Mid major, I am ok with it.

[pbutler]

So what if they want to try to insult SIU/Butler/MVC teams as "Mid Majors" I would rather be a mid major with 2 sweet 16s in 5 years and some of the "Major" teams.

I guess Northwestern for example-who hasn't even so much as made the NIT in like 20 years. Major-my butt.

[MSNSaluki]

Not being a dick, but even media types are getting it wrong ...

2002 (Sweet 16)
2003 (first-round loss to Missouri)
2004 (first-round loss to Alabama)
2005 (first-round win over St. Mary's, loss to Oklahoma State)
2006 (first-round loss to West Virginia)
2007 (Sweet 16)

It's six years, not five.

[Bradleyfan]

So what if they want to try to insult SIU/Butler/MVC teams as "Mid Majors" I would rather be a mid major with 2 sweet 16s in 5 years and some of the "Major" teams.

I guess Northwestern for example-who hasn't even so much as made the NIT in like 20 years. Major-my butt.

I don't mind my team being called a "Mid Major", as long as the committee doesn't try to screw several teams out of the bracket every year! In all fairness, they did give Butler and SIU great seeds as they both deserved them, but leaving a Drexel or Missouri St out for the likes of Arkansas and Illinois was brutal. I guess the committee leaving Kansas St and Syracuse out of the tournament was supposed to "hide" their mid major bias. I personally don't think that strategy worked though.

[pbutler]

Good point. OBVIOUSLY the Acc and Big 11 were OVERRATED BIG TIME. To get 6 and 7 teams in and put one each in Sweet 16-same as the lowly two from the valley is shameful.

I would hope the selection comittee would reconsider that next year...but I am sure Digger and other BCS whores will do all they can to make them forget.

[Majik45]

Sweet 16 teams for the last two years by conference and the total number of bids they had:

Big East: 6 teams (14 bids - 43%)
SEC: 5 teams (11 bids - 45%)
Pac 10: 5 teams (10 bids - 50%)
ACC: 3 teams (11 bids - 27%)
Big 12: 3 teams (8 bids - 37.5%)
MVC: 3 teams (6 bids - 50%)
C-USA: 2 teams (3 bids - 67%)
Big 10: 1 team (12 bids - 8%)
CAA: 1 team (4 bids - 25%)
WCC: 1 team (2 bids - 50%)
Horizon: 1 team (3 bids - 33%)
MWC: 1 team (4 bids - 25%)

[Bradleyfan]

Sweet 16 teams for the last two years by conference and the total number of bids they had:

Big East: 6 teams (14 bids - 43%)
SEC: 5 teams (11 bids - 45%)
Pac 10: 5 teams (10 bids - 50%)
ACC: 3 teams (11 bids - 27%)
Big 12: 3 teams (8 bids - 37.5%)
MVC: 3 teams (6 bids - 50%)
C-USA: 2 teams (3 bids - 67%)
Big 10: 1 team (12 bids - 8%)
CAA: 1 team (4 bids - 25%)
WCC: 1 team (2 bids - 50%)
Horizon: 1 team (3 bids - 33%)
MWC: 1 team (4 bids - 25%)

Boy that Big 10 percentage sticks out like a sore thumb! A high school team has a better chance of winning a game or two in the tournament than 1 out of 12 times! :original:

[yeager]

I am sure I will get flamed, people saying I am sucking up to BCS schools and what not. But the bias on here regarding Mid-Majors is almost laughable....but I guess it should be since this is a Mid Major conference board BUT....do those numbers mean anything?? Going back at 2 years does not give you good sample numbers. Plus, why stop at sweet 16, why not have elite 8 numbers with pct. or Final Four numbers with pct. Or better yet why not numbers and pct. of Natl. Champs??? My guess is that the numbers do not favor Mid Majors.

[tennis08tarheels]

Being a mid-major isn't a bad thing. It has more to do with your conference than the success of your program.

[Brave2001]

I am sure I will get flamed, people saying I am sucking up to BCS schools and what not. But the bias on here regarding Mid-Majors is almost laughable....but I guess it should be since this is a Mid Major conference board BUT....do those numbers mean anything?? Going back at 2 years does not give you good sample numbers. Plus, why stop at sweet 16, why not have elite 8 numbers with pct. or Final Four numbers with pct. Or better yet why not numbers and pct. of Natl. Champs??? My guess is that the numbers do not favor Mid Majors.

