I don't have fleshed-out thoughts on this yet, but I thought it deserved it's own thread.

I don't remember hearing anything about mid-majors before the rise of the Bowl Alliance and BCS. Up until the end of the 1980s, there were a ton of independents anyway. Larry Bird and Indiana State were clearly a tier below indy's like Marquette and DePaul and Notre Dame, which were clearly on a tier below blueblood-royalty programs like Indiana, Kentucky and UCLA. But there wasn't a lot of chatter or thought about those terms.

IT might help to figure out when the "mid-major" concept really took off. Was it ESPN's Bracketbusters, and can anyone remember or google up when that started? Was it the St Joes' coach complaining about the NCAA's being the "BCS Invitational"?

I had some C-USA posters a while ago arguing that nuh-uh, they weren't midmajor because A) they weren't in ESPN's bracket-busters and B) they played FBS football. I believe I answered, "Pfffft."

If mid-major just means "no FBS", then does it mean a damn thing?

Or does mid-major/power conference come from how many NCAA tournament bids you expect in an average year? 2- or 3-bid leagues are mid-major, 4+ is a power conference? And do percentages matter--a 14-team, 4-bid league vs a 10-team 3-bid league?

For Big East/C7 propaganda purposes, should we start pushing different terminology--the Big East is an "elite conference", where at least 1/3 go dancing every year?

Mid-major is all about the support that the program receives, especially financially, and the way it holds itself.

If you spend more then a million on your coach, constantly look to renovate and upgrade your facilities, consistently expect to win against BCS opponents, and non-fans have heard of you, you aren't a mid-major, regardless of what conference you are in.

That is a for a team. Conferences are different. Bids are very important (1 bid leagues are low major, 2-3 are usually midmajor, 4+ are power conferences), but they don't tell the whole story. A mid-major conference may get 4 bids in a year (MVC in 2006, for instance, A-10 this year probably), but they are still a mid-major conference.

I think the real difference is who you play, where you play them, and what people expect. If you can get BCS teams play conference teams at home every year, you aren't a mid-major. Scheduling is a key part of perception because it means that your opponent feels they have something to gain from playing you. When you can convince teams to go against you, it means that they feel you are good enough that a loss would have little negative effect on their reputation and a win would bolster their chances to get an at-large bid.

Recruiting in another big factor for a conference. Mid-major conferences, regardless of how good the teams are, rarely pull in Top50, or even Top150 recruits. If recruits want to play in your conference, and feel they will get enough exposure to potentially let them go to the next level, you aren't a mid-major conference.

Kyle Whelliston of The Mid-Majority once wrote that "Any team that is nationally ranked on a regular basis simply doesn't belong in this conversation." (In regards to why Gonzaga was no longer a mid major). Of course it's been a while since some of the C7 have been consistently ranked too...

(12-23-2012 12:42 PM)College Basketball Fan Wrote:  Mid-major is all about the support that the program receives, especially financially, and the way it holds itself.

If you spend more then a million on your coach, constantly look to renovate and upgrade your facilities, consistently expect to win against BCS opponents, and non-fans have heard of you, you aren't a mid-major, regardless of what conference you are in.

That is a for a team. Conferences are different. Bids are very important (1 bid leagues are low major, 2-3 are usually midmajor, 4+ are power conferences), but they don't tell the whole story. A mid-major conference may get 4 bids in a year (MVC in 2006, for instance, A-10 this year probably), but they are still a mid-major conference.

I think the real difference is who you play, where you play them, and what people expect. If you can get BCS teams play conference teams at home every year, you aren't a mid-major. Scheduling is a key part of perception because it means that your opponent feels they have something to gain from playing you. When you can convince teams to go against you, it means that they feel you are good enough that a loss would have little negative effect on their reputation and a win would bolster their chances to get an at-large bid.

Recruiting in another big factor for a conference. Mid-major conferences, regardless of how good the teams are, rarely pull in Top50, or even Top150 recruits. If recruits want to play in your conference, and feel they will get enough exposure to potentially let them go to the next level, you aren't a mid-major conference.

