College Basketball Debate Heats Up: Coaches Defend Scheduling Decisions

Purdue's Matt Painter and Alabama's Nate Oats fire back at mid-major 'ducking' claims

Mar. 22, 2026 at 6:08pm

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

The debate around college basketball scheduling at the NCAA Tournament has intensified, with coaches from Purdue and Alabama defending their scheduling decisions against claims that power conference teams are 'ducking' mid-major opponents. Purdue's Matt Painter and Alabama's Nate Oats argued that power conference teams have limited flexibility in building their non-conference schedules, and that not every mid-major opponent helps strengthen a team's NET ranking and strength of schedule.

Why it matters

The scheduling debate is a long-standing issue in college basketball, with mid-major programs often accusing power conference teams of avoiding them out of fear of a loss that could hurt their postseason résumé. This debate has ratcheted up further as mid-major teams like Miami (OH) have made strong pushes for the NCAA Tournament, leading to accusations of 'ducking' from their coaches.

The details

Painter and Oats pushed back on the 'ducking' claims, arguing that power conference teams have to balance marquee events, conference obligations, and finding the right mid-major matchups that can strengthen their NET ranking and strength of schedule. Painter noted that Purdue played five mid-major teams this season, while Oats said Alabama only turns down mid-major schools that aren't good enough to help their schedule.

  • The scheduling debate has intensified in recent weeks as mid-major teams like Miami (OH) have made strong pushes for the NCAA Tournament.

The players

Matt Painter

The head coach of the Purdue Boilermakers men's basketball team.

Nate Oats

The head coach of the Alabama Crimson Tide men's basketball team.

Travis Steele

The head coach of the Miami (OH) RedHawks men's basketball team.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“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. 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.”

— Matt Painter, Head Coach, Purdue Boilermakers

“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. To me, I want to play really good ones.”

— Nate Oats, Head Coach, Alabama Crimson Tide

The takeaway

This debate highlights the complex scheduling challenges that power conference teams face, as they must balance marquee events, conference obligations, and finding the right mid-major opponents to strengthen their NCAA Tournament résumé. While some mid-major coaches have accused power programs of 'ducking' them, the coaches' responses suggest a more nuanced approach to building non-conference schedules.