Jesse Dougherty-
There has been much speculation surrounding the Indiana Hoosiers atop the College Basketball polls. Can Cody Zeller provide scoring late in close games? Does Victor Oladipo have enough refined talent to go with all of his raw talent? Is Jordan Hulls ready to be the senior leader that this team is going to need? These are the questions that the nation is having a hard time answering. If Zeller can dominate, so could they. The evolution of Oladipo will have a major bearing on their success and Hulls’ leadership abilities will be called into question when Big 10 play begins. But this isn’t the weekend to talk about Indiana’s elite status, because right now, they aren’t even the best team in their state.
Meet the 2012 Butler Bulldogs, who are led by one of the best coaches in College Basketball and by now, are just sick of seeing Cody Zeller’s face.
On Saturday, the Hoosiers and Bulldogs took to the CBS stage at Bankers Life Fieldhouse in Indianapolis, Indiana. The crowd was just about split in two, those in red confident, and those in blue hopeful that their team could hijack the state war and upset the Nation’s top team.
40 minutes couldn’t separate the two teams but after the overtime period an Alex Barlow floater solidified a Butler win. Roosevelt Jones, Andrew Smith, and Eric Fromm, the three players respectively big enough to guard Zeller had all fouled out before the end of regulation, Rotnei Clarke was in need of a respirator in the face of relentless Indiana pressure in the back court, and Brad Stevens could only pray for his team to grab a defensive rebound. There was nothing about Butler’s frantic OT play that was pointing to an eventual 88-86 win. They had to take the first open shot they could get on every offensive possession, and on the other end, expended all of their energy to defend the multi-faceted Hoosier attack.
Everyone regards Butler as a mid-major team, so I’ll pose the question, what does “mid-major” even mean anymore? Not only did the Bulldogs knock the Hoosiers out of the no. 1 spot in the polls, but they gave us another reason to throw those words away.
Tweet reactions @dougherty_jesse or @stoopsports and check out the Stoop Sports Facebook page
A mid-major is, has been, and always will be, a team that does not compete in one of the the premier collegiate conferences. Obviously, this distinction may prove obsolete once the dust settles on conference reconfiguration, but the key to being a “mid-major” is not how good the team is, but how good the conference is. So, to pose this question in response to one game is rather extemporaneous and, for the lack of a better word, stupid.
I think you made a good point about mid major teams, but if you stray from the literal definition it is widely known that “mid major” is used to describe a team that is not as good as a top tier team. Yes, Butler plays in a mid major conference but their play has risen above the play of a typical “mid major” team. Also, I am not basing this off of one game against Indiana, let’s not forget that Butler has gone to two NCAA championships in recent years, have an incredible connection to high school recruits in the Indiana area, and are coached by one of the best minds in NCAAB. This is not just a reaction to a win against Indiana, but a simple statement that this is another thing that shows that Butler should not be grouped with other programs that are in their conference, and conferences like theirs.
Although Butler has had a rather impressive string of seasons, so did UNLV in the late 80s and early 90s, Gonzaga in the late 90s and early 2000s, and Saint Joes Fucking U even was a #1 seed in 2004. Moreover, your rebuttal lacks basis as it does not repudiate the point that a mid-major team is defined by its conference. So, make the case that the A-10 is an elite conference and then we’ll talk (not saying this is an absurd argument by any means)…
I think by literal definition that a mid major team is defined by its conference, but I think we both know (since you are evidently a fan of college basketball who is knowledgeable) that mid major is more often used to describe a team that is inferior to that of a team of a major conference. On that I agree with you, conference affiliation is the biggest indicator of a mid major team but there is also an underlying meaning that touches on a team’s build and style of play. It’s funny you bring up the A10. Who was calling Xavier a mid major team when Jordan Crawford, among others, was bringing that program a ton of success in recent years? Hardly anyone. Yet they were still a member of the A10. Say a team like Charlotte, or even Butler, comprised of local recruit, often white (i.e. Rotnei Clarke, Dunham, Gordon Hayward and Matt Howard in past years), and then people start using the term “mid major” to describe them. But when a team like Xavier is comprised of Jason Love, Jordan Crawford, and Mark Lyons, people are less likely to pull the trigger on calling them mid major regardless of their conference. How about the emergence of the San Diego State-BYU rivalry? Yes, they are both, by definition, mid major teams, but no one was shouting from the roof tops that a Kawhi Leonard led SDSU was a mid major anamoly, but rather BYU, led by Jimmer Fredette, a semi-athletic Brandon Davies, and white wing shooter Jackson Emory. It’s not just about conference and skill, but make up as well. The case for Butler is that they are in a “mid major” conference (which like you said, is debatable), and that they have the “mid major” make up. Yet they just knocked off Indiana. So maybe we should just terminate the statement all together, because nothing about their play is suggesting that where they play their pre-Madness tournament makes them any less dangerous than the rest of the country. You can take it or leave it.