Not Credible?
By Rick Byrd, Belmont
>>> San Diego's Brad Holland rants
on the Mid-Major Top 25
It has come to my attention that
several stories have been written
lately questioning the validity of
any mid-major poll. Since
collegeinsider.com’s is the first
and most prominent such poll, it
seems to be the target of some of
these “basketball experts”. I am
surprised and somewhat
disappointed that a poll that
serves so many programs so well
can be considered anything but a
positive thing for college
basketball. Commentaries and
editorials are simply someone’s
opinion, but I wonder who the
mid-major poll really hurts? The
answer, I think, is no one. But it
sure helps the vast majority of
Division I schools that lack
national attention.
Controversy is an element that
will always exist in sports. It
drives the discussion and helps to
pen the columns. Surely sports
talk radio would not exist without
it. Varying opinions are what fuel
the debates. And while there can
be a debate as to what exactly
defines a mid-major; the word
controversy should never be
included in any such discussion.
Furthermore, the idea that the
CollegeInsider.com Mid-Major Top
25 is not credible is inaccurate.
There are several programs,
Gonzaga most prominently among
them that have consistently
cracked the top 40 or 50 RPI mark,
giving them reason to market their
schools as a national contender
and ask to opt out of the
“mid-major” category. The problem
becomes when deciding how to
define “mid-majors” and the only
practical way is to categorize
them by conference affiliation.
As chairman of the Mid-Major Top
25 voting panel, perhaps my most
important duty is to communicate
with my fellow coaches on
evaluation process and possible
improvements. Like Bob Marlin
(2004), Dave Magarity (2003) and
Seth Greenberg (2002) before me, I
view it as a big responsibility. I
have had some great dialogue with
other voters and lengthy
discussions with the
CollegeInsider.com brass on how we
can make the Mid-Major poll even
better. But, except for changes in
the voting panel, there has not
been a single change made to the
system already in place. The
changes in the voting panel have
been because of the increased
interest among coaches in becoming
a voter.
The big issue and fair question
is: what teams are mid-major
teams? Or, what teams are not? It
seems to collegeinsider.com and to
me that the only way to determine
a school’s status is by conference
affiliation. If not, trying to
decide which MAC, MVC, or WCC team
should be mid-major and which
one’s should be a major would
change yearly if not weekly. And
what about Vermont this year, or
Valparaiso another year?
Perception has fueled the
discussion as to what leagues
should and shouldn’t be classified
as mid-major. Since its inception
six years ago, the Mid-Major Top
25 has not included the following
ten conferences: ACC, Atlantic 10,
Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, C-USA,
Mountain West, Pac-10, SEC and WAC.
The thankless task of determining
what conferences would and would
not be deemed mid-major was
reserved for CollegeInsider.com’s
Joe Dwyer. Joe spent a lot of time
compiling information and speaking
with many coaches, but ultimately
the final decision rested with
him. Six years later it is hard to
argue with his conclusions.
Those opposed to the current
definition of Mid-Major
conferences will point out that
Gonzaga’s conference (WCC) is
ranked No. 7 in the RPI. However
in the six-year history of the
Mid-Major Top 25, the WCC has
never finished in the Top 10 of
the RPI. In fact on only two
occasions has a conference,
classified as mid-major, finished
in the RPI’s Top 10. In 2003 the
Missouri Valley Conference
finished No. 10 and in 2000 the
Mid-American Conference finished
No. 9. In both cases the WAC
finished outside the Top 10.
