ESPN Mid-Major Rankings- Shocks#1

[Downtown Shocker Brown]

Gonzaga has been a 1 coach program. Who knows what will happen when Few leaves.

Monson turned that program around. Few hit the ground running with Monson's players and has been able to sustain the level. He didn't create it though.

[The Mad Hatter]

Gonzaga has been a 1 coach program. Who knows what will happen when Few leaves.

This is actually not true. The had Dan Monson for two years before Few took over. In Monson's second year Gonzaga went to the Elite 8 and Monson was hired away by Minnesota (now the case study for why it isn't always a good idea to leave for a Big 6 school).

Edit: @Downtown Shocker Brown: beat me to it.

[martymoose]

I still stand by my comment...they're basically a 1 coach program. We'll see what happens with Few leaves.

[The Mad Hatter]

I still stand by my comment...they're basically a 1 coach program. We'll see what happens with Few leaves.

So we are just supposed to ignore the coach that took them to their only Elite 8 appearance, who led them to their first win over a ranked opponent in school history, and who had as many conference championships in his two years as the program had in its entire history up to that point?

[ShockTalk]

Gonzaga has been a 1 coach program. Who knows what will happen when Few leaves.

Few is "the face" of the Gonzaga program to most of the nation, but not the only coach responsible for Gonzaga's rise and success.

Dan Fitzgerald hired Few and Dan Monson and took the Zags to their first NCAA in 1995. It was players recruited under Fitzgerald's tenure that made the Elite 8 run in 1999 under Monson. Monson was 52-17 in his two years before Few.

"I wouldn't be here if it wasn't for Fitz," Few told The Spokesman-Review. Few was brought to campus in the early 1990s as a low-paid assistant.

"He's had a huge impact on how we still run the program, how we work, how we prepare," Few said. "What we do and what we achieve now has Fitz's imprint all over it."

[Kung Wu]

Dan Fitzgerald hired Few and Dan Monson and took the Zags to their first NCAA in 1995. It was players recruited under Fitzgerald's tenure that made the Elite 8 run in 1999 under Monson. Monson was 52-17 in his two years before Few.

"I wouldn't be here if it wasn't for Fitz," Few told The Spokesman-Review. Few was brought to campus in the early 1990s as a low-paid assistant.

"He's had a huge impact on how we still run the program, how we work, how we prepare," Few said. "What we do and what we achieve now has Fitz's imprint all over it."

So you are saying we found our new AD, when Sexton leaves?

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

There are three ways to get out of the "mid-major" label.

1. Add a competitive Football team
2. Create a dynasty that goes beyond one player or one coach ala Gonzaga and Memphis (though Memphis had to cheat to make that happen)
3. Create/join an elite non-football basketball conference...WSU, Creighton, Xavier, Bradley, Memphis, and St. Louis would be a start and other football schools like Tulsa, Missouri State, Butler, etc. could join the fold regionally. I'd really like to see this happen.

Memphis football is mediocre, Gonzaga doesn't have football, and Xavier has a club team. Having football hardly punches your ticket out of mid-major land. Like Gonzaga, or Butler, or a number of "mid-major's", Duke's success can be attributed to one coach. The key is consistency, whether it's with one coach or several. But I agree in principle if the point is "mid-majors" have a hard time keeping coaches once they become successful, and they tend to experience peaks and valleys to an extreme many big 6 programs do not.

Sports writers muddy the waters when they blanket label any program from a non-BCS conference as a "mid-major." Instead, they should identify individual programs that may find themselves in mid-major conferences, but experience consistent success, as "majors." Memphis, Gonzaga, Xavier, Butler, etc, would fit this bill. There are some programs within the big 6 that are traditionally God-awful and would be lucky to have much success in "mid-major" conferences. Colorado and Nebraska immediately come to mind--there are some "mid-majors" like these stuck in big 6 conferences. If they must use the term "mid-major," use it to define a program, not the conference. "Small" conference is also a misnomer. How about "non-BCS"? That's a term that won't illicit untold debates over a definition. For a bunch of guys who get paid to use words, sports journalists often seem to pick the wrong ones.

[shockmonster]

Memphis football is mediocre, Gonzaga doesn't have football, and Xavier has a club team. Having football hardly punches your ticket out of mid-major land. Like Gonzaga, or Butler, or a number of "mid-major's", Duke's success can be attributed to one coach. The key is consistency, whether it's with one coach or several. But I agree in principle if the point is "mid-majors" have a hard time keeping coaches once they become successful, and they tend to experience peaks and valleys to an extreme many big 6 programs do not.

Sports writers muddy the waters when they blanket label any program from a non-BCS conference as a "mid-major." Instead, they should identify individual programs that may find themselves in mid-major conferences, but experience consistent success, as "majors." Memphis, Gonzaga, Xavier, Butler, etc, would fit this bill. There are some programs within the big 6 that are traditionally God-awful and would be lucky to have much success in "mid-major" conferences. Colorado and Nebraska immediately come to mind--there are some "mid-majors" like these stuck in big 6 conferences. If they must use the term "mid-major," use it to define a program, not the conference. "Small" conference is also a misnomer. How about "non-BCS"? That's a term that won't illicit untold debates over a definition. For a bunch of guys who get paid to use words, sports journalists often seem to pick the wrong ones.

1+

[KSUUWSU]

Can someone summarize the article for us non-ESPN insiders? inquiring minds want to know what was said. Thanks.

[AndShock]

Can someone summarize the article for us non-ESPN insiders? inquiring minds want to know what was said. Thanks.

Not much, all of the WSU section is available to non-Insiders. Then it has a blurb on St. Mary's, Belmont, Creighton and Harvard.

And it has the Top 12 mid-majors: "Rankings based on efficiency margin, the difference between adjusted offensive efficiency and adjusted defensive efficiency. Rounded to the nearest hundredth." UNI is #6

[kochHead]

YES!!!!! I love this article!!!! After you subtract almost every conference that produces decent basketball and then subtract winning schools from the ones that don’t, you can only come to one conclusion, WE ARE #1!

Ridiculous...but I guess some pub is better than none.

[Kung Wu]

So you are saying we found our new AD, when Sexton leaves?

Bah @ShockTalk: asked what the hell I was talking about, since Fitz is deceased. I guess that rules him out for future AD?

[WstateU]

Never liked the term Mid-Major, but whatever floats their boat...

[KSUUWSU]

Not much, all of the WSU section is available to non-Insiders. Then it has a blurb on St. Mary's, Belmont, Creighton and Harvard.

And it has the Top 12 mid-majors: "Rankings based on efficiency margin, the difference between adjusted offensive efficiency and adjusted defensive efficiency. Rounded to the nearest hundredth." UNI is #6

Awesome, thanks AndShock!

[molly jabali]

THAT would be a great league!!!!!