Where is all of the mid major bravado today?

[jdoggivjc]

Just curious...who would you put your money on?

Louisville

 

[06Panther]

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.

What a bunch of crap. Its tough for alot of mid-major teams to make the sweet 16 when only 4 of the 34 at large selections were mid majors. And the all the mid-majors that were in had ****** seeds and had to play the top seeds.

You can't go and say "I told you so" when only 4 at large teams were mid-majors.

 

[Steve]

Figures that a GM apologist would do something like this! I know you chalked up a bunch of "moral victories" to GM this year...but I am from the camp that a loss is a loss and a win is a win.

So when did you arrive at this camp? You certainly weren't there back in January when you went out of your way to slam the quality of the win over Nebraska.

 

[cyclonenum1]

So when did you arrive at this camp? You certainly weren't there back in January when you went out of your way to slam the quality of the win over Nebraska.

I don't believe I ever "slammed" that win or any of the other wins we had (few as they may be) this past year. Now, I do get on posters that go crazy after a win like this NU win at home...some of them act like we just beat the number one team in the country and we should give the coach a raise and a long extension. Little did we know this had already been done.

 

[isunorth]

What a bunch of crap. Its tough for alot of mid-major teams to make the sweet 16 when only 4 of the 34 at large selections were mid majors. And the all the mid-majors that were in had ****** seeds and had to play the top seeds.

You can't go and say "I told you so" when only 4 at large teams were mid-majors.

What do you propose instead? Should we seed the mid-majors higher so they have a better chance of making the Sweet 16? How about we make a special tournament for mid-majors so they can all feel good about themselves?

 

[BryceC]

What a bunch of crap. Its tough for alot of mid-major teams to make the sweet 16 when only 4 of the 34 at large selections were mid majors. And the all the mid-majors that were in had ****** seeds and had to play the top seeds.

You can't go and say "I told you so" when only 4 at large teams were mid-majors.

To be fair, the MWC had two games against teams seeded lower than them and they were pretty much embarrassed in both of them.

 

[cyclonenum1]

What a bunch of crap. Its tough for alot of mid-major teams to make the sweet 16 when only 4 of the 34 at large selections were mid majors. And the all the mid-majors that were in had ****** seeds and had to play the top seeds.

You can't go and say "I told you so" when only 4 at large teams were mid-majors.

By my count 25 teams from non power conferences were in the field of 64...and this does not count Memphis, Gonzaga, and Xavier since they have elevated themselves into power teams by playing high quality non conference schedules and mopping up their conference opponents. That is 40% of the slots in the NCAA went to the mid majors and low majors.

By the way, these teams had ****** seeds because they played ****** schedules in ****** conferences. The selection committee pretty much nailed the seeding from what I see.

 

[sunset]

It's already been pointed out by many, but the logic in the original post is pretty faulty. The comparison is between the bubble teams, not comparing top-twenty teams to bubble teams from mid-major conferences.

I haven't followed this year's tournament, but haven't there been some small schools put up really strong efforts against "majors"? Cleveland St. beat Wake Forest., NDSU played really well against Kansas. I'm sure there were others as well.

I know it's not an NCAA tourney game, but San Diego State just beat Kansas State by 18 points. Seems like one of those teams is right about middle of the pack in the Big12 and the other is right about middle of the pack in the lowly MWC.

 

[06Panther]

By my count 25 teams from non power conferences were in the field of 64...and this does not count Memphis, Gonzaga, and Xavier since they have elevated themselves into power teams by playing high quality non conference schedules and mopping up their conference opponents. That is 40% of the slots in the NCAA went to the mid majors and low majors.

By the way, these teams had ****** seeds because they played ****** schedules in ****** conferences. The selection committee pretty much nailed the seeding from what I see.

Oh I see, you just don't want to count the teams that are successful. There would be more mid-majors that could be as good as Gonzaga and Xavier if they had more of a chance in the tournament.

And we aren't talking about auto-bids. The committee HAS to put those teams in. We are talking about the at large selections where they put teams with 8-10 records in the tournament over high-mid majors with 27 wins. That is a joke.

 

[CyDude16]

Oh I see, you just don't want to count the teams that are successful. There would be more mid-majors that could be as good as Gonzaga and Xavier if they had more of a chance in the tournament.

And we aren't talking about auto-bids. The committee HAS to put those teams in. We are talking about the at large selections where they put teams with 8-10 records in the tournament over high-mid majors with 27 wins. That is a joke.

Rather have more 8-10 record teams then mid majors with 27 wins....wheres UNI in the tourney now?

 

[cyclonenum1]

Oh I see, you just don't want to count the teams that are successful. There would be more mid-majors that could be as good as Gonzaga and Xavier if they had more of a chance in the tournament.

And we aren't talking about auto-bids. The committee HAS to put those teams in. We are talking about the at large selections where they put teams with 8-10 records in the tournament over high-mid majors with 27 wins. That is a joke.

No, the joke is the level of play in the mid and low majors pretty much year in and year out.

The reason that Memphis, Gonzaga, and Xavier have broken out of being classified as mid major programs is their willingness to schedule a very tough non-conference slate (and win a lot of those games) along with their ability to take care of business in their weak conference by pretty much running the table and usually winning any post season conference tournament...and doing this pretty much every year.

 

[isunorth]

Oh I see, you just don't want to count the teams that are successful. There would be more mid-majors that could be as good as Gonzaga and Xavier if they had more of a chance in the tournament.