So everyone on here will stop calling UD a mid-major now? I'd post my thoughts but I did it in another thread and still regard UD as high mid-major and some C7 schools as mid major

I think that there's a consensus that progams like Gonzaga, Temple and Butler aren't exactly midmajor programs but they're definitely in midmajor conferences.

REally, midmajor is a tag that attaches to conferences, not programs. I guess if a school is a comfortable fit in a midmajor conference, then the school is midmajor. So programs like Butler stick out from the rest of the Horizon, Temple and Xavier stick out from the A-10. I think Creighton and Witchita State are seen as fitting in well in the MVC, and St Louis and Dayton as comfortable fits in the A-10--there's no argument that they're bigger than the league.

I guess to escape midmajor-dom, you have to be bigger than your mid-major conference? VCU absolutely eclipsed the CAA.

Deserved or not, the veteran Big East schools don't have the midmajor tag. But we were associated with Syracuse, Louisville, UConn and the rest. REplacing them with interchangeable tournament regulars (or NIT regulars) from two-bid leagues, even ones with great fan support and great facilities, I see as a huge risk.

I think it's telling that there are two mortal locks--Butler and Xavier. Those are locks for a reason. And I think it's also telling that I haven't seen a list of 12 that didn't have VCU on it. (EXcept for some who said "VCU would be a lock but they're a large public university, not a private Catholic school.")

The hard cold reality is that the C-7 brings 4 question marks to the table, St Johns included. I don't think we can afford any more.

(12-23-2012 02:30 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  I think Creighton and Wichita State are seen as fitting in well in the MVC

That may seem to be the case from outside the conference, but both teams feel they absolutely do not belong in the Valley from a commitment standpoint.

Comparing the conference expenses (Men's basketball/total):

Wichita State: $5,071,471/$19,792,391
Creighton: $4,404,350/$15,062,122
Bradley: $3,846,345/$12,987,000
UNI: $2,449,710/$14,632,492
Drake: $2,226,291/$12,964,153
Illinois State: $2,183,876/$18,631,777
Evansville: $2,133,520/$10,043,793
SIU: $2,063,684/$19,671,796
Missouri State: $1,899,281/$13,605,468
Indiana State: $1,704,707/$12,394,542

In other words, if those two schools spend double what every college (other than Bradley) does, and outspend most the other teams in total expenses even without a football program (some MVC teams want to upgrade to FBS football).

It should also be noted that these schools are in general increasing their commitment regardless of conference change, while other schools in the conference are either decreasing their investment (eg, SIU), or redistributing it towards football (eg, UNI and Illinois State). They also spend that money with about 25% the recruiting budget of some Big East teams.

For wondering, Creighton and Wichita State would be below only Marquette and Georgetown in spending if they spent 50% of the additional money they would make from the media contract on basketball. That of course doesn't include potential profits down the line from NCAA credits or other sources of money.

(12-23-2012 03:07 PM)College Basketball Fan Wrote:  

(12-23-2012 02:30 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  I think Creighton and Wichita State are seen as fitting in well in the MVC

That may seem to be the case from outside the conference,....

I'm sorry to sound harsh, but that's really all that matters from a media/fan perception standpoint. The only ways to escape the midmajor tag that I see is to either A) get invited to a certified power conference--Marquette, DePaul 2005 (which we're not, we're a unique thing that people won't quite understand yet--an elite basketball league with no football) or B) put undeniable skins on the wall--Final Fours, four Sweet Sixteens in five years.

I've watched what happened to our old football league. At a certain point, the perception flipped from "Wounded Big East adding C-USA teams" to "Big East becomes C-USA". That's a major concern for the C-7, or it should be.

(12-23-2012 03:13 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-23-2012 03:07 PM)College Basketball Fan Wrote:  

(12-23-2012 02:30 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  I think Creighton and Wichita State are seen as fitting in well in the MVC

That may seem to be the case from outside the conference,....

I'm sorry to sound harsh, but that's really all that matters from a media/fan perception standpoint. The only ways to escape the midmajor tag that I see is to either A) get invited to a certified power conference--Marquette, DePaul 2005 (which we're not, we're a unique thing that people won't quite understand yet--an elite basketball league with no football) or B) put undeniable skins on the wall--Final Fours, four Sweet Sixteens in five years.

