Quazzum69
Stable Genius
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2012
- Messages
- 3,921
- Like
- 6,107
I am going to lose it. Anytime a “mid-major” defeats a team from a “power conference,” that’s all I hear. It’s like an echo chamber with all these commentators, analysts and talk-show hosts. Yeah, it’s a nice story to see Butler or Lehigh or FGCU win (especially against Georgetown), but I don’t think a few incidences should qualify as a full-blown movement. Actually, I think they’re just trying to preemptively build the illusion that the Catholic Seven and other small-timers will still be legitimate with all the ‘parity’ (and football money) that’s around.
First of all, what exactly do they mean by parity? More evenly distributed talent/facilities/coaching between the Power Six and the other conferences? If they’re referring to greater balance of power (and less distinction) between the high- and mid-majors, is this really a new phenomenon? I don’t have the history of AP polls or tournament bids over the last 30 years, but I’d be interested to see how the proportion of Power Six to Mid-Major has changed, if at all, over the past few decades. It’s interesting that the sports media is harping on parity and mid-majors in the midst of the most disproportionate media contracts ever between the Power Conferences and the rest. Yes, a mid-west Catholic basketball league (that’s supposedly as good as SU/Louisville/Duke/UNC) sounds exciting but no one’s buying that turd, no matter how much it gets polished.
If they are talking about parity in the tournament (that is, all seeds/teams having a tighter range of winning probability from top to bottom), I don’t think there’s any evidence for that, either. I’ve graphed the average wins per seed over the last 28 tournaments and there are no significant trends; year and wins per seed are independent of each other. I’ve also looked at the average seed of the Elite Eight and Sweet sixteen each year since 1985 and there is also no trend. The average seed for Sweet Sixteen teams since 2006 (which includes George Mason, VCU and back-to-back-Butler) has been 4.2. And before that, from 1985 to 2005 the average Sweet Sixteen seed was 4.5.
This doesn't mean that mid-majors aren’t getting more and better seeds (if that’s the interpretation of parity), but it doesn’t support the claim that there’s an increase in parity in the tournament from top to bottom between all teams. Even if mid-majors are becoming increasingly competitive in the first few rounds rounds of the tournament, the power conference elite (Duke, Kansas, Kentucky, Ohio State, Syracuse, etc.) will most likely remain at the very top for the near future and dominate the later tournament rounds. These mid-major teams are not like developing nations where the standard of living suddenly goes up because of readily adoptable technology. Did all of these mid-majors just recently discover weight rooms? Is it the cool thing now to play at “mid-major” level if you’re a top-caliber high school player?
Maybe a handful of them just seem better compared to the Power Six because of a few excellent coaches (Shaka Smart, Brad Stevens, etc.), slightly more experienced teams and unpredictable early departures to the NBA. The SEC was mostly a joke this year (along with the ACC) but does anyone honestly believe these small schools could compete with a monster SEC school that poured money into its basketball program (which will definitely happen after this embarrassing year)? If Texas or UCLA had a competent coach, you better believe they would be a force each year.
In the end, money will crush any momentum that mid-majors may actually have. Big-time football schools will buy the most successful coaches (i.e. Jim Laranegga, John Calipari) and continue to have advantages over smaller, basketball-only schools. Shaka Smart and Brad Stevens will eventually leave for greener pastures and this “Rise of the Mid-Majors” will be nothing more than a blip in the history of college basketball. It happens all the time: a great coach comes along, builds up a small school, gets hired away to a powerhouse and the small school's status slowly decays. Power Conference schools have the inertia and, more importantly, money to survive coaching changes and down periods. If you believe the New-World-Order-type conspiracies that a few “super-conferences” will eventually break away from the NCAA, then the mid-majors really are screwed. It’s kind of upsetting but, hey, at least Syracuse is safe for the time being.
First of all, what exactly do they mean by parity? More evenly distributed talent/facilities/coaching between the Power Six and the other conferences? If they’re referring to greater balance of power (and less distinction) between the high- and mid-majors, is this really a new phenomenon? I don’t have the history of AP polls or tournament bids over the last 30 years, but I’d be interested to see how the proportion of Power Six to Mid-Major has changed, if at all, over the past few decades. It’s interesting that the sports media is harping on parity and mid-majors in the midst of the most disproportionate media contracts ever between the Power Conferences and the rest. Yes, a mid-west Catholic basketball league (that’s supposedly as good as SU/Louisville/Duke/UNC) sounds exciting but no one’s buying that turd, no matter how much it gets polished.
If they are talking about parity in the tournament (that is, all seeds/teams having a tighter range of winning probability from top to bottom), I don’t think there’s any evidence for that, either. I’ve graphed the average wins per seed over the last 28 tournaments and there are no significant trends; year and wins per seed are independent of each other. I’ve also looked at the average seed of the Elite Eight and Sweet sixteen each year since 1985 and there is also no trend. The average seed for Sweet Sixteen teams since 2006 (which includes George Mason, VCU and back-to-back-Butler) has been 4.2. And before that, from 1985 to 2005 the average Sweet Sixteen seed was 4.5.
This doesn't mean that mid-majors aren’t getting more and better seeds (if that’s the interpretation of parity), but it doesn’t support the claim that there’s an increase in parity in the tournament from top to bottom between all teams. Even if mid-majors are becoming increasingly competitive in the first few rounds rounds of the tournament, the power conference elite (Duke, Kansas, Kentucky, Ohio State, Syracuse, etc.) will most likely remain at the very top for the near future and dominate the later tournament rounds. These mid-major teams are not like developing nations where the standard of living suddenly goes up because of readily adoptable technology. Did all of these mid-majors just recently discover weight rooms? Is it the cool thing now to play at “mid-major” level if you’re a top-caliber high school player?
Maybe a handful of them just seem better compared to the Power Six because of a few excellent coaches (Shaka Smart, Brad Stevens, etc.), slightly more experienced teams and unpredictable early departures to the NBA. The SEC was mostly a joke this year (along with the ACC) but does anyone honestly believe these small schools could compete with a monster SEC school that poured money into its basketball program (which will definitely happen after this embarrassing year)? If Texas or UCLA had a competent coach, you better believe they would be a force each year.
In the end, money will crush any momentum that mid-majors may actually have. Big-time football schools will buy the most successful coaches (i.e. Jim Laranegga, John Calipari) and continue to have advantages over smaller, basketball-only schools. Shaka Smart and Brad Stevens will eventually leave for greener pastures and this “Rise of the Mid-Majors” will be nothing more than a blip in the history of college basketball. It happens all the time: a great coach comes along, builds up a small school, gets hired away to a powerhouse and the small school's status slowly decays. Power Conference schools have the inertia and, more importantly, money to survive coaching changes and down periods. If you believe the New-World-Order-type conspiracies that a few “super-conferences” will eventually break away from the NCAA, then the mid-majors really are screwed. It’s kind of upsetting but, hey, at least Syracuse is safe for the time being.
