(07-01-2020 09:44 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(07-01-2020 04:25 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  The term "mid-major" is meaningless and stupid. It's used by P5 pundits that want to further express their own superiority, without actually saying what they mean or defining anything.

Though it was developed a long time before there was a Power 5 ... indeed, it was developed before there were AQ and non-AQ schools in the BCS, since it predates the BCS.

Pretty sure it was mid to late 80s (although its possible it was as late as the 90s). ESPN used it to promote games.

When the term was first coined, its idea was pretty clear. There were majors, mid-majors and minors, basically 1/3, 1/3, 1/3.
The Cincinnatis, Memphis, CUSA 1.0 types were clearly majors. WAC was clearly major. And about a third of Division I was clearly NOT mid-major. The term "minor" wasn't used, but MEAC, SWAC, Trans-America, Southland, etc. were NOT mid-majors.

ESPN has started using major as another term for the P5 + Big East.

So you can argue all you want about your own personal definitions, but you aren't going to agree, because some of us stick with the original intent and others are buying into the recent ESPN announcers' use. Now there may be some agreement on pecking order.

(07-02-2020 12:28 PM)bullet Wrote:  When the term was first coined, its idea was pretty clear. There were majors, mid-majors and minors, basically 1/3, 1/3, 1/3.
The Cincinnatis, Memphis, CUSA 1.0 types were clearly majors. WAC was clearly major. And about a third of Division I was clearly NOT mid-major. The term "minor" wasn't used, but MEAC, SWAC, Trans-America, Southland, etc. were NOT mid-majors.

ESPN has started using major as another term for the P5 + Big East.

So you can argue all you want about your own personal definitions, but you aren't going to agree, because some of us stick with the original intent and others are buying into the recent ESPN announcers' use. Now there may be some agreement on pecking order.

Excellent point, Bullet.

I, as you know, stick to the original intent with the terms.

SMU, Cincy, Houston and Memphis represent schools that fell out of the Major category (UConn and TCU for awhile as well), while others have moved up into that category (Utah, Rutgers, Butler). Others have always been in that twilight zone (Temple, Wichita State, Gonzaga, Dayton, Saint Louis). The fact that the American has so many twilight zone schools (add Tulsa and perhaps UCF to that grouping) and it's fans have such bruised egos about their schools status is what has driven this on for several pages.

They had a few strong years of 3 bids in the Tourney, while the P12 went through a 4 year downswing, such that they felt they should be considered along side the majors. And Covid-19 struck hiding a reality of this year's performance drop off (only 1 certain, with 2 borderline, and I think the way the tourney committee works they'd have chosen one of those two borderline) at the same time the P12 came roaring back with at least 6 in the tournament, possibly 7. Had the tournament been selected, I think some of this talk would have dialed back some.

But everyone seems to be in agreement: Gonzaga is really a major (looks like a Big East program), and the American is definitely the strongest of the non-major conferences, probably the MWC a bit ahead of the A-10 and WCC as the others in the "High Mid-Major" category. I designate these conferences as they all, more times than not, get an at-large bid. These programs are made up of 4 year players, not one and done supported by four year like the majors. But these are many of the best 4 year players.

(And I no more consider ECU and Tulane the standard of the American anymore than I consider Air Force and San Jose State the standard of the MWC or LaSalle the standard of the A10; every conference has their boat anchors.)

We should maybe look at this on an individual school basis. The power conferences would have "Royalty" (e.g., Duke, Kansas, Kentucky category of resources), "High Majors", "Majors", and "Low Majors". If you did that then Gonzaga would be in the "High Major" category, while Dayton and Memphis would be in the "Major" category. Several AAC, as well as a couple WCC, MWC and A10 schools would fall in the "Low Major" grouping (e.g., BYU, Cincy, Houston, Colorado State, Temple, San Diego State, VCU, Saint Louis, SMU,Tulsa, Rhode Island, New Mexico, etc) -- Depending on where you draw the line, between 12 and 25 schools in all. Many power schools (about 20) fall in this same category of "Low Major".

More interesting to me is who comes after the top ten conferences (6 majors, 4 High mid-majors) who average over 35 of the 36 at-large given out each year. But every once in awhile a lesser conference springs an at-large. How should we view these?

One way is by bids. This argues more for only looking at the top schools (e.g., Belmont and Murray State in the OVC). Or should we just base on the average strength of the conference? These lesser conferences really are low resource, and the tourney bids mean they tend to produce only one or at most two good schools. There is only room for a single NCAA bid.