I have to kind of agree with this. If we want to be treated on the same level as the major conferences we must set the bar at the same level that the major conferences do. They measure success in terms of Elite 8 and Final 4 appearences, where we seem content on merely reaching the sweet 16.

I went back over the last 10 years of Final 4 and Elite 8 appearences and got the following. I know we want to shed the mid major label, but we can't even match the succes of the Atlantic 10 or Conference USA in the last 10 years. The Atlantic 10 is still considered a mid major conference because they cant consistently put teams in the Elite 8 or Final 4. Even a 2 or 3 year burst of activity from them, never elevated them above mid major status.

This is a long uphill battle for the Valley. In order to be considered a major conference we must use the same criteria they use. I think its possible, I think its going to take a helluva a lot longer than most of you think (see the A-10), and I think we are just now starting the hardest part of this journey. The easy part is consistently putting teams in the Sweet 16. It's the next step that seperates the men from the boys. That step starts with SIU. SIU must exceed their goals and reach the Elite 8. Use that 4 seed you earned to its fullest potential. GO SIU!



1997-2006

# Final 4 Teams

10-ACC
9 -Big 10
5 -SEC
5 -Big 12
4 -Big East
4 -Pac 10
1 -Colonial
1 -CUSA
1 -MWC


# Elite 8 Teams

13-Big 10
11-ACC
11-Big East
11-Pac 10
11-Big 12
9 -SEC
5 -A-10
4 -CUSA
2 -MWC
1 -MAC
1 -Colonial
1 -WCC

[MVC 4 Life]

You are also not taking seeding in to account. Look, many times the midmajors are seed not in the top 4 and never a 1 or a 2. So look at the deference between a 4 and a 2 seed. SIU has to play a 1 seed one round early than a 2 seed. So that means that the four seed has a big disadvantage making it to the elite 8 as the 2 seed. Also just a round before that SIU had to play a 5 seed were a two seed would most like play a 7 or 1. That makes a big deference just getting into the sweet 16.

In short, it is an easier for a team to make it to the point of the tourney where they are seeded. Now when ever midmajors start getting 1 and 2 seeds then we can talk why they do not have more final 4 showings.

Also when does being one of the best 16 teams in the nation not make you a major team? I mean come on. No one really expects SIU or Butler to give the Dukes and UNC a run for their money every year, but I also do expect any other team to do so either. To say that Texas A&M, Virginia, Texas, and USC are going to be even nearly as good as Duke and UNC year in and year out is just a lie as much has to say that SIU and Butler will be, but they are not considered mid majors because they are not the UCLA's, Duke's, and UNC's of the world. Look at Florida. Do you really think that they will have even half of the tournament wins of Duke in the next 10 years? I would say no.


If you want to be truth full there are maybe only 3 to 5 major teams that never fall off.

[Brave2001]

You are also not taking seeding in to account. Look, many times the midmajors are seed not in the top 4 and never a 1 or a 2. So look at the deference between a 4 and a 2 seed. SIU has to play a 1 seed one round early than a 2 seed. So that means that the four seed has a big disadvantage making it to the elite 8 as the 2 seed. Also just a round before that SIU had to play a 5 seed were a two seed would most like play a 7 or 1. That makes a big deference just getting into the sweet 16.

In short, it is an easier for a team to make it to the point of the tourney where they are seeded. Now when ever midmajors start getting 1 and 2 seeds then we can talk why they do not have more final 4 showings.

Also when does being one of the best 16 teams in the nation not make you a major team? I mean come on. No one really expects SIU or Butler to give the Dukes and UNC a run for their money every year, but I also do expect any other team to do so either. To say that Texas A&M, Virginia, Texas, and USC are going to be even nearly as good as Duke and UNC year in and year out is just a lie as much has to say that SIU and Butler will be, but they are not considered mid majors because they are not the UCLA's, Duke's, and UNC's of the world. Look at Florida. Do you really think that they will have even half of the tournament wins of Duke in the next 10 years? I would say no.


