The Mid-Major March Madness Maze: Navigating Metrics, Respect, and the Elusive Upset
College basketball’s landscape is a tiered ecosystem. At the summit stand the Power Four conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC), the Big East, and Gonzaga, perennial giants with access to resources and national spotlight. Below them reside the mid-majors, teams striving for the same ultimate goal – a coveted spot in the NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament – but facing a far steeper climb.
For these programs, the journey to March Madness is a relentless grind. The summer is dedicated to integrating new talent with returning players, fostering chemistry, and building a foundation for the season ahead. The regular season becomes a high-stakes balancing act, requiring both impressive non-conference victories and consistent dominance in league play. All this leads to the conference tournament, where a single off-night, a sudden surge from a lower-seeded opponent, can shatter dreams and transform Selection Sunday into a bitter reminder of what could have been.
"The rules kind of go against us," laments Yale head coach James Jones, underscoring the inherent disadvantage faced by mid-major programs. This sentiment is echoed by UC San Diego head coach Eric Olen, who believes that a greater representation of top mid-majors in the tournament field would not only increase the potential for captivating upsets but also enhance the overall excitement and appeal of March Madness. "There’s a lot of value to have in the best mid-major tournament teams in the field," Olen asserts, emphasizing their potential to deliver the iconic moments that define the tournament’s magic.
The selection committee, tasked with assembling the field of 68, relies heavily on data-driven metrics, particularly the NCAA Evaluation Tool (NET) rankings. While win totals are considered, the emphasis is on the quality of those victories. Quad 1 wins, achieved against top-tier opponents, are highly valued, while Quad 2 wins carry some weight. Quads 3 and 4, however, are often disregarded, unless they represent losses, which can significantly damage a team’s profile.
The NET ranking, designed to replace the Ratings Power Index (RPI), aims to be a comprehensive assessment tool. It factors in the team-value index, rewarding teams for defeating strong opponents, as well as scoring margin, the quality of wins and losses, net offensive and defensive efficiency, strength of schedule, and game location. Despite its intent, the NET has become a source of frustration for many coaches, who argue that it can be manipulated through strategic scheduling.
Clemson head coach Brad Brownell previously accused several Big 12 teams of exploiting the NET by deliberately scheduling easy non-conference games to inflate their efficiency numbers and artificially boost their rankings. Indiana State head coach Matthew Graves echoed this sentiment, suggesting that major programs often schedule "bye games" specifically to enhance their metrics.
UC San Diego, despite a stellar 28-4 record that matches Duke’s regular-season win total, faces an uphill battle due to a lack of high-profile victories. Their 2-1 record in Quad 1 games and 1-2 mark in Quad 2 contests raises questions about their true strength, according to the NET rankings. "You can’t compare schedules. Everybody’s playing different people," argues Olen, highlighting the inherent challenges in evaluating teams with vastly different schedules.
Yale finds itself in a similar predicament. Their only Quad 1 game was an eight-point loss at Purdue, which overshadows their impressive 13-1 conference record. Coach Jones laments the difficulty in securing marquee home games, making it challenging to accumulate the Quad 1 wins that are crucial for earning an at-large bid. "If you don’t have Quad 1 wins, you’re not seen as a viable team, and we just don’t get those opportunities," Jones states, expressing frustration with the lack of respect afforded to mid-major programs.
Ultimately, for many mid-majors, the conference tournament represents their best, and often only, path to the NCAA Tournament. Winning the tournament guarantees an automatic bid, regardless of regular-season performance or NET ranking.
Matthew Graves knows the agony of missing out on an at-large bid all too well. As associate head coach last season, he witnessed Indiana State win 28 games, only to lose in the Missouri Valley Conference tournament final. Despite a No. 29 NET ranking on Selection Sunday, the Sycamores were snubbed, becoming the highest-ranked team in the NET era to be excluded from the tournament. "People get caught up on some of the metrics," Graves said, suggesting that the committee sometimes overemphasizes data at the expense of simply evaluating whether a team "win or lose the basketball game?"
Virginia Commonwealth, currently ranked No. 33 in NET with a 25-6 record, faces a similar fate if they fail to secure the automatic bid. Despite a strong regular season and a 2-1 record in Quad 1 games, their tournament hopes hang in the balance. "I think this team’s done enough to warrant being considered to be in the NCAA Tournament, there’s no doubt. Twenty-five wins in the regular season, that’s a lot of wins," asserts Rams head coach Ryan Odom. "I think if you put us on a neutral court, this team can play with any team. But, ultimately, that’s not for me or anyone else to decide other than that selection committee. And we’ll honor whatever they decide if it comes to that."
While most conferences have long embraced conference tournaments, the Ivy League initially resisted the trend. For years, the regular-season champion received the automatic bid. Yale’s James Jones spearheaded the push for change, advocating for the introduction of a conference tournament. After nearly two decades of resistance, the Ivy League finally adopted the tournament format in 2017. Ironically, recent Ivy League success stories in March Madness have come from teams that were not the regular-season champions, highlighting the unpredictable nature of tournament play.
The unpredictability extends beyond the Ivy League. Every year, top-seeded teams in conference tournaments fall victim to upsets, allowing lower-seeded teams, sometimes with losing conference records, to steal the automatic bid.
Jones, having experienced both success and disappointment in conference tournaments, remains a proponent of the format. "I like the idea that our guys have got to fight for and earn it," he says. He advocates for tweaks to the system that would better reward regular-season champions and top-ranked teams, such as granting them automatic berths in the semifinals or providing home-court advantage throughout the tournament.
Ultimately, the frustrations of mid-major coaches stem from the perceived inequities in the selection process. With only 68 spots available and 31 reserved for automatic bids, the 37 at-large selections overwhelmingly favor teams from power conferences. The reality is that the system, however well-intentioned, can never be perfect, and some deserving teams will inevitably be left out.
Despite the challenges, mid-major programs remain resolute. They understand that the path to March Madness is arduous, but they also believe in their ability to compete and make a splash on the national stage.
"We’re never going to be looked at as similar to the high-major schools just because of the names on the front of the chest," concedes Jones. "But it doesn’t mean that you can’t beat them." The dream of proving themselves, of shocking the world with an upset, is what fuels these teams as they navigate the complex maze of metrics, respect, and the elusive path to the NCAA Tournament.