CUSA is the biggest disappointment, but also the MAC and MVC. I think players see that chances are low of playing post season in such conferences, so tend to congregate only at the strongest single school or two, or look at joining a school in the "High Mid-Major" category where there is a chance of getting somewhere. So maybe there really isn't any meaningful difference between the 11th and 25th conference. Being the 2nd best team in the Southern is no better than being the 2nd best team in the MVC or CUSA; you are probably not dancing.

The tournament committee has started favoring 16-14 schools in major conferences over 20+ wins schools in conferences like the MVC. I think the prevalence of wins by #12 seeds shows that the committee underrates the teams outside the P5 and Big East.

MVC has had a couple of down years, but the reason the MVC (and to a lesser extent the MAC who didn't get them as often) isn't getting multiple bids frequently anymore has to do with biases of the tournament committee, not the conferences themselves.

The #11 MVC in Sagarin at 74.77, in a relatively down year, was closer to the #6 Pac 12 (80.24) than to the bottom 13 conferences (#21 Horizon 68.79-#33 MEAC 61.42). For that matter it was closer to #4 ACC (82.11) than to the bottom 8 (67.34-61.42).

(07-02-2020 01:39 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  SMU, Cincy, Houston and Memphis represent schools that fell out of the Major category (UConn and TCU for awhile as well), while others have moved up into that category (Utah, Rutgers, Butler). Others have always been in that twilight zone (Temple, Wichita State, Gonzaga, Dayton, Saint Louis). The fact that the American has so many twilight zone schools (add Tulsa and perhaps UCF to that grouping) and it's fans have such bruised egos about their schools status is what has driven this on for several pages.

They had a few strong years of 3 bids in the Tourney, while the P12 went through a 4 year downswing, such that they felt they should be considered along side the majors. And Covid-19 struck hiding a reality of this year's performance drop off (only 1 certain, with 2 borderline, and I think the way the tourney committee works they'd have chosen one of those two borderline) at the same time the P12 came roaring back with at least 6 in the tournament, possibly 7. Had the tournament been selected, I think some of this talk would have dialed back some.

But everyone seems to be in agreement: Gonzaga is really a major (looks like a Big East program), and the American is definitely the strongest of the non-major conferences, probably the MWC a bit ahead of the A-10 and WCC as the others in the "High Mid-Major" category. I designate these conferences as they all, more times than not, get an at-large bid. These programs are made up of 4 year players, not one and done supported by four year like the majors. But these are many of the best 4 year players.

(And I no more consider ECU and Tulane the standard of the American anymore than I consider Air Force and San Jose State the standard of the MWC or LaSalle the standard of the A10; every conference has their boat anchors.)

We should maybe look at this on an individual school basis. The power conferences would have "Royalty" (e.g., Duke, Kansas, Kentucky category of resources), "High Majors", "Majors", and "Low Majors". If you did that then Gonzaga would be in the "High Major" category, while Dayton and Memphis would be in the "Major" category. Several AAC, as well as a couple WCC, MWC and A10 schools would fall in the "Low Major" grouping (e.g., BYU, Cincy, Houston, Colorado State, Temple, San Diego State, VCU, Saint Louis, SMU,Tulsa, Rhode Island, New Mexico, etc) -- Depending on where you draw the line, between 12 and 25 schools in all. Many power schools (about 20) fall in this same category of "Low Major".

More interesting to me is who comes after the top ten conferences (6 majors, 4 High mid-majors) who average over 35 of the 36 at-large given out each year. But every once in awhile a lesser conference springs an at-large. How should we view these?

One way is by bids. This argues more for only looking at the top schools (e.g., Belmont and Murray State in the OVC). Or should we just base on the average strength of the conference? These lesser conferences really are low resource, and the tourney bids mean they tend to produce only one or at most two good schools. There is only room for a single NCAA bid.

CUSA is the biggest disappointment, but also the MAC and MVC. I think players see that chances are low of playing post season in such conferences, so tend to congregate only at the strongest single school or two, or look at joining a school in the "High Mid-Major" category where there is a chance of getting somewhere. So maybe there really isn't any meaningful difference between the 11th and 25th conference. Being the 2nd best team in the Southern is no better than being the 2nd best team in the MVC or CUSA; you are probably not dancing.

Though I don't agree with every point you make, you do offer a fair and comprehensive assessment overall. I agree with lots of this. You put some thought into this overview, Stugray2. Well done.

