ESPN Men's Basketball

I spent a Sunday sitting next to John Kresse, a true legend in college coaching, watching Tommy Herrion conduct a practice at the College of Charleston. I sat beside a former coach who could coach with anyone who has ever roamed a sideline, watching one of the nation's brightest young coaches teach a group of talented players to fight like hell through a two-hour practice.

There is no way that what I watched could be reasonably termed a "mid-major" practice. No reasonable basketball person would ever refer to Kresse as a "mid-major" coach, or Herrion as a "mid-major" coaching talent. But that is what we all have called them, and I'm not sure it makes sense anymore.

Heading into the 2003-04 season, ESPN's Jay Bilas ranks his top 10 teams who play outside the so-called "major" conferences: 1. Gonzaga Bulldogs 2. Wichita State Shockers 3. Creighton Bluejays 4. Northern Illinois Huskies 5. C. of Charleston Cougars 6. Illinois-Chicago Flames 7. Miami (Ohio) Redhawks 8. Manhattan Jaspers 9. Bowling Green Falcons 10. Eastern Washington Eagles

Call Gonzaga a "mid-major" and Mark Few will give you an earful. Let the commissioners of the Mid-American Conference, the Horizon League and the Missouri Valley Conference hear you say "mid-major," and they will each rattle off the wins their leagues have posted over the so-called power conference teams ... a.k.a. the "majors". What these coaches and commissioners object to is that the term automatically paints their programs as inferior to the power conference schools.

I have referred to teams as "mid-majors" for years, and never really thought about the definition of the term. I treated a mid-major like the Supreme Court treated obscenity ... I can't define it, but I know it when I see it. Websites such as ESPN.com and others are just as guilty, publishing a "Mid-Major Top 10" and honoring players as "Mid-Major All-Americans".

But, with each run to the Sweet 16 by Kent State, Butler or Southern Illinois, or "mid-major" player who plays in the NBA, it's gotten tougher and tougher to add up exactly what defines a "mid-major" team. And, since we use the term so freely, we must know what it means.

So, what exactly is the definition of a "mid-major" program? Let's take a stab at the different definitions, and attempt to come up with some other more palatable expressions to use in place of such a demeaning and debasing moniker.

A consistent theme among the so-called mid-majors is that they are seldom on television. And, they are seldom on television because they don't consistently get the ratings numbers that the power conference teams produce. The truth is, if you took the bottom teams from the power conferences and put them on television against each other, they wouldn't get a decent rating either.

Gonzaga was on national television more than any "mid-major" last season -- playing in the Maui Invitational, beating N.C. State in the Jimmy V Classic, and then Tulsa in the Bracket Buster event. And, once March rolled around, the Zags gave us one of the best games of the year against Arizona in the NCAA Tournament. Clearly, the Zags played high-level basketball all season.

This year, Austin Peay, Manhattan, College of Charleston, Northern Illinois and others are going to be very good, and capable of winning an early-round NCAA game. It's just that most people will never know it because these teams will be limited to local television, at best, or be a "Radio Only" program. And, if it's not on TV, does it really happen?

Visibility simply isn't a viable criteria when it comes to labeling a basketball team.

There was once a common perception that schools without Division I football were considered mid-majors.

Well, Marquette, Providence and Charlotte don't play football, and nobody has ever called these basketball programs a "mid-major". Meanwhile, Tulsa, Northern Illinois and Bowling Green play a pretty good brand of Division I football and are still considered "mid-major" basketball teams.

If this line of thinking is to taken a step further, how can we explain a certain school called Duke? The Blue Devils have struggled on the gridiron years, but the last label anyone ever would think of placing on the Dukies is "mid-major."

I used to think all "mid-majors" were those smaller schools with enrollments far lower than their power conference counterparts. Well, that is not always the case.

The "mid-majors" simply have fewer resources, largely because of that lack of national television coverage. When a "mid-major" makes the NCAA Tournament and does well, applications and contributions increase, primarily due to television and television dollars. As far as "mid-majors" are concerned, size doesn't matter -- resources do.

The "mid-majors" are the "have nots" when it comes to facilities and money, but they have talented players and coaches.

Power conference schools like to say things like they'll play anyone, anywhere, anytime. Well, that's only true as long as the game is on television and it will help power ratings. And, that is just smart business.

If I were the coach of a power conference school, I wouldn't schedule Gonzaga, Ball State, Western Kentucky or Louisiana-Lafayette, either. You don't get the proper credit for beating them, and you are certainly going to get a battle with a good chance of getting a loss on your record.

Unless the NCAA creates an exemption for the power conferences to play the "mid-majors" to give the "haves" an incentive to play the "have nots," the basketball rich will keep getting richer, forcing the "mid-majors" to work that much harder to compete.

Maybe it's time for an early-season tournament that is made up of at least 25 percent mid-majors, or exempt a Big Ten/ACC Challenge-type event between a power conference and a conference like the MAC or Horizon. The mandate from the NCAA Tournament selection committee is to play a tough schedule, yet most really good mid-major programs have trouble getting the good power teams to play them. That's too bad.

I don't profess to know the answer as to what to call any school not in one of the six BCS conferences. What I do know is this: The "mid-majors" play basketball the way it used to be played. And, for most of them, only one team goes to the NCAA Tournament from each league. So, if you lose the wrong game, you're out of luck. To me, this is real pressure, to know that if you have one misstep, your entire season is down the drain. That's pressure, not when you can lose in the first round of your conference tournament and are still confident that you are going to the Big Dance.

Many of the coaches on the "mid-major" level are the major stars of tomorrow (see: Mike Brey, Bill Self, Ben Braun, Paul Hewitt and countless others). Many of the players on the "mid-major" have also proven to have major ability, if not not major size or speed.

As for changing the label these teams and players must play under, I don't know what else to call the teams we have been calling "mid-majors" for so long. Nothing else sounds quite right, but the term "mid-major" clearly isn't right.

Starting this season, I for one am going to try to refer to teams and players according to how good they are, not by how big they are, or how often I see them on television. It's not the answer, but at least its a major improvement.

Jay Bilas is a college basketball analyst at ESPN and a regular contributor to ESPN.com. Click here to send Jay a question for possible use on ESPNEWS.