Two of those are in the Big East, and the other two are non-football / major-basketball programs. The mid-major term is really over-used, in my humble opinion, but schools like these walk and talk like major basketball programs.

 

Before this year they were not in the Big East.

 

Also, is the Big East the same with all the schools leaving?

Also, is the Big East the same with all the schools leaving?

 

No, obviously not, but I assume you already knew that. However, KenPom has them 3rd and Jerry Palm has them 4th. I'm a UC fan, so I'm a little bitter about the unwinding of the league, but it is still a quality basketball league.

 

I think the AAC has better teams at the top, but even I have to admit the AAC is junk at the bottom...and only going to get worse next year.

And you as well.

 

If the schools in the top 25% of the sport aren't in the major portion, where is your cutoff???

I'd say the "Major" programs are the entire ACC, Big East, Big 12, B1G, SEC, PAC12, UC, UL, UConn, Memphis, Temple, St. Louis, VCU, Wichita State, Gonzaga, BYU, UNLV, New Mexico, and San Diego State.

 

Teams close to that distinction: UMass, St. Joseph's, SMU, George Washington, St. Mary's, and Dayton.

I would define mid-major as any team in the NCAA tourney that would not have made the tourney if not for an automatic bid.

Took a whole one reply before someone attempted to ruin this thread.

 

Yes, I think Wichita State has a fantastic chance to win the title, and barring an absolute nightmare of a bracket, I don't see anyway I don't have them in the Final Four at least. They're in a mid-major conference, but they are anything but...

 

In his defense the thread drew zero interest till he said it...

Exactly. So if you suck for a few seasons can you go back to being a mid-major?

 

Hey, I don't know the hard and fast rules about what defines mid-major either. But it does seem that teams like Gonzaga and Xavier were always afforded a bit more respect than others coming from similar conference situations, simply because they were consistently pretty good from year-to-year.

 

It seems that joining the new Big East means Xavier and Butler, as well as Creighton, have now permanently "graduated."

I understand your question and I would not think so. People can never give a definition of "mid-major". I started a thread once asking what a mid-major was, and what I surmised is that most people define a mid-major as every school not in one of the Power 6 conferences, BUT, also a mid-major is not considered a traditional good team on the national scene either. I asked about Gonzaga, and everyone was like, "well, they are not a mid-major. Same for Butler. (but every other team in their conference is)" OK? Made no sense to me but that seemed to be the consensus. To me you would think your conference affiliation would define it, but who knows? I posed this same question when Memphis made the finals.

 

Thank you for an objective answer instead of just laughing. To me mid major is usually a term that is associated with a conference instead of given to an individual team. To the point made that the American will get more teams in the dance than the NCAA, I don't really think that changes anything, so have the MVC, A-10, etc. from time to time and it seems that those teams are often refered to as mid major programs. To me the American is kind of a step back for some teams into the C-USA mold. I think that American is very much a mid major conference, in that the top teams don't want to be there. Louisville has already jumped ship, and I very much believe that UConn and UC would love to do so as well if they could find some place to land. I believe the next round of conference expansion will rob the American of their remaining good programs.

Thank you for an objective answer instead of just laughing. To me mid major is usually a term that is associated with a conference instead of given to an individual team. To the point made that the American will get more teams in the dance than the NCAA, I don't really think that changes anything, so have the MVC, A-10, etc. from time to time and it seems that those teams are often refered to as mid major programs. To me the American is kind of a step back for some teams into the C-USA mold. I think that American is very much a mid major conference, in that the top teams don't want to be there. Louisville has already jumped ship, and I very much believe that UConn and UC would love to do so as well if they could find some place to land. I believe the next round of conference expansion will rob the American of their remaining good programs.

 

You can't honestly believe what you just typed in rationalizing UC, UConn, Memphis, Temple and to an emerging extent SMU and Houston as teams that fit the profile of teams in the middle of the A10 and MVC in their best years. Do you think having Providence, St John's, DePaul, Marquette, Xavier, Seton Hall and Butler makes the Big East a mid major? Your entire post is why the term and its actual meaning in the college basketball landscape are out of tune...

In his defense the thread drew zero interest till he said it...

 

Remember this the next time somebody says a UL fan is trolling...

Your entire post is why the term and its actual meaning in the college basketball landscape are out of tune...

 

Amen. As I've preached on here before, the term is silly, lazy, outdated, and ambiguous.

 

Now, if you want to talk about is this the year a double-digit seed makes a run to the Final 4, that would be a great conversation. Trying to stick Wichita State, VCU, Saint Louis, or anyone else of that ilk into a "mid-major" box is just subscribing to a lazy narrative.

Remember this the next time somebody says a UL fan is trolling...

 

I ever call you out when you troll?

I'm really thinking of taking Wichita State. I have some friends going to Vegas for Spring Break in a few days and think that getting one to lay $20-$25 on them for me might be alright just on the chance that the 12:1 odds hit out.

Amen. As I've preached on here before, the term is silly, lazy, outdated, and ambiguous.

 

Now, if you want to talk about is this the year a double-digit seed makes a run to the Final 4, that would be a great conversation. Trying to stick Wichita State, VCU, Saint Louis, or anyone else of that ilk into a "mid-major" box is just subscribing to a lazy narrative.

 

I understand what you are saying, but do you consider them "high majors"?

 

When I think "high majors", I think of schools who are more than just in a power conference. I think of schools who've at least been to a Final Four, are in a big time conference, are seen on TV, put players in the NBA, have major recruiting reach, have the merchandising and network deals, a big time budget, etc.

 

I know that the Wichita State, VCU, Saint Louis, George Mason's, etc. have bigger budgets than most of the schools that they are usually lumped in with, but are they still really spending more than a school like Northwestern (who is probably happy just to be in a power conference)?

 

I don't think that it's really fitting to call them 'mid majors' but it's not really fitting to call them 'high majors' when their budgets are half of what the teams I'd classify as such are.

 

 

Report: Wichita State actually lost money by making the Final Four - CBSSports.com

 

If this article is accurate (CBS, citing Forbes), then Wichita State's $5.6 million spent last year isn't really close to half of what Syracuse's $14 million is when considering the overheads and marginal costs.

 

I think people just call them "mid majors" because they don't know much about the Missouri Valley Conference and they aren't a household name like a Kentucky, Syracuse, Kansas, Indiana, UCLA, Louisville, North Carolina, Duke, Cincinnati, etc.

 

There are also things like this article, which states that Wichita State's entire budget is less than what Rick Pitino alone makes in a year:

 

Wichita State basketball budget less than Pitino's annual salary - KSHB.com

 

The above articles also bring up an interesting point as to the disparity in the numbers that are reported and how these figures are being calculated as well.

 

 

 

All that said, at the same time, I definitely understand your point and recognize that true 'mid majors' in the sense we're talking about them here have deals with Nike like this either:

 

Nike apparel deal a budget reliever for Wichita State basketball - KansasCity.com

 

 

I don't think they are "mid majors" but there aren't many teams like them who contend to win the NCAA tournament and I don't know if there's a better term, regardless of how overused the 'mid major' label is. I guess a better way to put it might be to ask you what you would term them, because I'm honestly at somewhat of a loss on that one.

I understand what you are saying, but do you consider them "high majors"?

 

 

Why do I have to label them anything? Why the fascination (in plurality, not you directly) with trying to stick everyone in one of two or three buckets? If you're dying to try and pigeon-hole everyone into some category, simply start by separating those with a FBS football team from those that don't. Once you do that, and you have your two groups (because that changes the funding model dramatically), divide them by "take basketball VERY seriously" and "those that don't". Work from there.