Talk:Mid-major

message: Why is "Issues mid-major programs face" only listed under basketball?  It is a larger problem for college football teams.  Basketball "mid-majors" can still find a route to the NCAA playoffs.  A college football team that cannot find at least two BCS opponents has little or no chance of receiving any significant ranking.
Mention should also be made of BCS teams deliberate avoidance of scheduling "mid-majors", the cancelling of games and feeble excuses for not playing (e.g. Miami is willing to play Hawaii at home in 2008, but then claims Hawaii is too far for the Hurricanes to travel in 2009 or 2010).  Also worth adding is the issue of "mid-majors" gaining credibility by playing BCS teams, and the possible collusion of BCS teams to avoid such games to prevent sharing of revenues.
Before the 2007 season, Hawaii attempted to schedule *six* BCS teams and only one - Washington State - showed up to play.  One of those who avoided Hawaii was Michigan State, which paid Hawaii US$250,000 to get out of the contract.  Other teams which avoided Hawaii included USC.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.168.68.187 (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also the issue section seems to be slanted to that all major teams are scared of loosing to a minor time, while I am sure the would rather not. Their is little incentive to add a team with a week strength of schedule and is generally unknown is just as an opponent. Also schedules are often made in advance and over multiple years, and by the time they play team strength can have large changes. With one point being totally left out about generally the 'major' teams have higher attendance and higher capacity facilities leading to making more money at home, many of the smaller schools use them to get the money to pay toward the scholarship and other costs of running the program.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.94.144.44 (talk) 22:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

text: I respectfuly disagree.  IME the term is used quite a bit by both the general public and the sports media with respect to football.  In recent years the terms "mid-major" and "non-BCS" have become more or less interchangeable, when used in the football context. Johnsonkurtis (talk) 20:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is "Issues mid-major programs face" only listed under basketball?

message: This article discusses "mid-major" as if it were an official term in intercollegiate athletics.  In fact, it was invented by the sports media and was later taken up in fan and coaching circles, but is not recognized by the NCAA.  Given that, I added a minor qualifier to the first paragraph of the article.
70.251.247.184 01:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree with the above statement.  I also feel that this article should not list the conferences that are labeled "mid-major".  It is a subjective categorization that has no place in an encyclopedia.  Truthfully, I do not believe this article belongs on Wikipedia at all.  X96lee15 02:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The earliest use of the term "mid-major" in the New York Times archives is this article from 1991, which quotes Jim Delaney, who was the head of the tournament selection committee that year, using it to describe Northern Illinois, who was in the Mid-Continent Conference (now the Summit League) at the time. While this doesn't necessarily disprove the claim that the term was invented by the sports media and is unofficial, it shows that it was apparently used in official circles several years before it became commonly used by the media, coaches and fans. A search on Google Groups also shows 1991 as the earliest date for the use of the term on Usenet, with only a handful of other uses up until the late 1990s. Maybe someone with access to more resources (e.g. LexisNexis) can try to further pinpoint the origin of "mid-major".Ezclee4050 (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To be an official term, it would take more than just some official of the NCAA using it. It would need to be defined in NCAA documents. "Bowl Championship Series" and its abreviation "BCS" are official terms and there is no question about what conferences are BCS conferences, although there may be discussion about which conferences should be BCS. But there is no official definition of "Mid-major" and hence considerable discussion on what conferences should be included in this description. 69.29.207.109 (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the term is subjective, but surely that alone does not make it inappropriate for an encyclopedia entry.  The fact that the NCAA doesn't recognize it as an official classification doesn't change the fact that people who encounter the term would want to know what it means.  And I don't think there is anything wrong with listing schools or conferences that are "commonly considered mid-major" so long as the list includes appropriate cites, and makes clear that it is an unofficial subjective classification, and is subject to dispute.  Johnsonkurtis (talk) 20:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Oversight in article