(07-02-2020 11:06 AM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 10:19 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(07-01-2020 06:42 PM)pesik Wrote:  It’s silly to consider the aac mid major .. my justification is simple

Anyone who genuinely cares about mid-major basketball and covering them does not include the AAC..the 4 biggest mid-major basketball sites (technically the only 4 I know) don’t count the AAC..the aac gets national coverage, covering them as mid-major would make no sense, as a mid major site is likely to shine smaller programs (Memphis/penny had a espn+ show, Cincy is on 9 straight tourney, Houston is preseason top15, temple is a top 10 historic winning program, Wichita has a recent final 4)

On the reverse if you remove labels, if you have a national bball website/tv show covering major b-ball stories.. you have to cover the AAC. The aac tournament championship over the last 5 years averaged more viewers than the big east and the pac 12

In the 2019-2020 basketball season, this was the final Conference Net Rankings:

1) Big East
2) Big Ten
3) Big 12
4) Pac-12
5) SEC
6) ACC
7) American Athletic
8) Atlantic 10
9) West Coast
10) Mountain West

https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men...pening-day

ACC 85
Pac-12 67
SEC 66
Big 12 47
Big Ten 42
Big East 27
AAC 20
MWC 15
WCC 9
A-10 8

The top ten conferences in NBA talent are the same top ten conferences in Net Conference Ranking. The power conferences have the best talent and are usually ranked at the top in conference ranking. The AAC has some very good coaches but the talent is not as good and they are not close in revenue. That is why the AAC is a mid-major. I consider them the best mid-major, but a mid-major nonetheless.

You don't understand the AAC at all. The AAC is coming out of a cycle of bad to atrocious coaches. The talent level is quickly rising and as far as your "not close in revenue " comment,,,, you've proven that you don't know hack s!$+ about AAC programs.

https://247sports.com/Season/2020-Basket...highschool

https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

I am not sure why you are so emotional about this, but look at the rankings. The AAC does not have a player ranked in the top 75 in the 247sports 2020 basketball recruiting rankings. They do not have a team in the top 40 of team rankings for 2020. They don't have a school in the top 50 for college athletic revenue. Look at the 2019 NBA draft. Not a single player from the conference was selected in the draft. That is because they are a mid-major conference, not a power conference.

Mid-Major status in 2020, is not about your performance, no matter how good you perform, its about the systems hierarchy, that has been shaped by those at the top with money, power, and influence. those power 5 conferences, yes that is a football term, that is now used for every sport. they have/are redefining the marketing perception and terminology. they still have more work to do, but they are working on it.

its actually the exact same as the AAC p6 marketing campaign, except, the AAC is not in the top of the hierarchy, so they cant just add themselves into the group.

(07-02-2020 03:44 PM)balanced_view Wrote:  Mid-Major status in 2020, is not about your performance, no matter how good you perform, its about the systems hierarchy, that has been shaped by those at the top with money, power, and influence. those power 5 conferences, yes that is a football term, that is now used for every sport. they have/are redefining the marketing perception and terminology.

its actually the exact same as the AAC p6 marketing campaign, except, the AAC is not in the top of the hierarchy, so they cant just add themselves into the group.

As I said, that is how ESPN is trying to re-define the term into meaning something different than it has meant.

(07-02-2020 10:19 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(07-01-2020 06:42 PM)pesik Wrote:  It’s silly to consider the aac mid major .. my justification is simple

Anyone who genuinely cares about mid-major basketball and covering them does not include the AAC..the 4 biggest mid-major basketball sites (technically the only 4 I know) don’t count the AAC..the aac gets national coverage, covering them as mid-major would make no sense, as a mid major site is likely to shine smaller programs (Memphis/penny had a espn+ show, Cincy is on 9 straight tourney, Houston is preseason top15, temple is a top 10 historic winning program, Wichita has a recent final 4)

On the reverse if you remove labels, if you have a national bball website/tv show covering major b-ball stories.. you have to cover the AAC. The aac tournament championship over the last 5 years averaged more viewers than the big east and the pac 12

In the 2019-2020 basketball season, this was the final Conference Net Rankings:

1) Big East
2) Big Ten
3) Big 12
4) Pac-12
5) SEC
6) ACC
7) American Athletic
8) Atlantic 10
9) West Coast
10) Mountain West

https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men...pening-day

ACC 85
Pac-12 67
SEC 66
Big 12 47
Big Ten 42
Big East 27
AAC 20
MWC 15
WCC 9
A-10 8

