game. It doesn't make any sense to me why play in games aren't relegated to all the 16 seeds.
I'm fine being in the play-in game as an 11. That still counts as an NCAA Tournament win if you get it, you're the only game on at that timeslot, plus, you're ready to go for the next game whereas the team you're facing hasn't played a game in close to 2 weeks in many cases. It's partly why the play-in 11 winner has pulled off so many upsets.
Auto Bid 11th seeds wouldnt play a play in game. Only at large 11 seeds would be at risk of the extra game.