Since neither the coaches nor
CollegeInsider.com has any control
over the RPI, I think it
illustrates the accuracy of what
is and is not a mid-major. In
recent years, Gonzaga has been a
high-major team, but their
conference affiliation is of the
mid-major variety. That is not a
bad thing. It is simply an
outstanding team that plays in a
mid-major conference. Some will
still argue that a conference like
the West Coast Conference is
better than a league like the
Mountain West, but every argument
should be supported with facts and
these are the numbers for the past
five seasons:
|
Year |
# of Mid-Majors in
final RPI Top 10 |
# of High-Majors not in
final Top 10 |
Exception |
| |
|
|
|
|
2004 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
2003 |
1 |
1 |
MVC 10, WAC 13 |
|
2002 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
2001 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
2000 |
1 |
1 |
MAC 9, WAC 12 |
If anything, Gonzaga carries the
flag for all the programs outside
the power conferences. Mark Few,
and Dan Fitzgerald and Don Monson
before him, have proven that you
can take a smaller profile program
to another level. If there is a
point to be made here it’s that
Gonzaga made people take a harder
look at all the smaller schools.
The most important thing is that
there is nothing bad about the
Mid-Major Top 25. It doesn’t hurt
anybody. It’s actually a rare
thing in sports when there is a
ratings system that doesn’t have
an adverse effect on any team.
Some may still choose to argue
that point, but I really doubt
that being ranked as the top team,
among the mid-major programs, has
ever really hurt any team, in
recruiting or any other area.
I also would disagree with the
notion that the best programs in
the mid-major category should not
be grouped with teams from the
bottom tier of Division I
conferences. Belmont,
Birmingham-Southern, Pacific and
all teams better or worse are
already grouped by the NCAA with
traditional powers like Duke,
Kentucky, Kansas, North Carolina,
etc. and we play in the same
national tournament if we qualify.
Any grouping is going to have
traditional powers and perennial
cupcakes. So is the
CollegeInsider.com’s mid-major
poll. No different definition of
this poll would change that. I
will welcome the day that Belmont
has to deal with the problems that
come with being the No. 1
mid-major in the country. Right
now, I can’t see any problems with
that.
Arguments can be made as to what a
mid-major is, but it is hard to
argue the validity of the
CollegeInsider.com Mid-Major Top
25. If a school does not want to
be included and considers their
school above the label of
mid-major, that is simply a
difference of opinion but it does
not render the Top 25 poll
invalid.
I completely understand the idea
that the top mid-majors want to
sell their program as one that can
compete with teams from the power
conferences. No coach can fault
that approach, especially those of
us outside the power conferences
as we all aspire to follow the
road paved by Gonzaga and others.
I don’t know any coach that
doesn’t respect and even envy what
they have done, but I also know a
whole lot of coaches that embrace
what CollegeInsider.com has done
to promote our programs. It’s a
valuable tool, which has helped to
bring positive exposure to a lot
of schools. Anything that helps to
bring national attention to a
smaller school can only be viewed
as positive.
And by the way, inclusion in one
poll doesn’t mean exclusion from
another. Last season Utah State
spent a few weeks ranked in the AP
and USAToday/ESPN polls. At the
same time they remained a solid
No. 2 in the CollegeInsider.com
Mid-Major Top 25. Utah State
continued to promote the fact that
they were among the nation’s elite
as well as being at the top of the
mid-major group. And most
importantly, being ranked in the
national polls did not prompt Utah
State head coach Stew Morrill to
resign his voting position with
the Mid-Major Top 25.
It should be pointed out that
Coach Morrill was eager to become
a voter. Here is a man that has
been a head coach for 19 seasons
and has done a phenomenal job. The
fact that he wanted to be a voter
should say a lot about the
validity and credibility of the
Mid-Major Top 25. And that goes
for every single member of the
voting panel. We all take it very
seriously.
Recently the Washington Post,
known more for its political
insight, had a nice story on the
topic of mid-majors and it
included some remarks from Jim
Larranaga (George Mason) who is
among the 31 voters.
Unfortunately, that was one of the
very few examples of journalism
that didn’t question its place in
the world of college basketball.
And, for those of us outside the
power conferences, its place is
very much appreciated.
Rick Byrd is the Chairman of the
Mid-Major Top 25 Voting Panel for
the 2004-05 season. |