The ongoing debate over college basketball scheduling has reached a fever pitch as the NCAA Tournament approaches, with Miami (OH) and other mid-major programs bringing fresh attention to the issue. The heart of the matter? Mid-major coaches allege that power conference teams are deliberately steering clear of scheduling them, hoping to avoid any losses that could blemish their postseason résumés. But as the rhetoric heats up, some power conference coaches are pushing back, arguing the reality is a lot more nuanced than the mid-majors suggest.
It all came to a head on March 22, 2026, when Miami (OH) and other mid-majors reignited the conversation, insisting that power conference teams are "ducking" them. The RedHawks, in particular, have been vocal. Their coach, Travis Steele, claimed that his team struggled to fill its non-conference schedule because of reluctance from bigger programs. The result? Miami (OH) found itself signing contracts as late as October 2025, and ultimately, they had to settle for games against NAIA teams. That decision didn’t do their strength of schedule any favors, casting a shadow over their 2025-2026 campaign.
But Purdue’s Matt Painter, a coach who’s seen his share of scheduling headaches, isn’t buying the narrative that power conference teams are universally avoiding mid-majors. He laid out the numbers in no uncertain terms: “If he was in my position, you’re going to play 11 non-conference games. Next year, it’s going to go to 12. And so we play 6 high-major games, and we play 5 mid-major teams,” Painter explained. “So when they say they don’t play mid-majors, we played 5 mid-majors this year. But if he was in our position, he’d do the same thing we’re doing.”
Painter’s defense doesn’t stop there. He rattled off a list of mid-major opponents Purdue has faced, including Akron, Kent State, and Oakland. “We’ve played Akron. We’ve played Kent State. We’ve played Oakland. We’ve played mid-majors, but everybody plays mid-majors,” he said. “Every high-major plays mid-majors. They’re just saying they’re not playing them. And it’s really a backhanded compliment that they’re not playing them. But we’ve proved ourselves. The guy at Miami of Ohio says ‘nobody will play us,’ well Akron’s been the best team in the league. Kent State has been the best team in the league. We played them.”
It’s a strong rebuttal, and one that highlights the complexity of non-conference scheduling. Power conference teams like Purdue are juggling a limited number of non-conference slots—11 this year, 12 next. Many of those are already spoken for, thanks to marquee events like the Maui Invitational and longstanding conference obligations. When it comes to the remaining games, coaches are caught in a balancing act: schedule tough enough opponents to boost their NET ranking and strength of schedule, but avoid unnecessary risks that could torpedo a season’s ambitions.
Alabama’s Nate Oats, himself a former mid-major coach at Buffalo, offered his own perspective on the controversy. When asked about the situation on Saturday, March 21, 2026, Oats didn’t mince words: “The only mid-major schools we turned down are ones that aren’t good enough. When we look at our ‘buy’ games, they need to be good enough because I don’t want to be playing Quad 4 games,” Oats said. “To me, I want to play really good ones.” He continued, “I think if you call around, some of the mid-major schools that we’re talking about not being able to find games, played multiple non-Division I games. I’m not sure how hard you tried if you’re playing three non-Division I games.”
Oats’ comments reflect a broader sentiment among power conference coaches—they’re tired of being painted as the villains in this scheduling drama. The reality, they argue, is that plenty of mid-major teams do find their way onto power conference schedules each year. The problem, according to Oats and Painter, is not a lack of willingness, but rather the challenge of finding the right fit—teams that are strong enough to help, not hurt, a program’s postseason prospects.
For mid-majors, the struggle is real. Programs like Miami (OH) are desperate to land games against power conference opponents, not just for the exposure, but for the impact on their own postseason hopes. When those games don’t materialize, they’re left scrambling for alternatives, sometimes settling for NAIA or non-Division I opponents. It’s a tough pill to swallow, especially when the selection committee weighs strength of schedule so heavily come March.
But is there really a nationwide crisis brewing? Painter doesn’t think so. He points to the sheer number of teams looking for ‘buy games’ or tougher opponents to help their strength of schedule. The market is crowded, and the competition for those coveted slots is fierce. Plus, every year, the calculus changes. A team that looked like a solid mid-major matchup in July might not be as appealing come November, depending on injuries, roster changes, or early results.
Steele’s frustrations, however, are not without merit. Waiting until October to finalize a schedule is hardly ideal. By then, many power conference teams have already locked in their non-conference opponents, and the pickings are slim. The result is a schedule that does little to impress the selection committee—a reality that dogged Miami (OH) all season long.
The debate isn’t likely to fade anytime soon. As long as the NCAA Tournament selection process places such a premium on strength of schedule and NET rankings, both mid-majors and power conference teams will be forced to play a delicate game of chess in the offseason. Some coaches, like Painter and Oats, are content to defend their approach, insisting they’re doing what’s best for their programs. Others, like Steele, will continue to push for greater opportunities and more equitable scheduling practices.
For now, the lines are drawn. Power conference coaches maintain that they’re not “ducking” anyone—they’re just making tough choices in a crowded field. Mid-majors, meanwhile, will keep searching for ways to break through the scheduling glass ceiling. As March Madness looms, one thing’s for sure: the debate over college basketball scheduling isn’t going away anytime soon, and the tension between opportunity and strategy remains at the heart of the sport.
With the NCAA Tournament heating up and both sides digging in, the spotlight is firmly on the future of college basketball scheduling. Will the system adapt to give mid-majors a fairer shake, or will the status quo hold? For now, the only certainty is that every game—and every scheduling decision—matters more than ever.