message: This was a poor article that read more like a discussion board argument about which teams are or are not mid-majors. Wiki is an encyclopedia, not an editorial page. Listing or not listing a conference does nothing to help define the informal term 'mid-major'. 70.200.23.168 19:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To list EVERY OTHER conference besides the BCS and the few "disputed" confences as mid-majors is confusing, unnecessary and, to put it bluntly, wrong.  I agree with FancyPants here.  Please open this up to discussion, but I'll chop a number of those conferences off the list in short time depending on what people say here.  Enough with the vandalism and revert wars. Masonpatriot 14:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A few of the conferences currently listed as mid-major (Mid-Con, OVC, etc) are regularly rated in the bottom 1/3 of the 31 D-I conferences, so I am removing them. I also agree that listing all of the remaining 31 conferences as mid-major is wrong, as the term "mid", by definition, means middle. Which those are not. CollegeSportsGuy 13:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition

message: A few of us were wrong and outdated in our thinking that conference's like C-USA and the A-10, which regularly recieve  multiple NCAA bids, Elite Eight and Sweet Sixteen appearances, and even have "buy" games with "true" mid-major conference teams, could EVER be considered mid-major's themselves. Thank you for taking the time to finally convince all of us of the backwardness of our thinking, and for sharing your immense knowlegde on this complicated subject. In fact, if it weren't for you, I would have never realized that C-USA even existed in 1985, nor would I have known that the way in which a given conference and its schools' administrators, coaches, and players view their own league helps determine that league's status. In fact, I probably would have even continued believing that C-USA was somehow diminished when it lost 8 of its 14 schools to BCS conferences during last years realignment. I will correct this article immediately, and appropriatley move all conferences that fit your correct qualifications of a Major into the Major category, and also move the remaining "non-major" conferences accordingly. CollegeSportsGuy 20:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: You know, after giving it some thought, you're right

message: One or two years of success for the MVC? I understand you may be a Xavier University and A-10 Conference fan, but how in the world can you say this:
 "If the MVC continues of (sic) sustains their recent success they could be considered a Major
 conference as well. Two good years is a nice start but it is not long enough to judge it as a
 whole."?
You are (blatantly) obviously biased towards the A-10 and an "old" C-USA that does not even exist anymore. Not only by your "propping up" of these two non-BCS conferences with historical data only, but also by choosing to ignore every shred of fact regarding the MVC's history, not to mention recent results in every manner of measure that has been mentioned by every person in this discussion. This includes your omission of the fact that the MVC does have teams that buy games today, just like A FEW of the teams in the A-10 and C-USA do, which was touched upon in one of the articles YOU YOURSELF posted below!!! Did you know that more teams in the A-10 *ARE BOUGHT* by BCS conferences than are teams in the MVC??? You really need to do your homework, and stop purpetuating myths and narrow-minded opinions on Wikipedia, especially when they fly in the face of current-day facts. 
As you also may (or may not as your ignorance on this subject is quite astounding) know, the MVC has now had multiple bids to the NCAA's every year since 1998, something the A-10 has not. Picking and choosing historical facts to support your argument is fun, isn't it? Lets try some more. Loyola University of the Horizon League has won a NCAA D-I National Champioship in men's basketball in the 1960's, so that conference must be more of a "Major" now then the others, right? Or is there a magical cut-off date that only you know about for when facts like this become no longer pertinent? 
Wikipedia is (or is supposed to be) an encyclopedia, which by definition speaks of what *IS*, not what "should be" or "needs to be", as you like to believe:
 "What needs to be done is experts to refer to conference that at Major like the A10 and CUSA 
 to be called NON BCS Majors. They may not be on the level of the ACC but they also are not on
 the level with the true Mid-Majors."
So once again, please stop your vandalism of Wikipedia articles immediately, and take your unjustifiable ***opinions*** somewhere else. 143.81.160.51 08:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: So only *YOU* get to decide which conferences are major and mid-major, based completely upon your one-sided arguments and cherry-picked "facts", all of which are historical in nature?