The top ten conferences in NBA talent are the same top ten conferences in Net Conference Ranking. The power conferences have the best talent and are usually ranked at the top in conference ranking. The AAC has some very good coaches but the talent is not as good and they are not close in revenue. That is why the AAC is a mid-major. I consider them the best mid-major, but a mid-major nonetheless.

but the aac has more money than the big east...by a big margin

and the talent argument is silly, 100% of the aac has a 4star on roster..this includes ecu, ucf, usf tulane ..the comparison of aac rosters to mid majors not named gonzaga would be silly

this is memphis' roster for next season:
top 30 4* boogie ellis
top 50 4* dj jeffries
top 70 4* lester quinones
top 70 4* landers nolley
top 100 4* malcom dandridge
top 100 4* damion baugh
top 150 4* lance thomas
top 150 4* alex lomax
top 150 4* Isaiah Stokes
top 10 transfer - deandre Williams (had a kentucky offer)

--they are consider a top 3 favorite for top 10 Recruit, 5* Mousse Cisse who commits in a few days for the 2020 class

interesting fact if memphis doesnt land cisse, they wont even be considered a top 3 roster in the conference ..this is what you are stacking up against mid majors

(07-02-2020 03:44 PM)balanced_view Wrote:  Mid-Major status in 2020, is not about your performance, no matter how good you perform, its about the systems hierarchy, that has been shaped by those at the top with money, power, and influence. those power 5 conferences, yes that is a football term, that is now used for every sport. they have/are redefining the marketing perception and terminology. they still have more work to do, but they are working on it.

its actually the exact same as the AAC p6 marketing campaign, except, the AAC is not in the top of the hierarchy, so they cant just add themselves into the group.

the aac more money and power than the big east....the aac has a distribution of 7mil per, the big east has a 5mill distribution

power status (a football term) and mid-major/high-major ( a basketball term) are differnt things

(07-02-2020 02:54 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 11:06 AM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 10:19 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(07-01-2020 06:42 PM)pesik Wrote:  It’s silly to consider the aac mid major .. my justification is simple

Anyone who genuinely cares about mid-major basketball and covering them does not include the AAC..the 4 biggest mid-major basketball sites (technically the only 4 I know) don’t count the AAC..the aac gets national coverage, covering them as mid-major would make no sense, as a mid major site is likely to shine smaller programs (Memphis/penny had a espn+ show, Cincy is on 9 straight tourney, Houston is preseason top15, temple is a top 10 historic winning program, Wichita has a recent final 4)

On the reverse if you remove labels, if you have a national bball website/tv show covering major b-ball stories.. you have to cover the AAC. The aac tournament championship over the last 5 years averaged more viewers than the big east and the pac 12

In the 2019-2020 basketball season, this was the final Conference Net Rankings:

1) Big East
2) Big Ten
3) Big 12
4) Pac-12
5) SEC
6) ACC
7) American Athletic
8) Atlantic 10
9) West Coast
10) Mountain West

https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men...pening-day

ACC 85
Pac-12 67
SEC 66
Big 12 47
Big Ten 42
Big East 27
AAC 20
MWC 15
WCC 9
A-10 8

The top ten conferences in NBA talent are the same top ten conferences in Net Conference Ranking. The power conferences have the best talent and are usually ranked at the top in conference ranking. The AAC has some very good coaches but the talent is not as good and they are not close in revenue. That is why the AAC is a mid-major. I consider them the best mid-major, but a mid-major nonetheless.

You don't understand the AAC at all. The AAC is coming out of a cycle of bad to atrocious coaches. The talent level is quickly rising and as far as your "not close in revenue " comment,,,, you've proven that you don't know hack s!$+ about AAC programs.

https://247sports.com/Season/2020-Basket...highschool

https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

I am not sure why you are so emotional about this, but look at the rankings. The AAC does not have a player ranked in the top 75 in the 247sports 2020 basketball recruiting rankings. They do not have a team in the top 40 of team rankings for 2020. They don't have a school in the top 50 for college athletic revenue. Look at the 2019 NBA draft. Not a single player from the conference was selected in the draft. That is because they are a mid-major conference, not a power conference.

The American is not a "power men's basketball league." But it also is not a "mid-major" conference like (as I've noted) the OVC. To equate the AAC with a fully mid-major league is to show a lack of understanding of the hierarchy of college basketball.

