|
|
Post by jpschmack on Dec 8, 2009 4:29:00 GMT -5
ESPN.com has someone doing a "mid-major top 10"
1. Xavier
3. Dayton
5. Temple
15. St. Bona
Ok. We have FOUR of the top 15. No other conference has more than two...
In the AP Top 25...
Xavier is #8
Dayton is #20
Temple and Bona are receiving votes.
Everyone else listed in the mid-major top 15 is receiving votes, and no more than two per conference.
With TWICE as many teams in the polls as a "mid-major," does that makes us a Major?
The A-10 is the only non-BCS conference with ranked WBB teams.
We have one fewer team than the ACC getting votes this week (4 ranked, 1 RV)
We have MORE teams getting votes than the Pac 10 (3 ranked, 0 RV)
We have MORE teams getting votes than the Big 10 (2 ranked, 1 RV)
|
|
|
|
Post by Chuck on Dec 8, 2009 7:32:01 GMT -5
A-10 is a unique conference with a mix of majors and mid majors. Just ask any Xavier fan, they will tell you they are not a mid major and they are right. Last year Xavier had the 57th biggest budget for men's basketball. Ahead of BCS schools such as Alabama, Wake Forest and Maryland. Majors from the A-10 based on men's basketball athletic budgets (which I believe is the best criteria) would be the following in order: Temple, Dayton, U-Mass, St. Joes and St. Louis all have budgets around $3 million. By the way Xavier's budget is about a million more than these schools. Bonnies with a $1.6 million budget is a mid-major. Schools with similar basketball budgets as the Bonnies, Delaware is just ahead of the Bonnies and Pacific is just behind. www.bbstate.com/info/schools-hoopsbudget |
|
|
|
Post by jpschmack on Dec 8, 2009 16:25:13 GMT -5
It's not talking about size of school or budget (Florida State is six times the size of Duke. Duke's not a mid-major).
It's about conference and how many good teams you have.
The A-10 isn't a mid-major, because the A-10 always has multiple MBB bids. They've had five more times than one. They average 3.5 bids per NCAA tourney on the men's side.
The women's conference might be a mid-major, but Xavier, Temple, GW have always been good and in the mix.
Back before the BCS came into existence, "major" was the big six conferences, mid-major was A-10, C-USA, WAC (then MWC) and the MVC. Conferences 6-10 who always had multiple bids, but not 6+ like the other guys had.
The others, who almost ALWAYS got one bid, occasionally a second, were "non-majors"
Then once Gonzaga and the BCS both came into national relevance in the late 90s, it because "anyone not in the BCS is a mid-major." Which is demeaning to the Atlantic 10. We're above that.
|
|
|
|
Post by adolphlottin on Dec 8, 2009 21:41:21 GMT -5
I don't understand why we put tags on conferences or programs. Who cares what St. Bonaventure is called?
I don't think it is demeaning to call St. Bona a mid-major. The Bonnies play in a 6,000-seat gym in a remote location, play with a small budget, receive little national exposure, don't bring in five-star recruits and haven't won an NCAA tournament game in god knows when. The Bonnies and Xavier might be in the same conference but they're worlds apart. That's reality. Heck, Siena is in the MAAC and the way that program is going now I would call it a major if we had to use labels. The Saints have won NCAA games the last two years and I wouldn't be surprised if they won another this year. There are quite a few programs in the A-10 not above that.
And budgets matter and money matters. That's how you bring in the players, that's how you win, that's how you gain the national exposure. Gonzaga has been able to sustain its success because its run in the late 90s meant big bucks for the program. Xavier has a great program because it has the three main ingredients: money, resources, facilities plus tradition.
|
|
|
|
Post by jpschmack on Dec 9, 2009 0:38:29 GMT -5
The Bonnies and Xavier might be in the same conference but they're worlds apart. And budgets matter and money matters. That's how you bring in the players, that's how you win, that's how you gain the national exposure. Xavier has a great program because it has the three main ingredients: money, resources, facilities plus tradition. and Xavier WBB is on the mid-major list with us, while they are ranked #8 in the country. |
|
|
|
Post by res on Dec 9, 2009 11:18:33 GMT -5
... and haven't won an NCAA tournament game in god knows when. Agree with everything you say, adolph, except for the excerpt above. Unfortunately, too many of us remember all too well when Bona last won an NCAA tournament game. I might not have the date exactly correct, but I believe it was Saturday, March 21, 1970, the "Chris Ford" game. |
|
|
|
Post by maplehurst on Dec 9, 2009 12:16:05 GMT -5
Are you sure that Bonas didn't win an NCAA game against Virginia Commonwealth in 1978? Maybe I am mistaken, that may have been a league game for an NCAA bid. I do remember seeing it on TV. Neither team could score for the last 5 minutes of the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by no1stunna on Dec 9, 2009 12:27:31 GMT -5
How did this go from women's basketball to the last men's NCAA game? lol
maplehurst, the game in 1978 you could be referring to was a 92-83 loss against pennsylvania in the NCAA first round.