If you want to be truth full there are maybe only 3 to 5 major teams that never fall off.

Seeding makes a difference, you are correct. However it basically means you hit the wall of having to play top 4 seeds the rest of the way out, 1 round earlier (the round of 32, instead of the round of 16)...which is what you said. The goal is to win the tournament, if you are going to have to beat the best to win it, winning one more game against a 2 seed instead of a 7 seed isn't going to make that much of a difference. However if you are there to get kudos for just reaching the Sweet 16 or the Elite 8, then by all means having to play higher seeds earlier is going to have a bigger impact.

The question is, what are you playing for? To see how far you can get or to win the whole damn thing. Again, its about setting the bar high enough. The bar must be to win the whole thing. If its not, you are a mid major conference. That may be harsh or unrealistic expectations, but I guarantee no major conference team has any less of a goal. It must be ours as well, to be considered major. That's my opinion.

As far as a team making it to the sweet 16 being considered one of the best in the nation, you are correct. However, we are talking about conferences. On the whole our conference has sent 0 teams to the elite 8, 0 teams to the Final 4 in 10 years. None. The MWC, MAC, Colonial, WCC, CUSA, A10 all have. I don't know how we can consider ourselves a major conference if we can't even send 1 team in the last 10 years to the elite 8, if those other conferences all have.

It wasnt all because of high seeding either.

Temple #6, #11
Gonzaga #10
Louisville #6 (CUSA time)
Tulsa #7
Kent st #10
Xavier #7
George Mason #11.

Are our teams somehow different? No. If they could do it, so should we. Seeding is a weak argument for never doing it.

And if seeding is so important and we are so major, why haven't our teams gotten higher seeding. It's not mid-major bias either. In

97: St Joes #4, Cinci #3 (CUSA days), Utah #2
98: Cinci #2, Utah #3
99: Cinci #3, Utah #2
00: Temple #2, Cinci #2
02: Cinci #1
03: Louisville #4, Xavier #3, Dayton #4
04: St. Joes #1, Cinci #4
05: Louisville #4
06: Memphis #1

Look my point isn't that the valley isn't good. We are good. I'm just not willing to settle for Sweet 16 appearances and then somehow have the gall to say we are a major conference. If there a High Majors and Mid Majors, then there a low majors. Major conferences send teams to the elite 8 and final 4 in my opinion. Low majors are just happy to get in the tournament. Mid majors are ones that consistently send teams to the tourney, get sweet 16s, and once every couple of years send 1 team to the elite 8 or final 4.

Given the previous 10 years worth of history, it's high time we do something more than just the Sweet 16. If the A10 and CUSA can send teams to the Elite 8 and Final 4, Get 1 thru 4 seeds, then we should be able to do that too. I won't settle for anything less. Until we are able to accomplish that on a consistent basis we are nothing more than the current best mid major conference (and historically speaking not even the best there has been..A10 or CUSA holds that in my opinion).

Bottom Line: I'm not settling. I want more.

[yeager]

Brave, all very good points!!

[MVC 4 Life]

You make some good points Brave and I am for wanting more, but it can not happen over night. If the goal for every team is to win the national championship, which I believe is SIU's goal this year. Seeding does play a major role. Let me put it this way SIU must play a 13, 5, 1, 2, 1, and another 1 seed if all of the top seeds win to win the national championship. Where KU must play a 16, 8, 4, 2, 1, and 1. So that means that for SIU to win a national championship they must play a possibility of 3 one seeds and a 2 seed. Where KU only needs to play 2 one seeds and one 2 seed. So yes to win the national championship you must at some point beat the best but SIU has to beat the best 4 times while Ku only has to do it three times. That is a big difference when you think that we could play a Butler or Virginia instead of a UNC or a KU. It just means that SIU must play harder and have less room for let down.

I know I would rather play Butler and UNLV or Oregon to make it to the final 4 than KU and UCLA or Pitt. That is how big of a difference seeding can make.

