Mid-Majors vs. Majors

[ktffan]

There's little to suggest that even the best mid-majors can compete with teams from the major conferences. While some mid-majors run through a weak schedule undefeated, they generally get left out of the BCS and justifiably so. Here are a few facts to indicate this:

Since the BCS started in 1998, mid-majors have won less then 20% of the games they've played overall when playing major conference teams.

Even at home, these mid-majors have one less then 1 in three of games played against major teams, but on the road have won less than 1 in 7.

Even the better mid-majors, ones with a winning conference record don't win a majority of the games in which the play the weaker majors, ones with a losing conference record and teams that have won mid-major championships win barely 1 in 3 games in which they play major teams.

Mid-majors that finished undefeated in their conference lost a majority of the games they played against major conference teams. These teams, in fact, lost over 1 in 3 games they played against major conference teams that finished with a .333 or less conference record.

Mid-majors that have finished ranked in the AP poll have even lost over 1/3 of their games against major teams that finished unranked or lower ranked then them. Also, mid-majors that finished ranked have only won 1 in 3 games they played against majors that finished ranked, indicating that mid-majors tend to have to do less to get ranked.

Of the mid-majors that finished undefeated since 1998, only Utah gave any indication they could beat the better major conference teams, and they deservedly got a BCS bid.

[Eric]

Welcome aboard!!

Funny that you posted this, as this is a very heated topic between 2 members. I wouldn't be suprised to see this get 800 posts!!

You did your research, and you're pretty much right. There isn't as much parity in college football as there is in basketball because in basketball, you have to find a good coach, and 7 or 8 players that can ball. In football, you need to find all starters, special teams players, and you have to be deep. It is more demanding to have a competitive football team as a mid-major when going up against major conference teams. Therefore, I'm not saying that there can't be a very good mid-major team that could compete against a BCS school, just that the odds are heavily against the small guys.

For instance, we wouldn't be shocked if Tulsa beat a team like Oklahoma State. Or TCU beating a team like Washington State. I think they'd be competitive games.

[ktffan]

Funny that you posted this, as this is a very heated topic between 2 members. I wouldn't be suprised to see this get 800 posts!! :lol:

I saw that. That's why I went there.

In my mind, Utah proved they deserved a bid. Because teams are locked into their conference schedules, and mid-major schedules are weak, mid-majors should go out and not only schedule, but beat 2-3 major teams, regardless of how good the majors are (except for the perennial bad teams). If they want a BCS, they need to play the teams the others are playing. Going 11-0 against sub-par teams doesn't cut it.

Next year, with the two extra bids available, they are throwing the mid-majors a bone and I agree with that, too.

[Eric]

Exactly. Losing to SMU doesn't cut it for TCU, so I think that UCLA, Miami, and Auburn were more deserving for a BCS spot than TCU. Oh, and Oregon too.

If TCU even wanted a prayer for a BCS bid, they had to defeat everyone on the schedule convincingly. Although they did get some big wins against UNLV, Colorado State, Air Force, and New Mexico, they slipped by Oklahoma, Utah, and BYU and lost to SMU. I don't know if that's good enough for a BCS resume.

[Spence]

Welcome aboard. Nice first post.

[Jason G]

How exactly does everyone define the term "mid-major"? In my experience this is usually a basketball term. Is the tag being used to refer to those conferences and teams that are neither at the top nor the bottom of Division 1-A as the name implies? Or are we throwing all non-BCS conferences and their teams under one general heading?

If you argue that Utah is a MID-Major you certainly can't claim the teams at the bottom of the Sun Belt are also. In that case, who are the low majors?

If you take the true "mid"s I think you'll see that the numbers are better than one win out of every 7 games. Good teams from leagues like the MWC, WAC, C-USA, and MAC beat second division BCS conference teams not in great numbers but with some frequency, especially on the somewhat rare occasions that the games are played in the mid-major's stadium.

The non-BCS schools are getting better but the biggest thing that has been holding them back is the opportunity to show they belong on an equal playing field. While I believe that in most cases the BCS teams and leagues are the superior ones at present I also believe that if the opportunity is given, not once or occasionally but regularly, that the level of play and recruiting will increase substantially.

