Mid Major
Can someone help define Mid Major for me? I don't like the term but I think it is here to stay so it needs some refining or clarifying. Here are some things I do know on the subject of Major, Mid-Major, and Low-Major. "Major" has long been defined by the NCAA it's called (D1) DIVISION-ONE. The terms "Mid-Major" and "Low-Major" are media creations with the sole purpose of subdividing the major players in NCAA athletics.
While I don't like the term, I am resigned to the term being around a while, thus I would like it defined better. And yes, I am fully aware of an aristocracy or nobility class among NCAA athletics, but that is not why I don't like the term mid-major. I just don't think the way they are applying the term fits with reality.
Actually I am somewhat (but only slightly) torn on the subject; on the one hand there are polls that give certain successful schools at the D1 level some publicity that would otherwise be ignored by the mass media. For instance, CollegeInsider.com being the oldest and most respected, gives a back handed slap in the form of a compliment to basketball programs not deemed as major players by the rest of the media. Thank you very much.
What I really don't like is how the media tries to cookie cut and fit a school into the same category across the board regardless of the sport, and this is probably where my confusion comes in.
I have heard some state that a Mid Major is defined by conference affiliation. If so, I have a problem with a school that changes conferences suddenly being considered a Mid Major regardless of what it does on the field/court. The vice versa is also true; -using their term- a school that may go from a "mid-major" conference to a "Major" conference is suddenly a Major? Come on people, a perennial cellar dweller from a so called elite conference is considered "major" even though they haven't done squat in ages? No way, so it seems that conference affiliation CANNOT be the deciding factor.
If the term is here to stay, I think on field, on court, and on diamond production should be the deciding factor in who gets the use of the term Major and Mid-Major.
Here is how I think "Mid Major" should be defined and that is simply by success or lack thereof.
College basketball has 327 teams that the NCAA defines as major.
Teams that consistently rank from 110-218 on a success scale should be considered mid-major.
College Football has 117 teams that the NCAA defines as major.
Teams that consistently rank from 40-79 on a success scale should be considered mid-major.
College Baseball has 286 teams that the NCAA defines as major.
Teams that consistently rank from 96-191 on a success scale should be considered mid-major.
College Softball has 266 teams that the NCAA defines as major.
Teams that consistently rank from 90-177 on a success scale should be considered mid-major.
I don't see how anyone can consider the Lady Cajun softball program anything besides "major". They bring it to the top-10 table year in and year out, and even rank in the top-25 nationally attendance wise. Major!
Same for Ragin' Cajun baseball, "major" by just about any criteria except hand fed budget. The Ragin' Cajuns consistently draw a fan base that ranks in the top-20. They also field a team that often rises to the top echelon of collegiate baseball. Major!
Basketball has had three straight trips to the post season. Major!
I know deciphering this on a sport by sport basis would cause the media to do extra homework so this angle is unlikely to take hold. So in this era of cookie cutter media, we are likely stuck with what is "mid" for one is made for the other.
Still I would like the term better defined :confused:
Quote