I've watched what happened to our old football league. At a certain point, the perception flipped from "Wounded Big East adding C-USA teams" to "Big East becomes C-USA". That's a major concern for the C-7, or it should be.

I understand where you are coming from, but let me put it this way:

No true mid-major school would consider Wichita State or Creighton to be in the same class. Wichita State's expenditures put it near the top 30 schools for total expenses, and Creighton is around the top 50. Whereas most midmajors are below the top 100.

That doesn't mean that your elite power conference teams would see them as equals, but they aren't really mid-major. Both teams have had historical success (Wichita State has a Final Four, three Elite 8s, four Sweet 16s, Creighton has 17 NCAA appearances), and both have major conference funding without major market TV deals.

Fans and media don't really know everything about a team, and generally make first impressions with very limited information. For those two schools, the general information is just their conference affiliation. "Oh, they are in the MVC, so they are a mid-major."

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that those two schools wouldn't really make the conference look like a group of mid-majors because they have the money and history (recent and long-term) of a power conference team. Whereas picking 5 A-10 teams would probably have that affect because they spend less and haven't had the same success.

I think the Perception of Turning into a Mid-Major (which I agree is a real threat and problem) is more from a media POV... And so far the media I think has been mostly positive towards the separation and the rumored candidates for inclusion. Of course this has been buoyed by the top candidates having winning resumes. I would worry about Dayton and St Louis together and the media's perception on their on court records.

(12-23-2012 03:37 PM)College Basketball Fan Wrote:  For those two schools, the general information is just their conference affiliation. "Oh, they are in the MVC, so they are a mid-major."

No, that's exactly the problem. More people know Gonzaga's been in umpty-hundred Sweet Sixteens than know they're in the WCC. More people know Butler was in the Final Four than know the Horizon League exists.

That's sort of the point of my Big East Application mic drop thread. Xavier, VCU and Butler are mic-drop schools. I'd say the other candidates are--very good midmajors.

(12-23-2012 06:24 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-23-2012 03:37 PM)College Basketball Fan Wrote:  For those two schools, the general information is just their conference affiliation. "Oh, they are in the MVC, so they are a mid-major."

No, that's exactly the problem. More people know Gonzaga's been in umpty-hundred Sweet Sixteens than know they're in the WCC. More people know Butler was in the Final Four than know the Horizon League exists.

That's sort of the point of my Big East Application mic drop thread. Xavier, VCU and Butler are mic-drop schools. I'd say the other candidates are--very good midmajors.

I agree (because honestly I think the best thing right now is to add just those 3 schools), but I think you could sort of make a case for Wichita State and Creighton over other candidates if you had a couple more years of information.
'
For reference, here is the number of times each team has gotten each level in the tournament:

Final Four:
Butler - 2 (2010, 2011)
VCU - 1 (2011)
Dayton - 1 (1967)
Wichita State - 1 (1965)
Xavier - 0
Creighton - 0
Saint Louis - 0
Gonzaga - 0

Elite Eight:
Wichita State - 3 (1964, 1965, 1981)
Butler - 2 (2010, 2011)
Xavier - 2 (2004, 2008)
Dayton - 2 (1967, 1984)
VCU - 1 (2011)
Gonzaga - 1 (1999)
Saint Louis - 1 (1952)
Creighton - 0

Sweet Sixteen:
Xavier - 6 (1990, 2003, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2012)
Dayton - 6 (1952, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1974, 1984)
Butler - 5 (1962, 2003, 2007, 2010, 2011)
Gonzaga - 5 (1999, 2000, 2001, 2006, 2009)
Wichita State - 4 (1964, 1965, 1981, 2006)
Creighton - 3 (1962, 1964, 1974)
Saint Louis - 2 (1952, 1957)
VCU - 1 (2011)

NCAA Appearances
Xavier - 23 (1961, 1983, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1993, 1995, 1997, 1998, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012)
Creighton - 17 (1941, 1962, 1964, 1974, 1975, 1978, 1981, 1989, 1991, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2012)
Dayton - 14 (1952, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1969, 1970, 1974, 1984, 1985, 1990, 2000, 2003, 2004, 2009)
Butler - 11 (1962, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011)
VCU - 11 (1980, 1981, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 2004, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2012)
Gonzaga - 11 (1995, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011)
Wichita State - 9 (1964, 1965, 1976, 1981. 1985, 1987, 1988, 2006, 2012)
Saint Louis - 7 (1952, 1957, 1994, 1995, 1998, 2000, 2012)


I don't think it is nearly as clear looking at the total package. None of those schools has been to as many Elite 8s as Wichita State for instance, and Creighton is second only to Xavier appearances. VCU never made a Sweet 16 before 2011, and Butler's Elite 8s were all in the last 3 years.

