Lady Techsters #14 in ESPN Mid-Major Poll

[dawg80]

I understand the distinction....and so do all of you if you're honest about it....it's all about $MONEY$.

BB programs in the six AQ-conferences enjoy more money through NO EFFORTS of their own, than do BB progams in non-AQ leagues. Just a fact. Now, some of those programs have successfully parlayed the opportunity into money-generating machines. That is true. But it's the same argument you can make against LSU's athletic program vs. other state schools. The legislature propped up LSU, gave it a leg up, an advantage, then cut off the trough for all. Now they point to LSU being mostly self-sustaining and challenge Tech and others to do the same on their own. Nah!

So, any basketball program, in any AQ-conf, gets a boost from the money generated from the whole MAJOR CONFERENCE bias. From TV deals, to statewide support because casual fans are bombarded via media into supporting the state's "annointed" programs.

You are delusional if you haven't watched as the big, land-grants, have grown their hoops...especially in WBB...for no other reason than the BcS monies allowed them to pay coaches $500+ for women's BB. Build fancy facilities, secure big TV deals, etc..

Louisiana Tech is a MID-MAJOR by any definition you care to use.

The WAC, CUSA, MWC and in hoops, leagues like the MVC, etc are at a HUGE, HUGE disadvantage vs. the SECs, and hold an advantage over conferences like the SLC, SWAC, etc... In other words, in the middle of the pack. Thus, "Mid-Major."


Simple question, what is Tech's WBB budget? How much can Tech afford to pay a WBB coach?

Now, how much can Texas Tech, Vanderbilt, Indiana, Arizona, etc...afford to pay?

[dawg80]

Further, if there is no difference, why did Budke leave a "proven" program like Tech, off a Sweet 16 season the year before, to go to Oklahoma State, off a 3-25 season, with NO history of success in WBB?

I'll tell ya why.....$MONEY$ OSU doubled his salary and Budke is smart enough to know that life at a MAJOR is far easier than trying to be successful at a mid-major. Hell, because of the bias, all Budke has to do is finish about 6th in his current conference and he'll get a ticket to the Dance.

And some of you think there is NO difference?

[champion110]

Further, if there is no difference, why did Budke leave a "proven" program like Tech, off a Sweet 16 season the year before, to go to Oklahoma State, off a 3-25 season, with NO history of success in WBB?

I'll tell ya why.....$MONEY$ OSU doubled his salary and Budke is smart enough to know that life at a MAJOR is far easier than trying to be successful at a mid-major. Hell, because of the bias, all Budke has to do is finish about 6th in his current conference and he'll get a ticket to the Dance.

And some of you think there is NO difference?

Everyone knows there is a difference in budgets of Football AQ schools. The point I make and will continue to make is that the TERM "mid-major" is a put down and is a way that the media separate us from others. It is the beginning of a divisional difference that they would like to push - just like the bcs aq vs. non-aq.......

How do you explain schools that have top bball programs year in and year out, money in their programs, and top reputations, but are non-AQ in football? What are they? Major's?

I will stand and continue to stand by the fight against the terms used to separate - thus giving even more of an advantage to big money programs.

[dawg80]

Everyone knows there is a difference in budgets of Football AQ schools. The point I make and will continue to make is that the TERM "mid-major" is a put down and is a way that the media separate us from others. It is the beginning of a divisional difference that they would like to push - just like the bcs aq vs. non-aq.......

How do you explain schools that have top bball programs year in and year out, money in their programs, and top reputations, but are non-AQ in football? What are they? Major's?

I will stand and continue to stand by the fight against the terms used to separate - thus giving even more of an advantage to big money programs.

What top BB programs? Gonzaga? They are a BB school. That's their #1 sport, their emphasis...and they have had moderate success.

There are 300+ Division I schools in hoops. Of that number, about 60 (20%) are "majors." If there is no difference than it follows that about 20% of the Dance and about 20% of the Sweet 16, year after year, should be teams from those leagues. Instead, usually about 12, or 75%, of the Sweet 16 are "majors" in MBB, and an even higher % in WBB the last 10 years (since the big schools got serious).

If there is no advantage (i.e. distinction) than what happened to Immaculata College, who won three straight national titles in the 1970s? They had a headstart, an early lead in building a WBB program and tradition. As did Delta State. I remember when Delta State came to Ruston to play our up-start Techsters. We clobbered 'em by 30 points. How did that happen?