And we aren't talking about auto-bids. The committee HAS to put those teams in. We are talking about the at large selections where they put teams with 8-10 records in the tournament over high-mid majors with 27 wins. That is a joke.

You're comparing apples and oranges.

#1 Gonzaga has earned it's respect over the course of several years, both in and out of the tournament. They play good teams in the pre-season. They've had a national player of the year and several players go to the NBA. To call them a "mid-major" at this point is really not accurate. Their conference? Yes. Them, specifically? No.

#2 Xavier actually plays in a good conference that historically has had success on a national level (Xavier, Dayton currently...St. Joes, Rhode Island, UMass, GW, Temple in the past).

#3 Take your "successful" mid-major team, put them in the ACC or Big East and see if they end up with 25+ wins. Doubtful. Then take your middle-of-the-pack major team and put them in a lesser conference and I guarantee those conference records won't be 8-10 or 9-9.

 

[sunset]

#3 Take your "successful" mid-major team, put them in the ACC or Big East and see if they end up with 25+ wins. Doubtful. Then take your middle-of-the-pack major team and put them in a lesser conference and I guarantee those conference records won't be 8-10 or 9-9.

Your guarantee smacks of "Major" conference elitism. I'm a big 12 fan, but making a blanket statement like that is pretty bold. "Mid-Major" conferences change from year to year. Middle of the pack "major" conference teams vary across conferences and years. Too many moving pieces to make such a statement.

Boston College is a middle of the pack ACC team that made it to this year's tournament with a #6 seed. They lost first round. They also lost to Saint Louis during the regular season. West Virginia was another #6 seed, middle of the pack major conference team, that lost in the first round (to Dayton). They also lost to Davidson earlier in the year.

I'm sure there are many examples to be had, as well as examples of middle of the pack majors that would have done well in other conferences. The argument can't be absolutely proven either way.

 

[06Panther]

No, the joke is the level of play in the mid and low majors pretty much year in and year out.

The reason that Memphis, Gonzaga, and Xavier have broken out of being classified as mid major programs is their willingness to schedule a very tough non-conference slate (and win a lot of those games) along with their ability to take care of business in their weak conference by pretty much running the table and usually winning any post season conference tournament...and doing this pretty much every year.

Let me first say that I do believe that there is a difference between the low majors and mid-majors. Conferences like the Mountain West, A-10, MVC, and WCC are good conferences. I'm not saying that those small schools that get the 16 seeds should be getting more teams into the tournament.

But I do, believe that being at the top of those conferences is better than being in 7th place in the big ten. As far as scheduling goes, those schools had to win for many years in a row before they could even start scheduling tough. And even so, they still have to travel more than BCS school do. They have to get all those wins on road or nuetural courts while the BCS schools play the majority of their pre-season games at home.

 

[isunorth]

Your guarantee smacks of "Major" conference elitism. I'm a big 12 fan, but making a blanket statement like that is pretty bold. "Mid-Major" conferences change from year to year. Middle of the pack "major" conference teams vary across conferences and years. Too many moving pieces to make such a statement.

Boston College is a middle of the pack ACC team that made it to this year's tournament with a #6 seed. They lost first round. They also lost to Saint Louis during the regular season. West Virginia was another #6 seed, middle of the pack major conference team, that lost in the first round (to Dayton). They also lost to Davidson earlier in the year.

I'm sure there are many examples to be had, as well as examples of middle of the pack majors that would have done well in other conferences. The argument can't be absolutely proven either way.

You're right that it can't be absolutely proven. However, while I may be major conference "elitist", I would argue that anyone who thinks a team like BC or WVU wouldn't have a better record in a mid-major conference is naive.

 

[06Panther]

You're right that it can't be absolutely proven. However, while I may be major conference "elitist", I would argue that anyone who thinks a team like BC or WVU wouldn't have a better record in a mid-major conference is naive.

Of course they would have a better record, because the mid-major conference as a whole is not better than the BCS conference. I'm not arguing that either. But that doesn't mean the teams at the very top of the mid-major conference are not better than that team at the middle of the BCS conference.

 

[Wesley]

I think we are proving that bigger is better.

 

[isunorth]

Of course they would have a better record, because the mid-major conference as a whole is not better than the BCS conference. I'm not arguing that either. But that doesn't mean the teams at the very top of the mid-major conference are not better than that team at the middle of the BCS conference.

Doesn't mean that they are either. The fact of the matter is that it's an apples to oranges comparison and it's always going to be that way. There's no magic formula. The original poster made a comment on the selection committee appearing to do a good job of seeding. The complete opposite could be said in different years using the same instrument of logic.

Furthermore, the mid-majors are going to have a taller hill to climb to get to the top. Period. Unless they embrace that and have consistent success like Gonzaga or Memphis they're always going to be looked at like the little brothers of college basketball.

Is that fair? No. But what is fair in sports? At any level? I'd rather try to coach a UNI team to the sweet 16 than I would try to coach ISU to a Big 12 football title or the Baltimore Orioles to an AL East championship.

 

[Wesley]

West Region Thursday March 26 University of Phoenix Stadium (Glendale, AZ)

7:07 pm EDT 9:37 pm EDT

East Region Thursday March 26 TD Banknorth Garden (Boston, MA)

7:27 pm EDT 9:57 pm EDT
Midwest Region Friday March 27 Lucas Oil Stadium (Indianapolis, IN)

7:07 pm EDT 9:37 pm EDT

South Region Friday March 27 FedExForum (Memphis, TN)

7:27 pm EDT 9:57 pm EDT

 

[cmoneyr]

Why do I have to wait so long for more basketball?