??? That explanation just made my head spin.
I understand why the term is used. But the problem with the term is that “major” has no meaning. BCS and non-BCS makes sense. But high major, major, mid-major, 1/4 major are meaningless.[/quote]
Not really- technically BCS refers only to Football[/quote]
Of course. But since “major” has no true meaning, when it’s mentioned in terms of basketball that’s essentially what they’re referring too.
While you’re right that it usually does, I always considered it a bit more expansive than that. I consider Xavier, Memphis, Butler, etc., “major” even though they aren’t in “BCS” leagues. I considered us (at least at the beginning of my fandom) to be “high mid-major.” That seemed to define our level of success pretty well, at the time.
That’s essentially my point. There’s no uniform definition for “Major”. While you might consider Butler a “major”, others probably don’t. If it’s predicated by on the court performance, they didn’t make the Big Dance this year. Meanwhile Ohio University made it to the Elite 8. So is a Ohio a Major? If not, then is it determined by a 5 year average? 10 years? Forever? If it’s forever, San Francisco has 2 National Championships while Xavier has 0.
Is it budgets? Duke spends the most on bball. But they lost in the first round to Lehigh. So that can’t be it.
Is it student enrollment? Can’t be that because Butler only has about 4,000 students.
Maybe it’s recruiting class rank. Can’t be that because Houston has a top 20 rated class for 2012.
Any way you try to define it is a muddled mess. The only thing close to differentiate it is conference affiliations. And to be clear, I’m not suggesting any BCS team should automatically be considered a “major”. I’m suggesting that maybe the term major shouldn’t be used when referring to basketball programs.
[quote=“ninerID, post:19, topic:26729”]We should do what the VCU’s, Memphis’s, Gonzaga’s, Xavier’s do.
We should define the success of the conference, not let the success of the conference define us.[/quote]
This is have a good dose of OOC scheduling with desirable tournament travels against strong competition, should help with recruits.
[quote=“Normmm, post:23, topic:26729”]That’s essentially my point. There’s no uniform definition for “Major”. While you might consider Butler a “major”, others probably don’t. If it’s predicated by on the court performance, they didn’t make the Big Dance this year. Meanwhile Ohio University made it to the Elite 8. So is a Ohio a Major? If not, then is it determined by a 5 year average? 10 years? Forever? If it’s forever, San Francisco has 2 National Championships while Xavier has 0.
Is it budgets? Duke spends the most on bball. But they lost in the first round to Lehigh. So that can’t be it.
Is it student enrollment? Can’t be that because Butler only has about 4,000 students.
Maybe it’s recruiting class rank. Can’t be that because Houston has a top 20 rated class for 2012.
Any way you try to define it is a muddled mess. The only thing close to differentiate it is conference affiliations. And to be clear, I’m not suggesting any BCS team should automatically be considered a “major”. I’m suggesting that maybe the term major shouldn’t be used when referring to basketball programs.[/quote]
It’s like pornography. Maybe I can’t define it but I know it when I see it so here goes…
There are 6 “Major” conferences and others float in and out of the “Major” school conversation. Normally X and Memphis are a couple of them as is Gonzaga. Butler was the previous couple of years and other schools come in as well, Valpo had a good run a few yrs ago.
There are others but that’s my take on it.
[quote=“hootie, post:25, topic:26729”][quote=“Normmm, post:23, topic:26729”]That’s essentially my point. There’s no uniform definition for “Major”. While you might consider Butler a “major”, others probably don’t. If it’s predicated by on the court performance, they didn’t make the Big Dance this year. Meanwhile Ohio University made it to the Elite 8. So is a Ohio a Major? If not, then is it determined by a 5 year average? 10 years? Forever? If it’s forever, San Francisco has 2 National Championships while Xavier has 0.
Is it budgets? Duke spends the most on bball. But they lost in the first round to Lehigh. So that can’t be it.
Is it student enrollment? Can’t be that because Butler only has about 4,000 students.
Maybe it’s recruiting class rank. Can’t be that because Houston has a top 20 rated class for 2012.
Any way you try to define it is a muddled mess. The only thing close to differentiate it is conference affiliations. And to be clear, I’m not suggesting any BCS team should automatically be considered a “major”. I’m suggesting that maybe the term major shouldn’t be used when referring to basketball programs.[/quote]
It’s like pornography. Maybe I can’t define it but I know it when I see it so here goes…
There are 6 “Major” conferences and others float in and out of the “Major” school conversation. Normally X and Memphis are a couple of them as is Gonzaga. Butler was the previous couple of years and other schools come in as well, Valpo had a good run a few yrs ago.
