View Full Version : Mid-major controversy and definition

11-06-2007, 05:51 AM
Looking to an outside "objective" source, Wikipedia has this defining entry for Mid-major:

Mid-major is a term mainly used in American college basketball and, to a lesser extent, college football, to describe schools not affiliated with a Bowl Championship Series (BCS) conference. [1] Though not always the case in the past, the term today has basically the same meaning in basketball that it has in football. It should be noted that the term "mid-major" was originally coined by the sports media and has no official status. The NCAA recognizes no distinction between so-called "major" and "mid-major" conferences in either basketball or football. [2] Still, "mid-major schools" face different dilemmas in each sport.

There has been much debate, especially in the last decade, as to the true definition of the term "mid-major" as it relates to college basketball. Some still believe that the term has an arbitrary litmus test of sorts, such as how many teams a conference qualifies for the NCAA tournament in a "good" year, or how much success said conference has in the NCAA tournament, or even conference revenue, attendance, and so on. In recent years conferences such as the Missouri Valley and Horizon League have either a) received two, three, or four NCAA tournament bids every single year since the 1990's (MVC), or b) had a higher NCAA tournament winning % than all but one non-BCS conference over the last four years (Horizon League). The Horizon League is also one of only two non-BCS conferences that has had a Sweet 16 team in three of the last five NCAA tournaments (with C-USA being the other). Possibly even more telling, for 2005-06 the MVC had an average attendance of nearly 2,000 more people per game than the A-10, and outdrew C-USA by over 2,000 per game. NCAA D-1 attendance figures, 2005-2006

It is quite possible that the parity shown in the 2006 NCAA tournament is a reflection that, outside of being BCS members, higher-rated conferences can no longer be differentiated from each other with any clarity when it comes to the "mid-major" and "major" labels.

11-06-2007, 07:50 AM
Some Zag fans get worked up when "Gonzaga" and "mid-major" are mentioned in the same sentence. The fact is, we are a small school playing in a mid-major conference. Who cares what reporters call us - our record tends to speak for itself.

11-06-2007, 11:22 AM
I get why it bugs some people when we are refered to as a Mid Major, but frankly it does not bug me. The definition posted is pretty clear, non BCS school etc. Everyone who knows basketball considers us probably a second tier elite prgram. Not UNC, Duke etc but a perenial power. I am fine with it.

We are - Gonzaga

11-06-2007, 11:59 AM
can anyone figure out the first time the term "mid-major" was used?

11-06-2007, 03:18 PM
can anyone figure out the first time the term "mid-major" was used?

I don`t know when but I do know who...it was espn...As you can see from my sig below, I loath the term. There is no such term and even if there were Gonzaga is one of the last schools I`d consider mid major and I`m surprised some of you accept it. espn coined the term and it is my belief that they and the ncaa would love to set their so called mid major group in the nit away from the "big bcs boys". The bracket buster games are another "put them in their place" ploy...all imho...