By Mark Clayton
maclayton@gmail.com
June 8th, 2006
Mid-Majors:
Don't Change The Name
There
has been a lot of talk recently of doing away with the title of
“mid-major.” These comments are spawning from the recent success of
mid-major programs across America. It is becoming more apparent that the
level of separation between big time programs and mid-majors is becoming
much smaller while the amount of mid-major success on the national level is
on the rise. To calm the uproar of some college basketball enthusiasts who
frightfully see big time programs falling back down to earth, the idea to do
away with the title “mid-major” seems like an appropriate measure. In
reality, all this would achieve would be to put an asterisk aside the
success of several players in America and to punish college basketball
programs that have been doing things the right way.
Mid-majors are not classified by the amount of success they achieve, but
rather by a few simple characteristics which make them unique to the major
conferences. Just like the BCS denotes specific conferences in college
football, mid-major schools are defined by the conference they compete in
and the amount of funding their program receives from the school budget. (Ed:
Ohio State has an athletic budget near $90 million, while budgets in the
Horizon League are all between $5 to $10 million.) Simply because a
school is starting to be successful on the national level does not
necessarily de-classify itself of its mid-major status.
Dan
Dickau, Blake Steppe, Ronnie Turiaf, and, of course, Adam Morrison have led
Gonzaga from being a yearly WCC contender to a nationally ranked team the
last few years. Going back a few seasons, teams like Bucknell, Southern
Illinois, Bradley, UW Milwaukee, Wichita State, and UNC Wilmington, all have
made noise and won games in the NCAA tournament. Moreover, the magical ride
that Jim Larranaga led 11th seeded George Mason University on in
2006 has changed the landscape of mid-majors and the expectations of many
programs around the country. In a way, Larranaga has hurt some mid-major
conferences across America because athletic directors will look at the
similarities between their programs and GMU and think, “Hell, why can’t we
go to the Final Four?” Despite these newfound expectations and while some
coaches will give a much chagrinned “thank you” to the Patriots head coach,
the fact remains that mid-major programs can win at any level.
These
mid-major programs are now kicking at the heels of the major programs for a
few reasons. First off, the players on the mid-major level are often less
recruited and have a lower profile than the big name McDonald’s All
Americans going to Duke, UNC, UCLA, and other power houses. As a result,
these mid-major players come into college with an open mind and look to
their experience in college not as a stepping stone to the NBA, but as an
opportunity to grow and develop as a player. Secondly, as mid-major players,
the NBA scouts aren’t barking down the area door to get a look at these
guys. Therefore, these mid-major teams don’t have players leaving early
and, conversely, have more seniors and more unity than a major program that
has a quicker rotation and influx of players. One such team in 2006 was the
Davidson Wildcats who won the Southern Conference to get a bid in the Big
Dance. Davidson had seven seniors on its roster and all seven were key
contributors. I asked a member of that team, Brendan Winters, a 2005
Honorable Mention All-American, what he thought. Winters carries a similar
belief, “Individually,
the ‘major’ players will always be more talented, but as a team, I think the
mid-majors will always have better chemistry in general because they are
able to build up over four years.” Combine these two factors along with a
great pool of players in America and abroad and the results are sure to
follow.
 |
|
Winters |
So where do we go from here? The answer is rather simple. We must acknowledge
the fact that mid-majors are producing better teams and better results than
ever before. We must also accept that mid-majors along with major programs
have the ability to compete and win at the highest level in college
basketball. But what can not happen is to do away with the title of
mid-major. Some programs take pride in filling the role of David instead of
Goliath. The underdog feeling exists for many teams across America. This
is the true beauty behind college basketball. Take a look at college
football; if you want to win a national championship and you aren’t in a BCS
conference, it is going to be a very tall task. The level of respect within
college basketball is almost completely absent in college football, probably
rightly so because it is a different game, but only in college basketball
can you have a team from the CAA two games away from winning a division 1-A
national title.
There are, of course, the mid-major programs that still continue to
struggle. These programs need to be considered in the same category as
Gonzaga, the poster child for mid-majors across America. Individually, we
will be hard pressed to see another mid-major in the Final Four next year,
but on the whole, the level of success of mid-majors will continue to rise.
Winters said, “I don't think the title of mid-major needs to be re-evaluated
because that is what the schools are in terms of the size and money that
their programs have compared to the ‘major’ schools.” I couldn’t agree with
Brendan anymore, so let’s stop the debate over re-classifying these teams
and simply commend them on running a program the right way.
Editor: For more information on athletic and basketball budgets, visit
http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/Search.asp
