http://www.ay-ziggy-zoomba.com/articles/anonymous/
Paul Braverman from the BGRSO who covered the women all season long contributes this special guest article on the women's team. Good stuff! Check it out!
Special Guest Article by Paul Braverman
-
ZiggyZoomba
- The Wizard of AZZ
- Posts: 5916
- Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2004 5:37 pm
- Location: Elmore, OH
Special Guest Article by Paul Braverman
Grant Cummings
ROLL ALONG!!!
"We are linked to this institution by invisible bonds that do not wither or dissolve." --BGSU President, Dr. Ralph W. McDonald - 1968
ROLL ALONG!!!
"We are linked to this institution by invisible bonds that do not wither or dissolve." --BGSU President, Dr. Ralph W. McDonald - 1968
-
Schadenfreude
- Professional tractor puller
- Posts: 6983
- Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2004 7:39 am
- Location: Colorado
That was a nice piece.
An observation:
I've never had a big problem with the term "mid-major."
Everyone in Division I is a major -- and if you don't believe me, closely study the football scores the Associated Press sends out some weekend. They send out at least two sets: One rounds up the "major college football scores" -- in other words, all of Division I, from Purdue to Prarie View A&M -- and another set of scores includes all three divisions.
So "major" is just another word for "Division I."
It's pretty clear to me that "mid-major" springs from the idea that Division I includes heavyweights ("high majors"), weaklings ("low majors") and tweeners ("mid-majors").
I think "mid-major" has become a pejorative for people in our situation because some ill-informed fans and some sportscasters don't fully understand the term. They tend to see college basketball differently. They see "majors" as members of the top six or so conferences, and everyone else as "mid-majors."
The implication of "mid-major" in this way of thinking is "slightly less than major."
Naturally that's insulting. But that's not really what the term originally was trying to get at, I don't think.
The way I see it, there was only one mid-major in the women's Sweet 16.
That was Bowling Green.
As for Marist? God bless 'em, but the MAAC is pretty much low major in my book.
An observation:
I've never had a big problem with the term "mid-major."
Everyone in Division I is a major -- and if you don't believe me, closely study the football scores the Associated Press sends out some weekend. They send out at least two sets: One rounds up the "major college football scores" -- in other words, all of Division I, from Purdue to Prarie View A&M -- and another set of scores includes all three divisions.
So "major" is just another word for "Division I."
It's pretty clear to me that "mid-major" springs from the idea that Division I includes heavyweights ("high majors"), weaklings ("low majors") and tweeners ("mid-majors").
I think "mid-major" has become a pejorative for people in our situation because some ill-informed fans and some sportscasters don't fully understand the term. They tend to see college basketball differently. They see "majors" as members of the top six or so conferences, and everyone else as "mid-majors."
The implication of "mid-major" in this way of thinking is "slightly less than major."
Naturally that's insulting. But that's not really what the term originally was trying to get at, I don't think.
The way I see it, there was only one mid-major in the women's Sweet 16.
That was Bowling Green.
As for Marist? God bless 'em, but the MAAC is pretty much low major in my book.