However, what we see is the recent impression of teams. No mid-major team has the recent impression value of VCU, Butler, Xavier, and Gonzaga.

I see no reason whatsoever to post on this site. What is the point - to be talked down to by fans of Big East schools?!?

I find it hard to believe Gonzaga has been to the NCAA's only 11 times when they've been to the last 14 (and counting, eventually this year) not to mention 1995.

(12-24-2012 12:28 AM)Caltex2 Wrote:  I find it hard to believe Gonzaga has been to the NCAA's only 11 times when they've been to the last 14 (and counting, ecntually this year) not to mention 1995.

You are right, my mistake. That was the number of times they've won their conference tournament, not the number of times they've been to the NCAA.

Correct stats:

Gonzaga - 14 (1995, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012)

Basically a mid-major is a conference that isn't a powerful "blue blood", historical conference. In simple terms, typically the cash flow for mid-majors is substantially lower and the fan bases are much smaller. This is a pretty interesting link.....

http://www.midmajority.com/redline

(12-23-2012 11:27 PM)DoubleJayAlum Wrote:  I see no reason whatsoever to post on this site. What is the point - to be talked down to by fans of Big East schools?!?

No, it's to exchange arguments and information. You guys are making good arguments about the Bluejays' fan support and consistent success.

I don't think I'm trashing Creighton when I say that a casual fan, and we're going to need casual college basketball fans (follow 1 team, watch 2-3 ESPN games a month) to recognize and watch, either doesn't know Creighton or knows them as a good midmajor. (And yes, they know some of our schools as "Big East doormats".)

If you get in, you'll be an asset to the league long-term. What I'm worried about is a short window that we'll have where national perception will either include the C-7 Big East as an "elite basketball conference" on a par with the Big 10, Big XII, SEC and New Big East, or as the "top midmajor league." Because that's going to matter to recruits and to fans in major cities with lots of sports options, two resources that the Big East needs.

I've always hated the tag because it has turned into what John Chaney so eloquently said: "They think it's the big football schools and the rest of us are just JV."

The first time I heard it, it was referencing conferences that don't have a second at-large candidate. During Championship week. To save the talking heads some time between games. Saying "depending on what happens in the conference tournaments where there is one and only one team who could earn at-large" was just too long(I heard this in 1995-97 range regarding Wally Sczerbiak's Miami Ohio team in the MAC).

Then the "BCS terminology" came into play and "mid-major" has been perverted so people think it means:
Major: BCS Six
Mid-Major: A10, CUSA, MWC, MVC, WCC, CAA (and Butler!)
Non-Major: The rest

Who's a mid-major conference SHOULD change by year, because the context is about bids. I think if conferences were labeled based on any kind of historical data for who fits these descriptions, people would be SHOCKED at the results.

-- I get fired up when the ESPN guys keep perpetrating the myth Chaney described. For the rest of the season, pay attention to the times some talking head mentions the A-10 and how many times they deliver the lines: "Multi-bid league" and "could/might have three NCAA teams" and say it as if that is complimentary. The A-10 AVERAGES 3 bids. --

The A10, C-USA and MWC usually get lumped in together as the second tier. Which is really silly:
The A-10 averages 3 (since their last major membership change: Xavier/Dayton)
C-USA has 1.5 bids per year since Louisville/Cincy/Marquette left.
The WCC's at like 1.8 bids per year since 2000.
And everyone else in the "mid-major" discussion is 1.1 - 1.4 bids per year, or the 1.0 non-majors.