There are others but that’s my take on it.[/quote]
It is defined by one thing: $
It doesn’t matter that Duke lost in the first round, they are still a major program because they are loaded. UCLA has sucked for a few years now but they are obviously major.
$$$
Not sure about that. By most on here, Gonzaga and Butler currently would be considered “majors”. But I’m not sure they would be in the top 50 of Div 1 basketball expenses.
2010-2011 basketball expenses:
Duke - $13.8 mill
Gonzaga - $5.3
Butler - $3.5
Charlotte - $2.3
Gonzaga and Butler are definitely not considered “major” on a national stage.
Again, it’s a very simple formula.
More Money = Major
Less Money = Mid-Major
The most pathetic program in the SEC/B1G/Big12/Pac12/ACC is more major than any other non-BCS conference university, at least on a national level and that’s because they have more money therefore better facilities, better sponsorships, better boosters, more and richer alumni etc.
I disagree. I think that Butler, with two National Championship appearances, is more “Major” than Northwestern, Vandy, etc. I don’t disagree that the money distinction is generally a good one, but I definitely think there are programs outside the power 6 conferences that are more “Major” than those in them. Memphis in C-USA would be a good example (“Major” even before they went to the Big East).
You might think that but Butler has an endowment of $155 million while Vandy comes in at $7.2 billion and Vandy $3.375 billion.
Also Butler doesn’t have FBS football which automatically takes you out of the conversation of being a “major” since football is by far the biggest money maker in college athletics.
I would argue that Memphis is not yet a “major” athletic program on a national stage.
You might think that but Butler has an endowment of $155 million while Vandy comes in at $7.2 billion and Vandy $3.375 billion.
Also Butler doesn’t have FBS football which automatically takes you out of the conversation of being a “major” since football is by far the biggest money maker in college athletics.
I would argue that Memphis is not yet a “major” athletic program on a national stage.[/quote]
And Harvard has a $32 Billion endowment, but that doesn’t mean that they have a bigger sports program than University of Florida. Also, I’ve only ever heard “major” and “mid-major” used to refer to basketball. I’ve never really heard it outside of that context.
Some of us used to think we were Major, along with Cinci, Louisville, Memphis, Marquette, etc. Then the BCS leagues said we were not. I don’t think we even used the term Major, Mid-Major, etc before the BCS existed.
The correct term is actually power conference to me. And that is the big six that were BCS automatic qualifiers in football until now. Other sports it doesn’t apply as much other than basketball, which uses the term major to identify these six conferences.
Depending on the sport, it varies. Rice is a power school in baseball but is not in a power conference. Memphis is a power school lots of years but wasn’t not in a power conference.
At the end of the day, who cares. Let’s get better and they can call us whatever the hell they like as long as I get to see us in the NCAA tourney again.
A “major” is a school that goes 1 game above .500 in their conference, finishing sixth, and still gets a 7 seed in the NCAA tournament. A “mid-major” is that team that won their conference tournament and beat the major team in OOC play early in the season, but ends up with an 11 seed.
Major refers to conference. No matter what the school, your conference determines your status. For example Depaul is considered a high major.
30 D1 conferences
1-10 = high major
11-20 = mid major
21-30 = low major
Agree, plus the fact that a major conference is one that routinely sends multiple teams to the Big Dance. Yes, there are additional factors like money, RPI rankings, etc.
Of course, there a those sportswriters/sportscasters who think they know “everything” - such as Billy Packer, Tom Sorensen, etc. - but they are a dime a dozen and, unlike George W. Bush, are not the “Deciders” on such matters.
Finally, I remember when the original C-USA was considered a power conference. That ended in 2005, probably forever.
Compliments of Early: http://www.theonion.com/articles/ncaa-tournament-proving-that-midmajor-semiupperlow,17154/
[quote=“hootie, post:33, topic:26729”]The correct term is actually power conference to me. And that is the big six that were BCS automatic qualifiers in football until now. Other sports it doesn’t apply as much other than basketball, which uses the term major to identify these six conferences.
Depending on the sport, it varies. Rice is a power school in baseball but is not in a power conference. Memphis is a power school lots of years but wasn’t not in a power conference.
At the end of the day, who cares. Let’s get better and they can call us whatever the hell they like as long as I get to see us in the NCAA tourney again.[/quote]
Power conference / Major, same vague definitions. I get what it’s referring to. But why not just say it? BCS.
Over49r9r is right. The “major” usage didn’t really exist prior to the BCS.
LOL! This! I think we are right in the middle of “semiupperlower”.
This too is a good definition! I think we(Charlotte) are now a Major in golf.