message: And it's most definately not accepted as to which ones are, as you said yourself here just today:
 "Most college basketball experts agree that the A10, Conference USA and one of two others are
 indeed Major Conferences."
I think the problem is, "Where do you draw the line?" The answer today is, you can't, except at BCS membership. This was also the determination that was come to by those of the Wiki before you started editting here. Every criteria stated in your previous discussion post below is THE VERY EXAMPLE of misinformed, antiquated, and biased criteria. Why? Because it is ALL opinion, and an outdated one at that. Today (not 1992, 1998, or even 2004), the Missouri Valley conference is regarded by nearly every person involved in college basketball as a much stronger conference than both the "new" C-USA and an A-10 conference that has only had 3 NCAA teams over the last two years (look it up). EVERY respected judge of college basketball agrees; I'm talking Lindy's, Athlon, Blue Ribbon Yearbook, respected rating & ranking services like Ken Pomeroy and Jerry Palm, the RPI, sports books, etc. That's also the same amount of NCAA bids for the A-10 that the Colonial Athletic Association has had during that time, but unlike the CAA, the A-10 doesn't have a Final Four to show for it. 
You want to talk about today? It's TODAY, that the Horizon League has more Sweet 16 teams in the last four NCAA tournaments than the Mountain West Conference, the WAC, and the same exact amount as the A-10. And it's that same Horizon League that over the last 4 years has had a better winning % in the NCAA tournament than the A-10. It's today that other non-BCS conferences that are NOT named the A-10 and C-USA have signed a national TV deal with CBS to televise their conference's tournament. It's today that these conferences are opening, or have already opened, multi-million dollar facilities that 90% of the schools in the A-10 could only dream of (check out the MVC's facilities, and the two new ones that are being built for UNI and SIU right now). It's today that schools in the MVC, Horizon League, MAC and WAC now average more for attendance than 90% of the schools in C-USA and the A-10. And it's TODAY that the A-10 has finished behind the MVC in attendance average for over a decade. I understand their #'s used to be close (back in the 90's), but it's grown to over 2,000 people per game a year. All these factors, including 5 NCAA at-large bids for the Valley the last two years compared to the A-10's 1, add up to show that the MVC is a more dominant (or "major", if you prefer) league than the two conferences you repeatedly speak of. So I think it is you, sir, that needs to be welcomed to the new "millinium" (sic).
But you are right on one account: It's also today that independent polls, websites, newspaper articles, columnists, and reporters on TV list different conferences as being "major", or "mid-major", or "low-major", never including the same conferences as the guy before, or the guy after him. Take Andy Katz, the Mid-Majority, the Mid-Major Top 25, or any other sources you want and compare them, you will find different conferences making the cut almost every single time. This shows that no, most college basketball "experts" do not agree, as you claim. 
So without writing a book about why it is that SOME college basketball talking heads on TV, sportswriters, independent unofficial polls, etc. choose to occasionally still list SOME of these conferences as "major" (while at the same time considering many of the teams in them to NOT be major), lets just say it is COMPLETELY BIASED AND SUBJECTIVE to only include one or two non-BCS conferences as "major" while not including several others, that are considered by every objective source, to be higher-rated conferences in every single quantifiable, assessable aspect of NCAA Division I college basketball. In the regular season, in the NCAA tournament, in the NIT, in the RPI, in the # of teams qualified for any postseason tournaments, in attendance figures, and on and on and on.
You can cling to your subjective "some of these teams "buy" games in this league, while a few less teams do in this league" argument, but it's in no way worthy of being the reasoning for altering any encyclopedia, even this one.  ;)
Oh yeah, and as if to give a perfect example of your biased judgment here (in favor of the one or two conferences you keep speaking of), you say that this line of reasoning is only "wishful thinking by fans of BCS leagues". My team is not in a BCS conference, yet I could not see through you more. Your prejudicial attitude, comments, and edits to this article are so obvious, it's laughable. Please stop, before you discredit Wikipedia even more with your completely baseless and often times factually inaccurate edits to this article. And I also do not appreciate having my discussion comments on this Talk page completely deleted, as you already did once. CollegeSportsGuy 16:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: It's not an opinion, it's just not accepted anymore that others outside of the BCS conferences are major

message: Notre Dame is *NOT* a mid-major. In basketball they are in a "major" conference, and in football there is special criteria for them alone in the BCS, the so-called "Notre Dame clause." This ensures them a BCS bowl bid if they finish in the top-12. The article says they are in the BE in bb and then says they are "in the BCS" in football, but goes on immediately thereafter to include them in a list of "mid-major" independents (the two independent military academies).
Strikehold (talk) 06:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Notre Dame

message: That's got to be a typo.  I believe you meant Sun Belt, which has much larger attendance than the A-Sun and plays I-FBS football, along with C-USA, MAC, MW, and WAC.  I have BOLDly changed it Purplebackpack89  03:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Sun? 