[AcePurpleFan]

Sweet 16 teams for the last two years by conference and the total number of bids they had:

Big East: 6 teams (14 bids - 43%)
SEC: 5 teams (11 bids - 45%)
Pac 10: 5 teams (10 bids - 50%)
ACC: 3 teams (11 bids - 27%)
Big 12: 3 teams (8 bids - 37.5%)
MVC: 3 teams (6 bids - 50%)
C-USA: 2 teams (3 bids - 67%)
Big 10: 1 team (12 bids - 8%)
CAA: 1 team (4 bids - 25%)
WCC: 1 team (2 bids - 50%)
Horizon: 1 team (3 bids - 33%)
MWC: 1 team (4 bids - 25%)


Can I post this on the Maryland site?

[AcePurpleFan]

Good points Brave, I want to win the thing.

[go bluejayss]

Can I post this on the Maryland site?

Show em the numbers! They dont lie!:valley:

[Bradleyfan]

1997-2006

# Final 4 Teams

10-ACC
9 -Big 10
5 -SEC
5 -Big 12
4 -Big East
4 -Pac 10
1 -Colonial
1 -CUSA
1 -MWC


# Elite 8 Teams

13-Big 10
11-ACC
11-Big East
11-Pac 10
11-Big 12
9 -SEC
5 -A-10
4 -CUSA
2 -MWC
1 -MAC
1 -Colonial
1 -WCC

Just for kicks, here are the 176 Sweet 16 teams for all conferences in that same period plus this year:

1997-2007

# Sweet 16 Teams

27-Big East
24-Pac 10
23-ACC
23-SEC
22-Big 10
22-Big12
7-CUSA
6-A 10
5-MVC
4-WAC
3-WCC
3-Horizon
2-MWC
2-MAC
1-Colonial
1-Mid Continent
1-Southern

In case anyone is wondering, the Mid Con team is Valparaiso from 1998, and the Southern team is Tennessee-Chattanooga from 1997 (14 seed!).

As this shows, the Valley is a solid upper tier "mid-major", where one Elite Eight appearance by SIU this year won't change things that much. But an Elite Eight or higher appearance every three years or so would outdo even the Atlantic 10's run of Final Four teams during the mid 90's. Seeding definately would help, but there is no shame in being in the position where we are at now. My only gripe is that if the Valley is deserving of three or more teams in the tournament, then don't leave teams out just because we are affiliated with the Valley and not the "Big Six conferences. That should have nothing to do with individual team resumes, if what the so-called "experts" say is true.

:salukis: :braves: :valley:

[rayc]

Brave2001, I can certainly understand what you are trying to say in post 11 above and I don’t disagree with you. I have long felt for example, that CU’s problem in the NCAA tournament is one of goal setting. They and many other teams as well, seem to set their goal at getting into the tournament. After that goal is reached, there is a letdown. I’ve seen it too often with to many teams in all sports. The players and coaches continue to give it their all, but there is a former “sharpness” that is missing. No team worthy of being in the upper echelon of their conference should ever have but one goal, the national championship.

That said, there are a few things in your post that I don’t agree with, for example

“… winning one more game against a 2 seed instead of a 7 seed isn't going to make that much of a difference.”

Here I think you are very mistaken, there is a HUGE difference.

There is very little argument as to which teams are deserving of a top 1-4 seed. The top 10-15 teams are pretty consistent in everybody’s mind. Any discussion of them is usually limited to a particular ranking order, but not the worthiness of teams themselves. Likewise the 13-16 seeds are generally filled with the one team (RPI 200+) conference automatic bids. Again you can quibble with the order of the rankings, but generally not with the teams those seeds are given to.

However with the teams seeded 5-12, it’s a whole different ballgame. This is where the BCS conferences make money (which in my mind is the driving force behind the continuing “mid major” concept.) You will have more teams seeded 7 that are truly worthy of 10-12 seeds than you will a 2 seeded team not worthy of its seed. The opportunity of playing one additional round in a 6 round tournament against a 7 seed (where seedings are very bogus) instead of a 2 seed (where seeds are fairly accurate) is absolutely HUGE.


“The bar must be to win the whole thing. If its not, you are a mid major conference. That may be harsh or unrealistic expectations, but I guarantee no major conference team has any less of a goal.”

