Where is all of the mid major bravado today?

**cyclonenum1** · 03-23-2009, 08:29 AM

Down to the Sweet 16 and only 3 schools left that are not from the major / BCS / power conferences. And those three (Memphis, Gonzaga, and Xavier) have really catapulted themselves into "major" programs over the past 10-15 years even though they play in mid major conferences because they schedule a bunch of non conference games against major schools and then wipe the court with their conference opponents.

And as I said last week when some of you were bemoaning the lack of respect from the NCAA selection committee for the mid majors...the selection committee does a tremendous job...only 2 of the Sweet 16 were not seeded to get this far...Purdue as a #5 and Arizona as a #12...everything else went exactly according to seeding.

**isunorth** · 03-23-2009, 08:35 AM

Originally Posted by cyclonenum1

Down to the Sweet 16 and only 3 schools left that are not from the major / BCS / power conferences. And those three (Memphis, Gonzaga, and Xavier) have really catapulted themselves into "major" programs over the past 10-15 years even though they play in mid major conferences because they schedule a bunch of non conference games against major schools and then wipe the court with their conference opponents.

And as I said last week when some of you were bemoaning the lack of respect from the NCAA selection committee for the mid majors...the selection committee does a tremendous job...only 2 of the Sweet 16 were not seeded to get this far...Purdue as a #5 and Arizona as a #12...everything else went exactly according to seeding.

Lol. Yeah, it was pretty quiet over the weekend.

**ahaselhu** · 03-23-2009, 08:36 AM

Definitely a down year for the mid-majors.

**cyclonenum1** · 03-23-2009, 08:49 AM

Originally Posted by ahaselhu

Definitely a down year for the mid-majors.

Which is the norm.

**keepngoal** · 03-23-2009, 08:53 AM

Originally Posted by cyclonenum1

Which is the norm.

but not as much fun.

-keep

**BryceC** · 03-23-2009, 08:56 AM

I have just as much fun no matter who is in the tourney. I really don't get into the mid-majors though. I just want to see good basketball, whether that be the mids or not.

**jbhtexas** · 03-23-2009, 08:58 AM

Question: What does the better seeds advancing have to do with which of the bubble teams deserved to get into the tournament (mid-major or otherwise)?

Answer: Absolutely nothing...

**Steve** · 03-23-2009, 09:05 AM

Originally Posted by cyclonenum1

Down to the Sweet 16 and only 3 schools left that are not from the major / BCS / power conferences. And those three (Memphis, Gonzaga, and Xavier) have really catapulted themselves into "major" programs over the past 10-15 years even though they play in mid major conferences because they schedule a bunch of non conference games against major schools and then wipe the court with their conference opponents.

And as I said last week when some of you were bemoaning the lack of respect from the NCAA selection committee for the mid majors...the selection committee does a tremendous job...only 2 of the Sweet 16 were not seeded to get this far...Purdue as a #5 and Arizona as a #12...everything else went exactly according to seeding.

Not trying to defend the mid majors, but your sweet 16 argument doesn't hold water. The mid majors competing for an at large bid are not competing with teams like Pitt, KU, UNC, MSU, etc. They are competing with the middle of the pack majors who, with the exception of Ariz, have all been eliminated.

**balken** · 03-23-2009, 09:08 AM

Here are the teams in the Sweet Sixteen from non-BCS conferences, excluding Memphis, Xavier, Gonzaga and UNLV. Average 2.4 per year.

2008 Davidson, Western Kentucky
2007 Butler, Southern Illinois
2006 Bradley, Wichita State, George Mason
2005 UW-Milwaukee, Utah
2004 Nevada, UAB, St. Joseph

**isunorth** · 03-23-2009, 09:13 AM

Originally Posted by jbhtexas

Question: What does the better seeds advancing have to do with which of the bubble teams deserved to get into the tournament?

Answer: Absolutely nothing...

It has quite a bit to do with it, actually. The way I read the post, I interpreted it to be as much about the power conferences as it was the seeds.

Take Arizona for example. They were one of the main culprits named in the mid-majors case against the selection committee this year. I guarantee had they lost first round people would be crying louder than ever. As a #12 seed, they went on to win their first two games over mid-majors (two conference champions, in fact). Wisconsin, another culprit, wins one game over a hot Florida State team and gives #4 seed Xavier a tough game. Maryland won their first game as well.

I think the posters point was that 3 of the majors complained about most all won their first game as lower seeds and that this somehow justified their selection.

I do agree with your point that there isn't really a direct correlation with "deserving" to get in. However, what I think the poster is pointing out is that the complaining likely would have gotten much louder had said teams lost in the first round.

In which case, I'd be interested to see if you agree with the posters logic.

**CycloneErik** · 03-23-2009, 09:19 AM

Originally Posted by cyclonenum1

Down to the Sweet 16 and only 3 schools left that are not from the major / BCS / power conferences. And those three (Memphis, Gonzaga, and Xavier) have really catapulted themselves into "major" programs over the past 10-15 years even though they play in mid major conferences because they schedule a bunch of non conference games against major schools and then wipe the court with their conference opponents.

And as I said last week when some of you were bemoaning the lack of respect from the NCAA selection committee for the mid majors...the selection committee does a tremendous job...only 2 of the Sweet 16 were not seeded to get this far...Purdue as a #5 and Arizona as a #12...everything else went exactly according to seeding.

I agree to a point. Obviously, as you say, the only mid-majors that made the Sweet 16 were major powers, and the Sweet 16 went pretty much as seeded.

At the same time, the fringe teams from the major conferences didn't do well, either, for the most part. So why not bring in the mid-major guys, if neither choice is likely to advance. Give them the chance that no one else is giving them. The other guys have had their chance during the season and failed to measure up.

**ahaselhu** · 03-23-2009, 09:24 AM

I'm curious. Which conferences would you consider to be "mid-major", as opposed to "low-major"?

**ahaselhu** · 03-23-2009, 09:25 AM

Originally Posted by CycloneErik

I agree to a point. Obviously, as you say, the only mid-majors that made the Sweet 16 were major powers, and the Sweet 16 went pretty much as seeded.

At the same time, the fringe teams from the major conferences didn't do well, either, for the most part. So why not bring in the mid-major guys, if neither choice is likely to advance. Give them the chance that no one else is giving them. The other guys have had their chance during the season and failed to measure up.

+1

**BryceC** · 03-23-2009, 09:25 AM

Originally Posted by CycloneErik

At the same time, the fringe teams from the major conferences didn't do well, either, for the most part. So why not bring in the mid-major guys, if neither choice is likely to advance.

Ultimately it's about dollars and what teams have the physical ability to compete and make a run. That's why it happens.

**BryceC** · 03-23-2009, 09:27 AM

Originally Posted by ahaselhu

I'm curious. Which conferences would you consider to be "mid-major", as opposed to "low-major"?

I'd say the conferences that have a shot at at-large bids are mid major - Like the MVC, MWC, WCC, WAC, C-USA, Horizon...

Then there are a ton of conferences that are pretty much assured only one bid. Southern, Sunbelt, Patriot, Ivy, etc.