The last win would have been over Villanova - March 16, 1970 - a 97-74 win. After that, the Bonnies lost to Jacksonville, 91-83, on March 20 and then New Mexico State (third-place game), 79-73, on March 22.
|
|
|
|
Post by res on Dec 9, 2009 13:14:46 GMT -5
Yes, maplehurst, that win over VC was for the NCAA bid, not an NCAA game itself, and followed the great win in Rochester over the Orange. At one time, if you recall, all ECAC teams made the NCAA as at large teams only. At some time during the 1970s, the ECAC set up four geographic divisions, Bona being placed in the ECAC Upstate division. I believe the NCAA allowed the ECAC two automatic bids. Virginia Commonwealth won the "southern" division and played Bona for one of the bids. The winners of the other two divisions played off for the other.
Of course, then came the Eastern 8, followed by the Big East and the eastern college landscape changed for good.
|
|
|
|
Post by commie21 on Dec 10, 2009 11:52:31 GMT -5
The point by the smaller budget classifies us as being a mid major. If we were a major we would have the same money, recruiting tools, etc. as a team in the Big East for example. Another difference in considering the two programs is the fact that the Men's team has a much better tradition and history than the Women's team at both of these schools. It is entirely possible that Xaiver's men's team can be considered a major, with their 57th in the nation budget and national recognition, while their women's team can still be considered a mid-major.
This current year's success of the conference doesn't qualify all teams in the conference as being a major. Butler is currently #20 in the ESPN/USA Today poll, and was top 10 earlier this season. They have had repeated success and been in the NCAA tournament for a number of years in a row now, while playing from the Horizon conference. So due to their recent success are we anointing Wright St. and Youngstown St. as being in a successful conference, therefore they are no long mid-majors?
Being a a small remote school, as adolph discussed, isn't demeaning to our school. We should embrace our school's culture.
|
|
|
|
Post by jpschmack on Dec 10, 2009 12:25:30 GMT -5
This current year's success of the conference doesn't qualify all teams in the conference as being a major. Butler is currently #20 in the ESPN/USA Today poll, and was top 10 earlier this season. They have had repeated success and been in the NCAA tournament for a number of years in a row now, while playing from the Horizon conference. So due to their recent success are we anointing Wright St. and Youngstown St. as being in a successful conference, therefore they are no long mid-majors? Being a a small remote school, as adolph discussed, isn't demeaning to our school. We should embrace our school's culture. The distinction between major and mid-major has always been a conference one. Gonzaga is a "mid-major," Butler is a "mid-major." This isn't because of their individual success or their budget, it's because the WCC traditionally gets one bid if Gonzaga wins the conference, two if they don't. Same with Butler and the Horizon. Of course, until the BCS came along, they were "non-majors" The A-10, WAC and C-USA were the mid-majors. Because they got 3-5 bids, but not 5-7 like the BCS schools were capable of. And now C-USA is a mid-major again. Compare and contrast budgets within the Big East. Marquette, Providence, or DePaul's budget vs UConn, Notre Dame or West Virginia. There's no distinction between them, they're all "majors." A major conference has depth of quality teams going to the NCAA Tournament. A mid-major might have an at-large candidate, who's 50-50 to get in. That's it. It's not like we talk about Duke football as a non-BCS school because they are small, have a low budget, and generally suck at football. They're a BCS school because of their conference. |
|
|
|
Post by commie21 on Dec 10, 2009 12:42:56 GMT -5
I'm not sure Duke's budget is that low considering they have the 9th largest recruiting budget in all of Division 1-A football, but I digress.
If you want to take a look at an overall conference, rather than on a team by team basis, which I don't agree that you can fully do, the A10 still doesn't have the power, budget, or success to be labeled as a BCS conference. While the conference is becoming more powerful due to the expansion, and recent success of making the tournament, each year the only real guarantee is Xavier out of this conference, and somebody else if Xavier doesn't win the title. Temple has made great runs in the tournament and gone a number of years, and arguments can be made for St. Joe's and Dayton as well, but these schools aren't the top of the conference year in and year out, such as a Butler or Gonzaga that receives all the national recognition.
|
|
|
|
Post by jpschmack on Dec 11, 2009 1:46:00 GMT -5
I'm not sure Duke's budget is that low considering they have the 9th largest recruiting budget in all of Division 1-A football, but I digress. If you want to take a look at an overall conference, rather than on a team by team basis, which I don't agree that you can fully do, the A10 still doesn't have the power, budget, or success to be labeled as a BCS conference. While the conference is becoming more powerful due to the expansion, and recent success of making the tournament, each year the only real guarantee is Xavier out of this conference, and somebody else if Xavier doesn't win the title. Temple has made great runs in the tournament and gone a number of years, and arguments can be made for St. Joe's and Dayton as well, but these schools aren't the top of the conference year in and year out, such as a Butler or Gonzaga that receives all the national recognition. Not saying we're a BCS. What I'm saying is that the phrase was originally coined to describe the group of conferences between those who get 4+ bids per year* (The six BCS conferences) and those who get 2-4 every year* (C-USA before the Big East expansion, A-10, MVC, WAC/MWC, MVC). In the last few years, everyone is using to mean "non-BCS" |
|
