Colgate top 25 mid majors

Absurd to have Gonzaga with all true mid majors

Well, there are 5 legit high majors. The A10 is not one.
The Athletic, very respected, puts the A10 with its other mid majors

I've always felt that since D-1 grew to over 300 schools conferences have shaken out into 3 groups: high, mid, and low majors. I use a rough guideline based on the post season.

High - always has multiple bids; most years has at least 1 team capable of getting to the final four (and capable of winning).

Mid - Usually (but not always) sends multiple teams to the dance; not a surprise when one gets out of the round of 64; occasionally has a team getting to the elite 8 but seldom beyond.

Low - almost always a bid 1 league; in most years it's a surprise for the champ to get out of the round of 64.

A couple of other thoughts:

Conferences can have outlier members, a prime example being Gonzaga. I consider the WCC to be a mid major, but GU has not been one for a long, long time.

Conferences change - 10 years ago by my guidelines I would have considered the CAA to be a mid major; now I consider it to be a good low major. Conference USA and the MAC are teetering between mid and low major in my mind; might be others.

Bottom line for me: I don't think the midmajormadness top 25 makes any sense, lumping in conferences like the A-10 and Mountain West with the PL, America East, etc.

isn't the classification of high major, mid major, and low major by conference and not by program?

gonzaga is clearly an outstanding program. but they are in a mid-major conference. i don't think many would consider the wcc a high major conference.

Gonzago (imho), while raising the level of their program to the elite level, has also helped raise the level of the WCC. Before 1999 in my mind they were a low major, probably similar to the MAAC. To a much lesser extent, Harvard has done that under Amaker. The Ivy (at least the top half) is a stronger league than it was prior to Amaker.

Agree. 


www.google.com/search?q=kyle+whelliston+red+line&oq=kyle+wh&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j46j69i57j46j0j46j0j46i175i199j0.1641j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Sadly that is not correct. Some see clear improvement in our players and team from the start of the season, others look at the same players and see none. That is hardly unanimous.

I also make a comparison with last year--one measure to consider is that last year our opponents outscored us by an astounding 13.5 points per game in composite. This year it is 6.5 points per game--obviously we want to start winning more games but the improvement in scoring average is undeniably an encouraging sign.