|
|
And Champion110's head explodes as an SI writer backs him up. . .
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...html?eref=sihp
Years from now, here's hoping we'll similarly look back at the 2010 Dance as the event that rendered said phrase outdated, unnecessary and (this one's a long shot) extinct.
This may also be the first time I have seen the word "badass" in an SI piece that wasn't a direct quote.
And THERE YOU HAVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dick Vitale tried to explain this "inexplicable" rash of, of, of....."schools no one has heard of" beating good teams from "the power conferences." Dickie V says it's because "those schools" care more about winning the early rounds. It is "their season" so "they get fired up and play over their heads."
Everything in quotes Dickie V said, and I filled in the rest to convey what that azzhole was trying to say.
"schools no one has heard of" Wow! Simply, amazing.
Originally Posted by champion110
And THERE YOU HAVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well, let's see. You have made about 150 tirades and one sportwriter has had a change of heart. I think you have found your lifelong activity. Better get started on the next one! I am behind you all the way, but considering my age I hope I am around for number 2!
I don't have a problem with the term mid-major. I have a problem with the term mid-major being used when discussing basketball.
I think mid-major should be used in football to describe a school that comes from a non-BCS conference that annually busts the BCS party. Thus, Mountain West and WAC schools would be considered mid-majors. Obviously the MAC, C-USA, and Sun Belt would not qualify. It seems like everyone in the sports media refers to any non-BCS divsion I football team as a mid-major. Wrong! Southern Miss, ECU, Tulsa, Troy, MTSU, Marshall, Miami-OH -- newsflash, you're not a mid-major program. Have a team in your conference make two BCS games in a five year period and then you'll qualify. Likewise Tech, Boise, San Jose, Hawai'i, Colorado State, UNLV, TCU, Utah, etc. are mid-majors.
The term mid-major shouldn't apply to basketball because every year is different. The PAC 10 was a UW loss away from being a one-bid league this year. Dayton was a win away from making the Atlantic 10 a four bid league this year. However, the PAC 10 is a major conference and the A-10 is a mid-major. It doesn't pass the sniff test.
And if there is such a thing as a mid-major in college basketball, Cornell is certainly not one of them! They're possibly one of the best teams in the country, but their program/conference shouldn't qualify as mid-major. They aren't even allowed to give athletic scholarships. How can the word major even be used? I'm not saying they don't belong; they obviously do. I'm just saying quit calling them and teams like them from perenially one-seed conferences mid-majors.
www.midmajority.com
go check it out. kyle whelliston has put a lot of research into his site, and he's the biggest homer there is for teams "below the red line."
i have no problem with the "mid-major" label. it's all about money. we certainly aren't high-major. that's the acc, sec, big 12, pac-10, etc. schools. and we certainly aren't low-major -- that's the swac, meac, etc. we're somewhere in the "mid"dle ... aka, a mid-major.
the bold, the beautiful, theprofessor
Doesn't bother me too much until they start using the term in football. The ones who use it can't define it.
And here is the problem. Just like every sportswriter, talking head, announcer, and fan, y'all each have your own definitions of the term. Even Whelliston, who did put a lot of research into his definition, is still just using his own arbitrary, made-up definition that is only used by him and his followers.
Mid-major is just a word. A hyphenated word but still a word. Would everyone feel better if he used his same definition and called us kick-assers? As long as he defines it to a term we can agree with, what is the problem with it?
The problem is that it has so many definitions that it has no meaning. Carrot is just a word, but the advantage that "carrot" has over "mid-major" is that it has an accepted meaning. When I use it, you know what I mean.
When I say, "I can't believe all the mid-majors who won last week." You don't know if I'm being dismissive of those teams, complimenting them, making an objective statement, or what. And if you don't know what I mean, then you don't know whether I'm using the term correctly even within my own definition.
However you define it, the purported advantage of the phrase is that it can be used as a helpful shorthand. It is much easier to say "I can't believe Kansas lost to a mid-major" than to say "I can't believe Kansas lost to a team whose conference is not one of the 8 richest conferences."
But since not everybody understands that the above is what you mean, the utility of your shorthand is lost.
Last edited by inudesu; 03-24-2010 at 08:30 AM.
Why is it necessary to have a subset of Division 1 teams? What purpose does it serve other than to create a have and have not environment resulting in more excuses to exclude the so-called have nots. I think it would be a lot healthier (and fair) to say something like UConn is a really good team and San Jose is not, rather than insinuating they are good and bad because they are majors and mid majors.
This.
Two good points - the post I quoted above and the one that states that there is NO definition of a mid major.
It is just a way to label programs that are not in bcs-aq conferences in FOOTBALL. It has nothing at all to do with basketball. NOTHING.........
Using the term in basketball is the first step in developing an AQ status for basketball. It is a way to hold teams down in recruiting. It will work too, if people use the term. The media will drop the term, if people won't use it.
I don't like being "mid" in ANYTHING!!!!!!!!! You have to pick your battles and this one is still one that can be won. I automatically turn off anyone that states mid-major. There is no definition. If you are Division 1 in basketball, you are division one. Each gets an automatic bid. If your conference excels, you get more than one bid. Some power conferences get 6 or 7 bids. There is nothing holding us back from becoming one of those conferences - aside from the media holding us back on recruiting by calling us a mid-major.
Perception is EVERYTHING! If we are just going to set back and let them screw us, then we deserve it.
As for "low majors", I never hear that term. When the SWAC plays in the NCAA's, they are called a mid-major, as well. We like to say "low major" to make ourselves feel better about being called a mid major. Well screw that!
We are Division One in Basketball and there are no other divisions within that. So, the next time someone from lsu calls Tech a mid-major, ask them the definition. Then DEFEND Tech and state all the other definitions out there. Memphis, Georgetown, and Gonzaga will be in your corner. We aren't as successful as them yet, but that doesn't matter. We are all on the same level playing court.
As for football, they formalized it - AQ and Non-AQ. Don't let them take the next step in bball!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
