Maybe the end of "Mid Major"

[Trueshock]

Why even mention it.

I've been saying this for a few years now...glad it's catching on.

http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebaske...n-on-mid-major

Why do they even mention that Wichita State is mid-major ? If mid-major programs are not deemed worthy, then why are they even included in the high -major college games. It sounds to me that they have a built in bias against such teams and that would not be right. I think the implication is that they think we are inferior to the BCS colleges. Is that based on size alone or on talent. The assumption is,that smaller colleges cannot possibly get any great recruits. Some of the mid-major recruits went to obscure high schools and went un-noticed. Without any BCS scholarships they could not to go to a high-major school so they went to a more affordable junior college.
How many players have fallen through the cracks like this ? There is too much presuming and assuming going on with the BCS colleges and much of it is false.

[ShockTalk]

Five Keys to getting others to believe that a non-BCS team has that "Major Aura":

1) Winning your conference more times than not.

2) Winning your conference tournament more times that not.

3) Having a history of getting to the Dance regularly.

4) Making a run in the Dance occasionally.

5) Winning, or at least getting to the finals, of a quality non-con tournament.

Reasonable combinations of the above will do. I think you will find that schools like Butler, Gonzaga, Xavier, VCU, and UNLV have done this.

Obviously, it is totally unfair that many, if not most, BCS teams ride their big brothers' coattails.

[rrshock]

Five Keys to getting others to believe that a non-BCS team has that "Major Aura":

1) Winning your conference more times than not.

2) Winning your conference tournament more times that not.

3) Having a history of getting to the Dance regularly.

4) Making a run in the Dance occasionally.

5) Winning, or at least getting to the finals, of a quality non-con tournament.

Reasonable combinations of the above will do. I think you will find that schools like Butler, Gonzaga, Xavier, VCU, and UNLV have done this.

Obviously, it is totally unfair that many, if not most, BCS teams ride their big brothers' coattails.

The coattails comment is spot on. What has Clemson and Auburn done in basketball? Boston College, Depaul, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Providence, Iowa, Washington St., Oregon St. and so on? They are all the same. They are not on par with WSU, they just get to say they are part of a certain conference. They might get more tv money, but they aren't in the same category as a WSU or even a Creighton or Gonzaga.

[rrshock]

it's a RIVALS term

Thanks. I couldn't remember for sure. I don't know why I thought it was ESPN other than they use it all the time.

[rrshock]

We definitely need post season success to open more doors. That's what the other non-BcS teams have had to do to get certain games and make people look at them differently. It's coming.

I agree that it is coming. But the post season success has to happen first. I would think that with WSU consistently having a great RPI at the end of the season, that it wouldn't be hard to get the games. But then again there are certain school, cough KU cough, that think they will lose too much by playing WSU.

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

Five Keys to getting others to believe that a non-BCS team has that "Major Aura":

1) Winning your conference more times than not.

2) Winning your conference tournament more times that not.

3) Having a history of getting to the Dance regularly.

4) Making a run in the Dance occasionally.

5) Winning, or at least getting to the finals, of a quality non-con tournament.

Reasonable combinations of the above will do. I think you will find that schools like Butler, Gonzaga, Xavier, VCU, and UNLV have done this.

Obviously, it is totally unfair that many, if not most, BCS teams ride their big brothers' coattails.

You're on the right track. I don't think winning your conference and/or conference tournament is a key any more than that it gets a team to the Dance. Marshall's Winthrop teams won the Big South with regularity and made the NCAA's something like 9 years straight, but there was no argument that Winthrop be called a major program. I think you start with your #3:

1) Having a history of getting to the Dance regularly

2) Winning more than a game or two in the Dance more often than not

3) Being ranked in the top 25 at least at some point during the regular season on a consistent basis

4) Have quality facilities and a budget large enough to retain quality coaching and effectively recruit

5) Oh, did I mention having a history of getting to the Dance regularly and winning a game or two?

[shockmonster]

Creighton won't be "Mid-Major" when they join the C-7 in a couple years. But you are correct about the scheduling.

Is this official now? Or is it an established rumor? Or is it just your opinion? I haven't been paying very much attention to this recently. However, I have read about a lot of different rumors and possible scenarios although nobody knew what was happening for sure.