Not true. I suspect that the only major conference teams with a goal to win the whole thing are those top 2-4 teams in the conference. I live in Florida, and I guarantee you that Miami’s and South Florida’s goal (and ultimate dream) was to just make the Big East tournament. Actually not a major hurdle, but one they seem incapable of.

Likewise Florida State’s only goal was to make it into the NCAA tournament. There was never any talk of making a run in the tournament or winning it, just a lot of crossed fingers that their ACC conference membership could get them in.

I suspect the same is true of all the BCS conferences. This is all part of the trap we fall into by associating teams and conferences with terms like “mid major” or “high major”. We assume the Colorado’s of the world have the same mind set and goals as the North Carolina’s and are somehow “more worthy” due to their conference affiliation. It’s what the BCS and NCAA want us to believe. It gets them more teams “worthy” of those 5-12 seeds. And that is where the real money is made by the BCS conferences.


“Until we are able to accomplish that on a consistent basis we are nothing more than the current best mid major conference (and historically speaking not even the best there has been..A10 or CUSA holds that in my opinion).

Obviously you are either very young or your concept of “historically” is very short.
Before speaking of the history of The Valley, you really need to learn it.


All in all, I thought your post was right on about where the mind sets need to be if we (the MVC) are going to continue to advance. Bravo!!

[Brave2001]

Obviously you are either very young or your concept of “historically” is very short.
Before speaking of the history of The Valley, you really need to learn it.


All in all, I thought your post was right on about where the mind sets need to be if we (the MVC) are going to continue to advance. Bravo!!

I was using historical in the context of the 10 year period I had defined. I know the valley history and that is very strong...that's why I'm so adamant that we get back to that point...because we used to be there.

[gus_dog]

I am sure I will get flamed, people saying I am sucking up to BCS schools and what not. But the bias on here regarding Mid-Majors is almost laughable....but I guess it should be since this is a Mid Major conference board BUT....do those numbers mean anything?? Going back at 2 years does not give you good sample numbers. Plus, why stop at sweet 16, why not have elite 8 numbers with pct. or Final Four numbers with pct. Or better yet why not numbers and pct. of Natl. Champs??? My guess is that the numbers do not favor Mid Majors.

The bias comes from getting screwed most of the time.

Awfully tough to compare statistics when you get less bids and poor seeds.

The only way to do fair comparisons is to see how like seeds fared in the tourney.

[rayc]

Brave2001:

“I was using historical in the context of the 10 year period I had defined. I know the valley history and that is very strong...that's why I'm so adamant that we get back to that point...because we used to be there.”


Brave2001, I can certainly agree with you over that time frame. You may have been even more generous to the overall quality of The Valley than we deserve.

Here is something along the lines of my previous comments of 5-12 seeds that may be of interest to you.

In the first round of this years NCAA tournament there were 6 games between BCS and non-BCS teams both seeded in the 5-12 range. The BCS schools were seeded to win 83.3% (5/6) of them. They won 50% (3/6).

In the second round there were also 6 games between BCS and non-BCS teams both seeded in the 5-12 range. The BCS schools were again seeded to win 83.3% (5/6) of them. And again they won 50% (3/6).

Thus in the 12 BCS vs. non-BCS meetings of 5-12 seeded teams, the BCS schools although seeded to win 83.3% (10/12), were fortunate to scrape out 6 wins. If this isn’t STRONG evidence of bogus 5-12 seeds I don’t know what is.

And if they hadn’t put the 7-8-9-10 non-BCS seeds (Nevada, BYU, Xavier & Creighton) in the same Region where they had to play each other in the first round, the performance of the 5-12 seeded BCS teams could have been a real laugher.

Of course the advantage to the bogus seeding for the BCS conferences is to provide room and justification for even lesser fellow conference members to be given the at large invitations.

The bogus seeding makes great business sense for the BCS, but I think in the long run, a poor business plan for the NCAA.

[rayc]

oops...

In the above post I referred to round 2, 5-12 seed match ups. In round 2 the 6 BCS vs. non-BCS games were without regard to seed.

They involved BCS #1, BCS #2, 2 BCS #3's, BCS #4 and a BCS #5 seeded teams vs non-BCS #9, #7, 2 #11's, #5 and #4 seeds.

Sorry about that.