Anytime I bring this up, I often get a reply of "but the A10 and MWC don't have 5-7 bids as a frequent occurrence and don't have multiple title contenders like the BCS conferences." And my rebuttal is:

A. - Has anyone watched Pac-10/12 basketball the last five years? Because those conferences are virtually identical up until the last possession of the regional final.
B. - That's like if in baseball, we'd say "there's guys who hit .330 and win MVP awards, guys who hit .240 and guys in the minors. Therefore, guys like Craig Biggio, Barry Larkin and Ozzie Smith are .240 hitters."

(12-24-2012 04:58 AM)JPSchmack Wrote:  I've always hated the tag because it has turned into what John Chaney so eloquently said: "They think it's the big football schools and the rest of us are just JV."

The first time I heard it, it was referencing conferences that don't have a second at-large candidate. During Championship week. To save the talking heads some time between games. Saying "depending on what happens in the conference tournaments where there is one and only one team who could earn at-large" was just too long(I heard this in 1995-97 range regarding Wally Sczerbiak's Miami Ohio team in the MAC).

Then the "BCS terminology" came into play and "mid-major" has been perverted so people think it means:
Major: BCS Six
Mid-Major: A10, CUSA, MWC, MVC, WCC, CAA (and Butler!)
Non-Major: The rest

Who's a mid-major conference SHOULD change by year, because the context is about bids. I think if conferences were labeled based on any kind of historical data for who fits these descriptions, people would be SHOCKED at the results.

One thing I'd say before looking at the numbers is that the top school or two in one-bid leagues get considered mid-majors. People would look at, say, Dayton vs Vermont as a midmajor matchup, not just a mismatch like Dayton vs Hartford University.

Quote:-- I get fired up when the ESPN guys keep perpetrating the myth Chaney described. For the rest of the season, pay attention to the times some talking head mentions the A-10 and how many times they deliver the lines: "Multi-bid league" and "could/might have three NCAA teams" and say it as if that is complimentary. The A-10 AVERAGES 3 bids. --

Does/should (bids/teams) matter? It's more impressive if a 10 league gets 3 bids than a 14 bid league. (Yes, this takes some luster off of some of the Big East's totals--11 of 16 is just a little over half, but how often does 5 out of 9 or 7 out of 12 happen?)

Quote:The A10, C-USA and MWC usually get lumped in together as the second tier. Which is really silly:
The A-10 averages 3 (since their last major membership change: Xavier/Dayton)
C-USA has 1.5 bids per year since Louisville/Cincy/Marquette left.
The WCC's at like 1.8 bids per year since 2000.
And everyone else in the "mid-major" discussion is 1.1 - 1.4 bids per year, or the 1.0 non-majors.

HAving looked at your numbers, (and assuming off the top of my head that the Mountain West averages 2-4 bids), that puts the A-10 and Mountain West as solid midmajor leagues (before the C-7 stripmines the A-10), the WCC right there in the conversation, with points off for lack of depth--I don't think anyone but Gonzaga, St Mary's and BYU has gone in a while. (REspect to the San Franscisco Dons of yore, but yore was a long time ago). The CAA struggles to get two bids, and everyone else is a one-bid league or has to hope their regular season champ has a strong enough resume to survive losing the confernce tourney

EDIT: Oh, and I forgot to type--C-USA is a one bid league lving off the legacy of 1995-2005, plus MEmphis.

Quote:Anytime I bring this up, I often get a reply of "but the A10 and MWC don't have 5-7 bids as a frequent occurrence and don't have multiple title contenders like the BCS conferences." And my rebuttal is:

A. - Has anyone watched Pac-10/12 basketball the last five years? Because those conferences are virtually identical up until the last possession of the regional final.
B. - That's like if in baseball, we'd say "there's guys who hit .330 and win MVP awards, guys who hit .240 and guys in the minors. Therefore, guys like Craig Biggio, Barry Larkin and Ozzie Smith are .240 hitters."

Mid-Majors are in the ESPN Mid-Major Report. The A10 has not been a mid-mayor for a very long time.
ESPN Mid-Major Report

The Big East raiding the A10 is nothing new as Villanova, Rutgers, West Virginia, Pittsburg, Viriginia Tech and Temple.
Scan down to the chart, green lines