Easy....Tech had (has) a bigger athletic budget. Tech is higher up on the food chain than Immaculata and Delta State. And members of the major conferences are higher up than than Tech. It matters. Whether you wish to admit it, or not.

[champion110]

What top BB programs? Gonzaga? They are a BB school. That's their #1 sport, their emphasis...and they have had moderate success.

There are 300+ Division I schools in hoops. Of that number, about 60 (20%) are "majors." If there is no difference than it follows that about 20% of the Dance and about 20% of the Sweet 16, year after year, should be teams from those leagues. Instead, usually about 12, or 75%, of the Sweet 16 are "majors" in MBB, and an even higher % in WBB the last 10 years (since the big schools got serious).

If there is no advantage (i.e. distinction) than what happened to Immaculata College, who won three straight national titles in the 1970s? They had a headstart, an early lead in building a WBB program and tradition. As did Delta State. I remember when Delta State came to Ruston to play our up-start Techsters. We clobbered 'em by 30 points. How did that happen?

Easy....Tech had (has) a bigger athletic budget. Tech is higher up on the food chain than Immaculata and Delta State. And members of the major conferences are higher up than than Tech. It matters. Whether you wish to admit it, or not.

You are missing my point, though. I do not disagree that some schools (aq) have more money to spend on bball. I am against the "term" mid-major. If you are going to define it as schools that have big money, then just say "big money schools". I could agree with that.

The problem with the term "mid-major" is that it is slowly becoming a true division - sort of like AQ. Just a matter of time. It started out a slang term, morphed into a media term, and now we have a poll for schools classified as it. If you want to go along with that, that is fine. I cannot and will not ever agree with it.

Just call it like it is - wealthy programs vs. non-wealthy vs. poor. Let's be honest about it. Although, I don't think anyone would say that Memphis, Duke, or UConn is non-wealthy in bball. They pump money into bball, instead of football, though. We would beat any of those teams in football.

[fanfromafar]

You are missing my point, though. I do not disagree that some schools (aq) have more money to spend on bball. I am against the "term" mid-major. If you are going to define it as schools that have big money, then just say "big money schools". I could agree with that.

The problem with the term "mid-major" is that it is slowly becoming a true division - sort of like AQ. Just a matter of time. It started out a slang term, morphed into a media term, and now we have a poll for schools classified as it. If you want to go along with that, that is fine. I cannot and will not ever agree with it.

Just call it like it is - wealthy programs vs. non-wealthy vs. poor. Let's be honest about it. Although, I don't think anyone would say that Memphis, Duke, or UConn is non-wealthy in bball. They pump money into bball, instead of football, though. We would beat any of those teams in football.

In my opinion, "mid-major" is not a put-down. And while I completely get your point and think I get where you are coming from, I just don't see it as the slam that you see it as. I'm not saying your opinion is wrong, it just seems that this is a touchy subject for you, and your argument comes off sounding defensive...almost like "we're NOT a little school that doesn't matter, we're NOT NOT NOT!"

Dawg's points are valid, and while I think you both get the reality of the situation, he is speaking in terms of what is actually going on while you are speaking in terms of what "should" be going on. "Should" and "Actual" are worlds apart in the dollars and cents arena of college sports.

[Lilfido]

[quote=fanfromafar;1012230]In my opinion, "mid-major" is not a put-down. And while I completely get your point and think I get where you are coming from, I just don't see it as the slam that you see it as. I'm not saying your opinion is wrong, it just seems that this is a touchy subject for you, and your argument comes off sounding defensive...almost like "we're NOT a little school that doesn't matter, we're NOT NOT NOT!"

Dawg's points are valid, and while I think you both get the reality of the situation, he is speaking in terms of what is actually going on while you are speaking in terms of what "should" be going on.

"Should" and "Actual" are worlds apart in the dollars and cents arena of college sports.[/

quote]


Now here's a happy median. I agree. I have no problem with mid-major as well.

[champion110]

Well, everyone has their opinion. I don't like it and think I see where it is going. We let the big money schools do this to us. I hope we wise up in the future. However, that is just my opinion. I have always been outspoken on this and, probably, won't change my mind. :icon_wink:

We have a play-off system for all D1a schools in basketball. I don't like any term that separates us. We are all on the same level, no matter how much more money a team has. It has everything to do with putting the talent and coaches together and a team can go as far as they can.