[SubGod22]

Seeding when you get the the Dance is important. Winthrop was a 14+ seed. That's not the case with CU. That's a big difference.

[ShockTalk]

You're on the right track. I don't think winning your conference and/or conference tournament is a key any more than that it gets a team to the Dance. Marshall's Winthrop teams won the Big South with regularity and made the NCAA's something like 9 years straight, but there was no argument that Winthrop be called a major program. I think you start with your #3:

1) Having a history of getting to the Dance regularly

2) Winning more than a game or two in the Dance more often than not

3) Being ranked in the top 25 at least at some point during the regular season on a consistent basis

4) Have quality facilities and a budget large enough to retain quality coaching and effectively recruit

5) Oh, did I mention having a history of getting to the Dance regularly and winning a game or two?

I was being somewhat polite in my post in that you're probably not going to do #3-5 on my list with any substance without being able to do #1 and #2 if you're in the Valley. WSU fails somewhat at #1 and fails miserably at #2. Those lead to much fewer Dance tickets and so on. On your list, you also won't be doing #3 regularly if you are not doing the 1st 2 that are on mine.

Your #4 is meaningless without comparable results sooner or later.

[LuskingforGuttin]

The coattails comment is spot on. What has Clemson and Auburn done in basketball? Boston College, Depaul, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Providence, Iowa, Washington St., Oregon St. and so on? They are all the same. They are not on par with WSU, they just get to say they are part of a certain conference. They might get more tv money, but they aren't in the same category as a WSU or even a Creighton or Gonzaga.

Clemson had some great years under Rick Barnes and had success with Oliver Purnell. They have slipped under Brownell but they have a decent history. Auburn likewise had some great teams under Cliff Ellis. Also have you heard of Charles Barkley? They have stuff in the trophy case to be proud of.

You know Vanderbilt won the SEC Tournament just last year right? Beat UK to do it. Pretty nice accomplishment I'd say. They were better than WSU last season by any and all objective measures I can tell you that much.

Providence and Iowa have also had some good teams. Look at the time that Tom Davis was at both or the time that Lute Olsen was at Iowa. These are good programs, not something to laugh at and think that you are inherently better than.

[ShockerPrez]

Clemson had some great years under Rick Barnes and had success with Oliver Purnell. They have slipped under Brownell but they have a decent history. Auburn likewise had some great teams under Cliff Ellis. Also have you heard of Charles Barkley? They have stuff in the trophy case to be proud of.

You know Vanderbilt won the SEC Tournament just last year right? Beat UK to do it. Pretty nice accomplishment I'd say. They were better than WSU last season by any and all objective measures I can tell you that much.

Providence and Iowa have also had some good teams. Look at the time that Tom Davis was at both or the time that Lute Olsen was at Iowa. These are good programs, not something to laugh at and think that you are inherently better than.

I think you missed the point of the comparison to these progrums.

[ShockerPrez]

Those teams dont get the MM moniker, and yet have not elevated themselves above a program like WSU recently. Sure, they have had some great teams in the past, but when you compare items outside of conference affiliation = no discernable difference.

[rrshock]

Is this official now? Or is it an established rumor? Or is it just your opinion? I haven't been paying very much attention to this recently. However, I have read about a lot of different rumors and possible scenarios although nobody knew what was happening for sure.

It is the opinion of many including mine. No one knows what will haopen minus a few schools.

[rrshock]

I think you missed the point of the comparison to these progrums.

He did.

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

I was being somewhat polite in my post in that you're probably not going to do #3-5 on my list with any substance without being able to do #1 and #2 if you're in the Valley. WSU fails somewhat at #1 and fails miserably at #2. Those lead to much fewer Dance tickets and so on. On your list, you also won't be doing #3 regularly if you are not doing the 1st 2 that are on mine.

Your #4 is meaningless without comparable results sooner or later.

Very true about being in the Valley. I would argue that #4 on my list precedes practically everything on both our lists. If a program can't attract quality coaching--or if they jump ship at the earliest opportunity--and if good recruits aren't interested, then it's hard to win on the national stage.