message: I have a problem with this sentence: In the 2010 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament, the Butler University Bulldogs reached the Final Four, becoming the 3rd mid-major to make the Final Four in the modern (1985–present) era. On April 3, they beat Michigan State of the Big Ten Conference to become the second mid-major to reach the national championship game.
I assume the person who wrote this was referring to George Mason in 2006, Memphis in 2008 and Butler.
UNLV 87, 90, 90, even won a title from the Big West - no mention. Utah made the final in 1998 - no mention. UMass in 96 (forfeited but still) - no mention. And Memphis State '85.
So unless your modern era is actually 2006-present, you're wrong. And why is 85 the start of the modern era?
:90 and 90? You mean 90 and 91? You are correct, I made this change in the article. Should there be a mention of UNLV or any of the top MWC teams in there? YE  Pacific Hurricane 02:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't count Final Fours unless you can count 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Mid-major. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151222123945/http://archive.cincinnati.com/article/20090326/SPT0102/303260023/Retire-term-mid-major- to http://archive.cincinnati.com/article/20090326/SPT0102/303260023/Retire-term-mid-major-
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Mid-major. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100410203339/http://www.midmajority.com/redline.php to http://www.midmajority.com/redline.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100410203339/http://www.midmajority.com/redline.php to http://www.midmajority.com/redline.php
*Added  tag to http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/sports/more.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2008-03-18-0115.html
*Added  tag to http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_pg=528&u_xid=428&u_sid=2208117
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101106204551/http://www.midmajority.com/redline to http://www.midmajority.com/redline
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061128171602/http://collegeswimming.com/core/team_rankings/division/4/ to http://www.collegeswimming.com/core/team_rankings/division/4/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: On 16 January 2020, User:Robert_McClenon rejected Draft:Group_of_Five_conferences, suggesting it was a split from this article.
The original intent behind Draft:Group_of_Five_conferences was to provide a conference/team listing and map similar to Power Five conferences.
However, after reviewing the existing content here at Mid-major, I understand the "split" designation. The Football subsection has some good information and history, but poorly written. There does not appear to be a "High-major" page counter to this Mid-major page. And the Group of Five conferences page is but a draft, except it now appears to link to Mid-major as a redirect.
This article, Mid-major, has numerous problems and issues which are noted at the top of the main article (weasel words, tone/style). I do not feel qualified to include more information before this page is cleaned-up. Adding more information where there are already issues might compound those issues.
In addition, my proposed "split," has only to do with College Football, and not with "Mid-Major" conferences across sports.
 Per your rejection. Explicit notification of creating a redirect to Mid-major would have been nice. PhanChavez (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: User:PhanChavez - I did not reject the draft.  I declined it.  That means that it can be resubmitted.  I said that discussion of whether to accept it should be at this talk page.  I did not notify you of the redirect because the redirect was already there.  This is the place to discuss whether to accept Group of Five as a stand-alone article.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Robert McClenon - First, my apologies for not differentiating or understanding the difference between rejection and the ability to resubmit. I'm new, I'm learning, I'll try to remember. Second, when was the redirect created, and by whom? And what other actions were taken by the other person after creating the redirect? Why was the draft with the same name not notified of the changes. And, again, apologies in advance: I just tagged you on my own talk page regarding this very issue. Third, given this additional knowledge and attention to detail (that the redirect was created after the draft, and has some spurious underpinnings) is this the place to discuss? Or is there unnecessary conflict and confusion in play, caused by another user with an agenda that doesn't include cleaning-up this already questionable Mid-major article, which also receives High-major designation (circa 2011)? Regards, P.C. PhanChavez (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Split