The unofficial online home for fans of the Kent State University Golden Flashes. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

Loved this quote from an article on Steve's site on reaching another 20:

Quote:"Sometimes we're victims of our own success," Kent State head coach Jim Christian said. "People don't realize how hard that is to do. To say 'Well, it's Kent State, they always do it,' is a slap in the face to all of these guys. I just want people to know what is really going on here."

Good point by Christian. It's not like a team has the same core of players over 9 years, like in the NBA before free agency. There is often a major change in personnel just over a couple of years. Most of the teams that win 20 every year are "name" schools that are always going to get a bunch of blue chip players. A perennial 20 game winner at the mid-major level is pretty rare, and it is hard to still call a Gonzaga, say, a mid-major. Take any of the MAC schools that had a nice run, like Eastern in the early 90's, Ball State in the late 80's, Central Michigan in the mid-80's, or Miami several times, and take any 9 year period that their run fell in, and you'll see some off years. What Kent has done as a mid-major is outstanding, and each team in that run has had to deal with mixing in new players and even twice a new coach. If it was easy to do, a MAC school with a bigger "name", such as Miami, Bowling Green, OU or Toledo would have done it before.

One thing to keep in minds is that 20% ( 5/25) of the ESPN Top 25 Basketball are mid majors: Memphis, Nevada, Southern Illinois, Butler, and Air Force. Their programs are prime poaching for bigs before us.

Kent 76 Wrote:Good point by Christian. It's not like a team has the same core of players over 9 years, like in the NBA before free agency. There is often a major change in personnel just over a couple of years. Most of the teams that win 20 every year are "name" schools that are always going to get a bunch of blue chip players. A perennial 20 game winner at the mid-major level is pretty rare, and it is hard to still call a Gonzaga, say, a mid-major. Take any of the MAC schools that had a nice run, like Eastern in the early 90's, Ball State in the late 80's, Central Michigan in the mid-80's, or Miami several times, and take any 9 year period that their run fell in, and you'll see some off years. What Kent has done as a mid-major is outstanding, and each team in that run has had to deal with mixing in new players and even twice a new coach. If it was easy to do, a MAC school with a bigger "name", such as Miami, Bowling Green, OU or Toledo would have done it before.

Just watching the MVC tournament and they said that with Creighton's win tonight, it's their 9th year in a row with 20 wins, and that was an MVC record.

Honestly, for the last decade, I would put Kent only behind Gonzaga, SIU and Creighton as best mid-major bb program.

If we're wondering about Christian leaving, I tend to agree with those that suggest that JC will only leave if the right opportunity comes; not an incremental improvement over Kent (say a A-10 or WAC or weak BCS conference school). I wonder if the biggest potential problem will be losing assistant coaches or transfers.

Speaking of ex-coaches, is Stan Heath in trouble in Arkansas after that team's collapse in SEC play?

Serious question: IS there an "official" definition of mid-major, or a definition that is fairly universally accepted? FlashFan mentioned Memphis. I have a hard time considering them mid-major. Is mid-major based solely on not being in one of the six (?) top conferences? Is the term of relatively recent vintage? Was UNLV mid-major when they won the NCAA under Tarkanian? Granted, it was a long time ago, but was UTEP (then Texas Western) a mid-major when they won the NCAA title in 1966, or Dayton when they played in the 1967 title game? Jacksonville when they were a power in the early 1970's? Memphis when they played in the 1973 title game? Further back, was USF when they won NCAA titles in 1955 and 1956? I'd really like to know, as I get the impression that what I consider mid-major may not jibe with reality.

Since my last post I did some research. It would appear that the term "mid-major" is, indeed, of relatively recent vintage, and that there is no definition of "mid-major" that is agreed upon by all. At any rate, Kent State and the entire MAC would certainly be considered "mid-major" by everyone. While you've always had schools that were basketball powers, there certainly was a time when any school could break into the status, even if only temporary. I think that is much more difficult now for several reasons that I won't get into, as it would require an essay-length post and really outside the purpose of this forum. Suffice it to say that blue-chip athletes coming out of high school now are almost certainly going to choose a widely recognized perennial power, again for several reasons.

I agree that there are no hard and fast rules and identifying mids is a lot like identifying ducks: if it looks and quacks, etc.
Memphis is a major program in a mid-major conference. Same for Gonzaga. I'd hesitate to say any of the MVC teams are major until they have more than just occasional success beyond the Sweet 16.
Our one trip to the E-8 and Geo. Mason's Final 4 didn't make either of us majors, just mids with a great year.

What is Northwestern?

In basketball? Usually irrelevant. A weak program in a major conference.
If they were good, being in the Big 10 would be a great benefit for them. As it is, they drag down the conference rating, like any weak program in any conference.
A lot fo the terminolgoy has to do with resources and budget. Memphis and Gonzaga are big time in every way. By the same token, other teams in their conferences are not.
The MVC teams have similar programs, as do the MAC (and CAA, etc.) and have no teams who have jumped out from the pack. A couple more years might do this for SIU but it will be tough for them to sustain.
The A-10 has X, who is a step above most mid-majors, and then 2-3 other teams who have some good history.

Northwestern never left the Big 10 because of the revenue loss that would occur if they moved down. Oddly, I can think of more times when they were competitive in football than in basketball, which defies all logic. They have to be considered "major". But, as Axme pointed out they are not a good major program.