When High Point upset Wisconsin in the first round of the NCAA tournament, coach Flynn Clayman didn’t hold back when discussing his team’s schedule.
“High Point and Miami Ohio are 2-0 in Quad 1 games,” Clayman said. “We couldn’t get games. They couldn’t get games. Akron, UNCW, Belmont couldn’t get games. We won 22 of our last 23 games and didn’t move up one spot in the metrics. Not one. We won 22 of 23. We’ve won 25 games by double digits.”
That opened the door for responses from coaches who have dealt with the same scheduling dynamics from the other side. Over the weekend, Purdue’s Matt Painter and Alabama’s Nate Oats pushed back.
Painter noted that Purdue has consistently scheduled strong mid-major opponents along with marquee non-conference games. Oats took a similar stance, explaining that he has to be selective and avoid matchups that could hurt Alabama’s NET profile.
In truth, all three coaches have a point.
Clayman and programs like High Point clearly face challenges finding quality opponents despite strong résumés. At the same time, coaches like Painter and Oats are making decisions based on what gives their teams the best chance to succeed.
Here’s a look at why each argument holds up.
Purdue and Alabama Scheduled Appropriately
It would be one thing if Purdue and Alabama had built their résumés by piling up wins against the weakest teams in college basketball. That wasn’t the case.
Alabama played just two Quad 4 games all season. Purdue played three, two of which came against nearby programs in Eastern Illinois (128 miles) and Evansville (234 miles).
Beyond that, both programs sought out quality mid-major opponents. Purdue scheduled Akron and Kent State, historically two of the stronger teams in the MAC, along with Oakland, a consistent contender in the Horizon League.
Alabama took a similar approach, scheduling Kennesaw State, which went on to win the Conference USA tournament, and Yale, the Ivy League regular season champion. The Crimson Tide also faced South Florida, the American Athletic Conference champion and an NCAA tournament team.
Clayman and Miami-Ohio coach Travis Steele can point to the difficulty of securing games. But other mid-major programs were able to find opportunities.
And that leads to the next point.
Purdue and Alabama Only Had So Many Openings
Painter has a scheduling formula he prefers to follow at Purdue. Ideally, it includes one high-major opponent at home, one on the road, one on a neutral floor, and a tournament featuring multiple high-majors along with several mid-majors. In most seasons, Purdue’s schedule closely reflects that approach, which Painter believes best prepares his team for Big Ten play.
Oats doesn’t follow as rigid a structure, but the philosophy is similar. He avoids overloading the schedule with lower-tier opponents, using one or two early games to integrate new players before prioritizing stronger competition.
With teams now operating in expanded conferences and navigating longer league schedules, non-conference opportunities are limited. It’s not practical for Painter, Oats, or any high-major coach to fill those few openings primarily with mid-majors.
From Painter’s perspective, adding Akron and Kent State, historically two of the MAC’s strongest programs, already checked that box. There was little need to add another team like Miami (OH). Oats faced a similar situation, with a schedule that already included high-level matchups against teams such as St. John’s, Clemson, Illinois, and Purdue.
Scheduling ultimately requires both sides to align. When a matchup doesn’t materialize, it’s not always about avoidance, it’s often about fit.
High Majors’ First Priority is Themselves
This point can’t be overstated: Purdue, Alabama, and other high-major programs do not owe High Point, Miami (OH), or similar teams a spot on their schedule. Their responsibility is to their own programs, building schedules that prepare their players for March and give their fans compelling matchups.
If Purdue has the option to host Iowa State at Mackey Arena instead of a solid MAC program, it’s going to take it. If Alabama can schedule a high-profile opponent like Illinois rather than a lower-level mid-major, it will make that choice as well.
And that’s how it should work. Those are the games fans want to see. It may sound self-interested, but it aligns with both competitive and business realities. Stronger matchups drive interest, and interest drives revenue, whether through ticket sales, television, or exposure.
Solving the Debate
What went unmentioned in Clayman’s comments is that High Point and Miami (OH) had other scheduling options. They could have played each other. UNC Wilmington, another strong mid-major, was within reasonable travel distance. Belmont presented a similar opportunity.
The rise of NET rankings has fundamentally changed scheduling priorities. Coaches like Painter and Oats are focused first on building schedules that strengthen their metrics, and that’s exactly what they should be doing.
That means mid-majors need to adjust their approach. One potential solution would be to revive Bracket Buster Saturday, which once ensured quality late-season matchups between comparable mid-major programs before the concept became diluted. From 2003 to 2013, top mid-majors were paired in nationally televised games against similarly ranked opponents.
A structure like that would have given teams like High Point and Miami (OH) opportunities to add meaningful Quad 1 games. Short of that, simply scheduling one another earlier in the season is a viable path. High Point nearly did this already, playing an exhibition against UNC Wilmington. Turning that into a regular-season matchup would benefit both programs.
There are solutions available. And if mid-majors embrace them, they can put themselves in a much better position moving forward.
If this was your kind of read, you’ll like what’s next. Get The Sandman Ticket, our free, weekly newsletter with picks, insights, and a little bit of everything we love about sports.