(07-02-2020 02:54 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  https://247sports.com/Season/2020-Basket...highschool

https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

I am not sure why you are so emotional about this, but look at the rankings. The AAC does not have a player ranked in the top 75 in the 247sports 2020 basketball recruiting rankings. They do not have a team in the top 40 of team rankings for 2020. They don't have a school in the top 50 for college athletic revenue. Look at the 2019 NBA draft. Not a single player from the conference was selected in the draft. That is because they are a mid-major conference, not a power conference.

memphis literally had the #1 recruiting class just last year...
--jalen green the #2 player on the list has publicly said he was going to memphis before the g-league called

--#9 moussa csse is chosing between memphis and lsu in the next few days
--#17 as i was literally typing this Makur Maker just announced he doesnt want to go pro anymore, and choosing between ucla, memphis and kentucky

and we dont have a team in the recruiting ranking (yet...) because our top teams didnt lose many players except cincy.. and cincy got a bunch of super touted transfers

Honestly... you people are delusional. Take a look at this clip of UC-Memphis from last year.. does this arena, the crowd and the athletes look mid-major to you? To lump UC and Memphis in with Wisconsin-Green Bay, Fordham, Troy, or whatever other team you want to throw out there is an insult to one’s intelligence.

[/img]

Every individual person can define mid-major or whatever word they want a certain way. All im saying is the "powers that be" the ones that are running/ruining college sports, are working at creating there own meaning. performance not withstanding. if i was debating about performance, the half of the AAC is power team, and at least last year showed to be a power conference overall.

(07-02-2020 04:11 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Honestly... you people are delusional. Take a look at this clip of UC-Memphis from last year.. does this arena, the crowd and the athletes look mid-major to you? To lump UC and Memphis in with Wisconsin-Green Bay, Fordham, Troy, or whatever other team you want to throw out there is an insult to one’s intelligence.

[/img]

That's great but I could show clips from App@TXST this year or UTA@TXST in 2019 that look pretty darn good too. One clip doesnt tell all.

(07-02-2020 04:11 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Honestly... you people are delusional. Take a look at this clip of UC-Memphis from last year.. does this arena, the crowd and the athletes look mid-major to you? To lump UC and Memphis in with Wisconsin-Green Bay, Fordham, Troy, or whatever other team you want to throw out there is an insult to one’s intelligence.

[/img]

GCU has bought an exciting atmosphere - they are mid-major.

Gonzaga has an exciting atmosphere. WCC is mid-major, but at the upper end.

But Gonzaga is a major program. So are Cincy and Memphis. UConn is a major program.

Houston, Wichita State and Temple are in that gray area - not major, but not mid

Tulsa, UCF, USF, ECU, Tulane, SMU - some better than others, but I wouldn't call them major programs.

Cincy has both the basketball and Football tradition and current strength to be in a Major conference. Unfortunately they are not in a Major conference.

(07-02-2020 04:10 PM)pesik Wrote:  memphis literally had the #1 recruiting class just last year...

Dude .... We all suspect that Memphis is back to their old tricks, skating on thin ice. What are the chances this will last long before the NCAA hammer falls again?

I bet Memphis is betting the NCAA won't exist in a year or two.

James Wiseman situation is fishy. That Memphis out recruits Calipari and coach K is suspicious. Something is not right with the picture.

(07-02-2020 04:04 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  The American is not a "power men's basketball league." But it also is not a "mid-major" conference like (as I've noted) the OVC. To equate the AAC with a fully mid-major league is to show a lack of understanding of the hierarchy of college basketball.

Give me a break. You think I am trying to equate the AAC with the OVC? Come on. Cincinnati, as an example, has been to six straight NCAA tournaments since the AAC became a conference. They would have made it seven straight if it were not for the pandemic. They have been the best, most consistent basketball team in the AAC. They are 3-6 in the NCAA tournament. Only one team, Houston in 2019, has made the sweet sixteen since 2014.

The WCC is a mid-major conference. Gonzaga is an example of school with "power conference qualities" in a mid-major league. Gonzaga has gone to five straight sweet sixteens. In the 2019 NBA draft, Gonzaga had two players picked in the first round, the draft where no one from the AAC got selected. Gonzaga recruited two players from the top 75 ranked high school basketball players in 2020. The AAC had none.

The AAC is a good mid-major league without a Gonzaga. In basketball, the five power conferences and the Big East are the power schools. I said previously in a post that I thought the AAC was the best mid-major. Maybe they should be called a "high mid-major." In my opinion, if you are not a power conference school, you are a mid-major. That is what Gonzaga is. They can't be a power conference school playing in the WCC.