Why college basketball coaches avoid mid-major teams in the 2024-2025 season schedule

Big college basketball teams are playing fewer games against smaller schools this year. This change helps them prepare for the tough NCAA tournament games.
By Newsroom | Sports, NCAA |

A Heated Debate Over Non-Conference Matchups

College basketball's annual tournament has unearthed a recurring friction point: the scheduling practices involving "mid-major" programs. Coaches from prominent teams are pushing back against accusations of avoiding these smaller schools, framing the issue as a matter of seeking quality opponents rather than outright evasion. The crux of the argument appears to hinge on the perceived competitive level of potential opponents, with some coaches prioritizing games that offer a greater challenge and a better reflection of NCAA Tournament-caliber play.

Coaches like Nate Oats of Alabama and Matt Painter of Purdue are vocal critics of the narrative that power-conference teams intentionally sideline mid-major opponents. They contend that the available non-conference slots are limited and that their focus is on securing games that will better prepare them for the demanding schedule of conference play and the postseason. Oats, in particular, has stated a preference for avoiding "Quad 4 games," a reference to a metric used in college basketball to rank teams based on performance and strength of schedule. He implies that some mid-major teams may not consistently present the level of competition that aligns with his team's goals.

Read More: Australia wins 18 medals in Paris 2024 Olympics swimming events

The 'Ducking' Accusation

The controversy gained traction with statements from mid-major coaches, such as Flynn Clayman of High Point, who suggested that power-conference coaches were reluctant to play their teams after High Point's upset victory. This has led to a tit-for-tat where some coaches, including Oats, have pointed to the scheduling habits of the accusers, suggesting they themselves may be prioritizing easier matchups or non-Division I games. Oats has directly challenged the claims, asserting that many high-major programs do play mid-major teams, and that the ones they decline are simply not deemed competitive enough.

Quality Over Quantity

The underlying philosophy, as articulated by coaches like Oats, is that they are seeking out the "really good ones." This isn't just about winning; it's about preparation. Playing against strong opposition, even if it means a higher risk of defeat in the non-conference portion of the season, is seen as a valuable experience that better readies a team for the pressures of the NCAA Tournament. Oats has also referenced the NET rankings (N.E.T. - NCAA Evaluation Tool) as a key component in scheduling decisions, suggesting that coaches who ignore these metrics in their scheduling are making a poor strategic choice.

Read More: Mississippi State faces NCAA penalties for minor recruiting rule breaks in golf and football

A Question of Reciprocity

Some reporting suggests that mid-major teams complaining about difficulty securing games might themselves be making less effort to schedule challenging opponents. Oats has pointed to instances where mid-major teams allegedly scheduled multiple non-Division I games, questioning the sincerity of their claims about being unable to find Division I opponents. He posits that if a team is serious about building a robust schedule, they will actively pursue difficult matchups, even if it means playing on the road or in less advantageous environments.

Background Context

The debate over scheduling in college basketball is a perennial one, intensified during the NCAA Tournament. Mid-major programs often rely on buy games—where they are paid to play a more prominent opponent, often on the road—to generate revenue and gain exposure. However, securing games against power-conference teams, especially at home, can be difficult. For these smaller programs, a successful non-conference slate is crucial for building a resume that could lead to an NCAA Tournament at-large bid, or at least improve their seeding in the tournament. Power-conference coaches, meanwhile, are under pressure to win, protect their rankings, and prepare their teams for a deep tournament run, leading to a divergence in scheduling priorities. The discourse highlights the inherent tension between the goals of smaller programs seeking opportunities and larger programs aiming for competitive advantage and postseason success.

Read More: Talia Gibson Reaches Top 100 Tennis Rankings After Miami Open Wins

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Why are power-conference basketball coaches avoiding games against mid-major teams?
Coaches like Nate Oats and Matt Painter argue that they must prioritize playing high-quality opponents to prepare for the NCAA Tournament. They avoid 'Quad 4' games because these matches do not help their team's NET ranking or tournament resume.
Q: What is the 'Quad 4' game rule in college basketball scheduling?
Quad 4 refers to a ranking system used by the NCAA to measure the strength of an opponent. Power-conference teams try to avoid playing these lower-ranked teams because winning these games provides very little benefit to their tournament seeding.
Q: Why are mid-major coaches upset about the current scheduling practices?
Mid-major coaches like Flynn Clayman claim that larger schools are afraid to play them after they pull off upset victories. They argue that it is unfair for smaller programs to be excluded from playing top teams, which limits their chances to earn an at-large bid for the tournament.
Q: How do NET rankings affect the schedule of college basketball teams?
The NCAA Evaluation Tool (NET) is the primary metric used to select teams for the tournament. Coaches now use this data to pick opponents, choosing teams that will boost their ranking rather than playing smaller schools that could hurt their overall score.