As it is now, the best players don't consider going to these schools because of the lack of exposure and opportunity. Why would a blue-chip recruit choose to go to a school that aspires to go to the Motor City Bowl or New Orleans Bowl as their ultimate goal over a school that has multiple national TV appearances every year and a good exposure nationally?

Ultimately, as I've stated before, I think systematic scheduling is the best way to make the playing field equal in all of Division1-A.

[Spence]

How exactly does everyone define the term "mid-major"? In my experience this is usually a basketball term. Is the tag being used to refer to those conferences and teams that are neither at the top nor the bottom of Division 1-A as the name implies? Or are we throwing all non-BCS conferences and their teams under one general heading?

Mid majors are teams that really can't be classified as majors. Smaller D-1 schools that don't have the cash flow that the majors have. Not majors, not 1-AA. It isn't a derogatory term, even though some take it that way.

Other then that I pretty much agree with you. Recruiting is the biggest hurdle for mid majors to conquer. The 85 scholarship rule helped make mid majors be competitive with most of CFB.

[Eric]

Whenever I say it, I am just referring to the conference they belong to. When I say BCS schools, Indiana, USC, Baylor, and Miami all fall under the same category. When I say mid-majors, I mean Florida International, TCU, Ball State, and Southern Miss all fall under the same umbrella. Like Spence said, it isn't a derogatory term.

I really agree with Spence in the sense that recruiting is the biggest problem. While the gap is narrowing, you have to have good players on both sides of the ball to compete with better schools. Like I said, in basketball, you're not facing LeBron James and Sebastian Telfair anymore, they can go to the NBA. That narrows the gap. Then you also have to only find 7 or 8 guys that are good, and with experience, your team is capable of playing like George Mason has. In football, you have 22 starters, plus kickers, punters, and special teams players, and you need depth. This makes it much harder to field a competitive football team.

[Spence]

I really agree with Spence in the sense that recruiting is the biggest problem. While the gap is narrowing, you have to have good players on both sides of the ball to compete with better schools. Like I said, in basketball, you're not facing LeBron James and Sebastian Telfair anymore, they can go to the NBA. That narrows the gap. Then you also have to only find 7 or 8 guys that are good, and with experience, your team is capable of playing like George Mason has. In football, you have 22 starters, plus kickers, punters, and special teams players, and you need depth. This makes it much harder to field a competitive football team.

Your a bright guy.....for a Michigan fan.

[Eric]

You're not that bad either.............For a Buckeye fan...........

[Spence]

[ktffan]

If you take the true "mid"s I think you'll see that the numbers are better than one win out of every 7 games. Good teams from leagues like the MWC, WAC, C-USA, and MAC beat second division BCS conference teams not in great numbers but with some frequency, especially on the somewhat rare occasions that the games are played in the mid-major's stadium.

You are correct. Remove the Sun Belt and the mids win one out of every 6 and a half games on the road.

[openSkies]

Hey,

Sorry I'm late jumping on the bandwagon, but... Welcome aboard ktffan!

The CFP staff hope you enjoy your time here, and if you have any questions, we're glad to help. At your services are:

openSkies (myself): Head administrator/tech guy
CFP Admin: Owner/Creator of CFP.com
Spence: Head moderator/keeps it clean

And I second the comment by Spence...

Nice first post =]

[Jason G]

I didn't take the term "mid-major" as a derogatory term. I just don't think it should be an "umbrella" including all schools that are not in the BCS leagues.

To me 1-A classifies the term major. Therefore, mid-majors would be the teams and/or leagues that are neither at the top nor the bottom but rather in the middle. Therefore, I would see the Sun Belt as a low major league right now. Despite the constantly improving talent, I see the MAC overall as being a conference you could argue is a low major league (because most would put it in the bottom 2 or 3 conferences) but the teams in the top half of this league could, and probably should, be classified as "mids".

A conference like the MWC is a true mid-major conference that has some teams every year that are as good if not better than a great many schools usually classified as high majors.

[Spence]

I didn't take the term "mid-major" as a derogatory term. I just don't think it should be an "umbrella" including all schools that are not in the BCS leagues.

But it is an umbrella including all schools not in the power conferences. It is a designation of school size, not neccessarily of strength in a sport. Indiana is a major university, a lot of mid majors are better then them.