This story is part of The Hatchet’s series profiling the officials reshaping GW Athletics. Our profiles of University President Ellen Granberg and Athletics Director Michael Lipitz can be found here.
Men’s basketball Head Coach Chris Caputo hasn’t had an easy time scheduling the high-major matchups that once helped define the Revolutionaries’ non-conference slate.
GW’s home schedule a decade ago featured games against high major programs like the University of Virginia and Pennsylvania State University as part of a lineup that featured matchups against six power conference opponents. This year there’s only one: the reigning NCAA champions University of Florida.
For Caputo, top-level programs’ weariness to schedule GW and other Atlantic 10 opponents is indicative of a college basketball environment that’s attempting to squeeze smaller teams from nationally-relevant programming and NCAA tournament bids in favor of schools with bigger fanbases and greater name recognition.
“The combination of the metrics in how we’re being judged, while also the opportunities evaporating in scheduling makes it really difficult,” Caputo said in an interview with The Hatchet this week.
Caputo’s comments came after a clip of him lamenting “the fix is in” in reference to high majors’ unwillingness to schedule GW or A-10 opponents racked up over half a million views on X, formerly known as Twitter, after a fan posted it following the team’s Nov. 19 win over the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. In the clip, he explained how high major teams’ resistance in playing mid-majors like GW has made tournament bids nearly impossible.
Instead, he suggested the NCAA expand their tournament to fit in more schools, allowing teams lower in the rankings to get in. The clip drew agreement from fans and media, including some who pointed at recent examples of top mid-majors missing the March Madness cut in favor of marquis teams with poorer records.
Caputo said he was surprised the clip garnered so much attention, as it’s been “pretty obvious” in college basketball recent years that ongoing changes in metrics and scheduling dynamics have hurt programs like his.
And he’s not the only coach to say such sentiments. In July, the New York Times’ Athletic published a survey in which several anonymous mid-major head coaches spoke in favor of expansion, which was less popular with high-major coaches.
Those challenges started during the 2018-19 basketball season when the NCAA introduced their evaluation tool, NET, which ranks teams based on quality of opponent alongside per-possession efficiency. It replaced the Ratings Percentage Index, or RPI, that had created rankings based on a team and its opponents’ winning percentage.
The NCAA justified the change by arguing the RPI not as “contemporary” or “comprehensive” compared to NET. Many at the time said it was long overdue as it reflected the more analytic and less simplistic reality of college basketball.
But the use of RPI positively impacted GW and other mid-major programs like it. In the last 10 seasons of RPI, the A-10 sent at least three teams to the NCAA tournament every season.
In the seven seasons of the NET era, the A-10 has sent a maximum of two teams to the NCAA Tournament each year. In two of those seasons, the league earned only one bid.
As power conference teams have adjusted to the NET, their non-conference schedules have shifted to almost exclusively fall into one of two buckets. Either Quadrant 1 opportunities against other high major teams where a win, or even a close loss, would boost their resume or Quadrant 4, where teams could count on blowouts against lowly squads that would also boost their rankings.
The NET divides games into Quadrants of 1 through 4 depending on the opposing team’s ranking and if the game is played at home, away or at a neutral site. Quadrants 1 games, the most valuable opportunities, are home games against teams ranked 1-30, away games against teams ranked 1-75 or neutral games against teams ranked 1-50.
GW ended last season with a 136 NET and a 21-13 record, its best finish in the NET era, a resume that slotted the Revs as a Quadrant 3 opponent regardless of venue. That left GW in a difficult position: too little upside for high-major teams seeking quality wins, yet too much risk that a loss to a talented Revs roster could have jeopardized an at-large bid.
As this year’s team currently stands at a 42 NET, their best since its introduction, in large part due to their dominant victories over Quadrant 4 opponents, the opportunity to schedule quality opponents and find Quadrant 1 or Quadrant 2 wins could have meant an at-large March Madness bid for the Revs.
Although it’s likely to change as the season continues, as of Sunday, the Revs have played five Quadrant 2 opponents. That slate has included the team’s neutral wins against Middle Tennessee State University and the University of South Florida, neutral losses to Murray State University and McNeese State University and a home win against the College of William & Mary.
But Caputo said he knows these games that look like resume-builders are likely to drop as the season continues and teams like William & Mary lose games they can’t afford to lose. Ahead of the win against the Tribe on Saturday, he said that even though the game against the team is considered a Quadrant 2 win now, it’s unlikely to stay that high as the season continues due to the team’s weaker schedule.
“Nobody can appreciate that right now,” Caputo said. “Maybe they don’t go undefeated for the season, and they’ve had a great year, and they win 23 games, but somehow it’s a Quad 3 game at the end of the year. It makes no sense.”
He added that even if these low or middle GW opponents have great seasons, their lack of quality opponents will likely drag down their NET, whereas they would have fared stronger under RPI. That negatively impacts GW by dragging down their opponent quality.
Caputo said this includes changes with multi-team events, mid-season neutral site tournaments or series, which historically has provided GW opportunities to play against high major teams. Entering this season the NCAA waived rules that had previously limited these events to one team per conference and prohibited schools from playing in the same event in the same four years.
“Those rule changes that I’m sure are driven by the Power 5 are going to make it very difficult for the programs at our level to get in those events,” Caputo said.
Metric changes haven’t been the only significant shifts in the college basketball landscape in recent years. In spring 2024, the NCAA, following a court settlement, adjusted rules to transfer eligibility, essentially allowing student-athletes to have unlimited transfer, compared to previous restrictions that forced players to sit out following transfers.
The college basketball landscape has shifted to nearly 3,000 players having entered the transfer portal in 2025, a record high. Of the 10 Revs players who have scored points this season, only three players — junior guard Trey Autry, sophomore guard Christian Jones and sophomore guard Ty Bevins — started their careers at GW.
But while Caputo said that there are many positives of the transfer portal, he said the current system makes it difficult for players to graduate if they’re coming to schools with a small number of transferable credits, which leads him to favor a system that would allow players to transfer only once throughout their collegiate career.
“You have schools that are giving guys degrees with 30 credits, and so I think if you did a one time transfer, you probably don’t lose that many credits,” Caputo said.
He said GW doesn’t allow transfers with only one year of eligibility left who haven’t received degrees, which is the “right thing,” as the school works to ensure student-athletes have enough credits at the University to graduate.
Additionally, Thursday, the House of Representatives pulled the SCORE Act from its scheduled vote, which, if passed, would have permitted the NCAA to create regulations surrounding spending caps for name, image and likeness as well as transfer eligibility by granting an anti-trust exemption.
Caputo said that legislation is imperative to create “guard rails” to ensure an environment that is fair for both student-athletes and for universities.
“This is unfettered capitalism, a total open market that I do think, in order to maintain some of the fiber of college athletics, you do need some laws in place but also allowing student-athletes to really benefit,” Caputo said.
Caputo said potential government intervention should stop short of an employment designation, which he said is “complicated.” Instead, he wants Congress to grant the NCAA an antitrust exemption — which the SCORE Act would have done — to allow them to make rules on things like NIL caps and spending limits.
“The NCAA can’t make any rules if they’re just going to go to court and lose, and if you don’t have any rules whatsoever, I don’t think that’s good either,” Caputo said. “I think we went from one extreme to the next, and moderation is probably a good thing.”
