Mid-Major Top 25 Summit
by Jimmy
Patsos, Loyola (MD)
For those of us
who work our trade outside the borders of the power conferences,
the Mid-Major Top 25 has become an important and very useful
tool. The 2006-07 season will be the eighth for the mid-major
poll and the first with yours truly as the chairman.
At the 2006 Final Four, in Indianapolis, I was asked to succeed
Oral Roberts head coach Scott Sutton and serve the one-season
term as chairman. Since that announcement was made I have
received a number of calls and emails from coaches wondering if
there will be any changes or modifications to the current
system.
For the most part I plan on taking the “if it’s not broken --
don’t fix it” approach.
As Angela Lento summarized in a recent feature in Basketball
Times, the voting panel held a meeting in Indianapolis. There
were a number of topics discussed, but the majority of the
exchange focused on conference alignment. The most discussed
questions included:
1. Should C-USA now be reclassified as a mid-major league?
2. Should the Mountain West and WAC also be considered mid-major
conferences?
3. Is the Missouri Valley Conference no longer a mid-major
league?
4. Should Gonzaga be removed from the mid-major voting process?
Let’s look at each in order.
Should C-USA now be reclassified as a mid-major league?
No. For all intensive purposes C-USA is a new league, with the
recent departure of Charlotte, Cincinnati, DePaul, Louisville,
Marquette and Saint Louis. That is an impressive list of
departures, but those who now classify the C-USA as mid-major
are slighting the conference’s new members.
Consider that it wasn’t that long ago that Central Florida was a
virtual unknown on the college football landscape. Now they are
a perennial contender for a bowl game. The point being that
these things -- for the most part -- do not happen over night.
Certainly Memphis has established themselves as the team to
beat, but that doesn’t mean that programs like UCF, Marshall,
Rice, Tulsa and UTEP will not be able to compete in their new
league.
And let’s not forget about the programs that didn’t leave the
league. UAB, East Carolina, Houston, SMU, Southern Miss and
Tulane are all very good programs.
I have heard some say that Memphis is to C-USA what Gonzaga is
to the West Coast Conference. That is simply not the case. In
the past three years, six current members of C-USA have
participated in postseason. That is not to suggest that the WCC
is somehow inferior. Current voting members Brad Holland (San
Diego) and Randy Bennett (St. Mary’s) can attest to the strength
of their league.
And one coach in the WCC made a great point, noting that
perception has fueled this discussion. The WCC has gotten a lot
of national attention, while there has been little or no
national spotlight shined on C-USA.
Should the Mountain West and WAC also be considered
mid-major conferences and is the Missouri Valley Conference no
longer a mid-major league?
Let’s answer both questions together, since they were both
connected throughout the season. The answers are no and no.
This past season the Missouri Valley Conference took center
stage and it was certainly deserved. Throughout the year there
was talk that the league should no longer be considered
mid-major and that it was superior to the both the MWC and the
WAC.
In any given year, one conference will be better then another.
That is to be expected. However, the short term should not
necessarily change the long-term classification. Missouri Valley
Conference coaches were also part of the discussion in
Indianapolis and they all agreed that the Valley should remain a
part of the Mid-Major Top 25.
Much like Gonzaga’s run over the past few years, the Missouri
Valley has enjoyed great national success in recent years. But,
as one Valley coach noted, how often will the league get four
teams into the NCAA tournament?
The Valley didn’t have a really good year -- it had an
exceptional year.
Throughout the season the point was made that the Valley had an
outstand RPI ranking, which it certainly did. But the numbers
would then apply to all, including the MWC and WAC.
Former chairman and current voting member, Rick Byrd (Belmont)
has really become a great asset to the voting panel, with the
research that he has done on the RPI and how it relates to the
current conference alignment for the Mid-Major Top 25. Coach
Byrd helped in compiling the following information for the past
seven years.
# of
Mid-Major
Conferences
in final RPI Top 10
# of
High-Major
Conferences not in final Top 10
Major
Conferences
not in the final
Top 10
Mid-Majors
Conferences in the final Top 10
2006
2
2
A-10, CUSA
CAA, MVC
2005
3
3
A-10, CUSA,
MWC
MAC, MVC,
WCC
2004
0
0
---
---
2003
1
1
WAC
WCC
2002
0
0
---
---
2001
0
0
---
---
2000
0
0
---
---
The Valley had a monster season, finishing No. 6 in the final
conference RPI, but both the MWC (No. 8) and WAC (No. 9) also
finished in the top ten.
An argument could be made that the landscape has changed,
pointing out that five times in the past two seasons mid-major
conferences have finished in the top 10. That happened only once
from 2000-2004.
Another argument could be made that the surge of success for
mid-major programs has been a product of more exposure. High
school players are much more familiar with mid-major programs
today then they were just a decade ago. There is some substance
to this argument of exposure and what brings more exposure to
these programs then the Mid-Major Top 25? All of today’s
coverage on radio, television and print media got its momentum
from the creation of the Mid-Major Top 25.
Eight years ago the Mid-Major Top 25 did not exist so the task
of determining conference alignment for the poll was not easy.
There is no perfect formula or mathematical calculation, but
based on the numbers above it’s difficult to argue with
collegeinsider.com’s original alignment. We discussed this point
for about two minutes and we unanimously concluded that nothing
needed to be changed. That’s not to say that there will not be
realignment in the coming years, but we’ll take a “wait-and-see”
approach.
Should Gonzaga be removed from the mid-major voting process?
No.
This discussion comes up every year in the media, but rarely if
ever do these arguments include commentary from other coaches in
the West Coast Conference. Brad Holland (San Diego) and a host
of others will tell you that the WCC is a mid-major league.
All of us -- as coaches -- understand the concept of aspiring to
be better. Thus is makes complete sense that Gonzaga would not
want to boast the top ranking in the Mid-Major Top 25 when it
was ranked in the top five of the Associated Press rankings, but
that doesn’t mean that we should exclude them.
To do that would make the ranking system nothing more then
prognostication. We can’t sit down prior to the start of each
season to debate what teams should or shouldn’t be labeled
mid-major or high-major. There will always be teams that rise
above one label and fall below another.
Time changed for the Mid-Major Top 25.
The fact that we convened a meeting at the Final Four to discuss
and evaluate the Mid-Major Top 25 should indicate it’s
importance and it’s appeal. In the future there may be
modifications, but the only change this season will be when the
Top 25 is released.
In the past the weekly votes have always been cast on Sunday,
with the latest Top 25 being released on Monday morning. That
will change this season. For the 2006-07 season the latest
Mid-Major Top 25 will be announced every Monday at 6:00 p.m.
(EST).
That decision was made shortly after we finished our outstanding
dining experience. The 2006 Mid-Major Top 25 meeting was held at
Iaria's Italian Restaurant, in downtown Indianapolis. All those
in attendance cast a No. 1 ranking for the cuisine.