[dawg80]

Well, everyone has their opinion. I don't like it and think I see where it is going. We let the big money schools do this to us. I hope we wise up in the future. However, that is just my opinion. I have always been outspoken on this and, probably, won't change my mind. :icon_wink:

We have a play-off system for all D1a schools in basketball. I don't like any term that separates us. We are all on the same level, no matter how much more money a team has. It has everything to do with putting the talent and coaches together and a team can go as far as they can.

Yep, that's true.

But, the "big money" schools enjoy a huge advantage in recruiting, because the money allows them to build fabulous facilities and offer amenities to student-athletes that "wows" high school kids and makes them more likely to sign with a big school.

Other sports, and certainly WBB, benefit from big budgets mostly created via football and in many cases, MBB too. It is true that MBB can also put tidy sums into the coffers of schools.

Does this mean that Tech cannot again reach lofty heights? No, it doesn't. Recruiting is not an exact science and great players sometimes get overlooked. But, it does mean that an occasional "George Mason" type run, i.e. every now and then, is the best anyone can expect. It is NOT a level playing field. And I think you do those battling that mountain a disservice when you state "we are all Divison I." Come on Spoon, win a national title! After all, our program is on par with the UCONNs, Tennessees and other big money schools. Oh, and stay in the top 5 too, year after year. No excuses!

I think Spoon is a terrific coach. I think, given some time, the Techsters will achieve some good things. But she will accomplish those things working against a stiff current.

But, I'm kicking a dead horse. I have my viewpoint and you have yours. I know we can agree on this:

Win the WAC! and make some noise in the Dance!

[BuzDawg73]

There are a lot of smaller, less money schools that have nice facilities and good coaches. (Just how plush can you make a meeting room chair?) This mid major thing creates the perception for recruits that they are not playing at the highest level unless they choose a "major" school. Great athletes want to play at the highest level. Why should we not fight tooth and nail against this derogatory message? It does unnecessary long term damage to schools like Tech.

[champion110]

There are a lot of smaller, less money schools that have nice facilities and good coaches. (Just how plush can you make a meeting room chair?) This mid major thing creates the perception for recruits that they are not playing at the highest level unless they choose a "major" school. Great athletes want to play at the highest level. Why should we not fight tooth and nail against this derogatory message? It does unnecessary long term damage to schools like Tech.

Thanks! It is nice to have someone agree with me on this. I doubt seriously that anyone would have used the "mid major" label on us in the 80's and 90's. I just don't want another divisive line drawn.

Plus, while some find the money as the division between these imaginary lines, there are many many definitions of mid-major to people. If you search the Internet for a definition, you will get many versions. That is because there is no formal definition. The Wikipedia is just one version.

[fanfromafar]

There are a lot of smaller, less money schools that have nice facilities and good coaches. (Just how plush can you make a meeting room chair?) This mid major thing creates the perception for recruits that they are not playing at the highest level unless they choose a "major" school. Great athletes want to play at the highest level. Why should we not fight tooth and nail against this derogatory message? It does unnecessary long term damage to schools like Tech.

A label of "mid-major" doesn't change the fact that students know which schools have programs that are "big-time" and which schools do not. If the Techster program was still a national powerhouse and had a schedule that reflected that status, it would be irrelevant whether or not Tech is a "mid-major" school. In fact, it could possibly HELP with recruiting as some student-atheletes and their families would rather have a smaller-school experience, and be a bigger fish in a smaller pond. Being labeled "mid-major" isn't the problem.

While I think much of this argument is simply semantics, the fact is that the word "major" is still attributed to universities who are labeled "mid" major. "Mid" does not imply a lesser education or lesser value to the degree. It is a comparison, whether you see it as fair or not, of the reality of the situation.

[BuzDawg73]

The athletes knowing which schools are "big time" has a lot to do with this mid major label. The fact that the "big time" schools have big time programs is also partially due to this mid major label. Money is not the only determining factor in women's basketball success. I firmly believe if you take away this mid major label you would see much more parity in the sport. The moguls have established this differentiation and many schools pay the price for it, including Tech.

[champion110]

The athletes knowing which schools are "big time" has a lot to do with this mid major label. The fact that the "big time" schools have big time programs is also partially due to this mid major label. Money is not the only determining factor in women's basketball success. I firmly believe if you take away this mid major label you would see much more parity in the sport. The moguls have established this differentiation and many schools pay the price for it, including Tech.

I agree....... Same with MBB.........