Last week, college basketball officially started. For most high-major teams, such as UConn, that meant a buy game against a mid-major opponent and trying to avoid being the subject of an “Epitome of Brutality” tweet from Jon Rothstein. For the Auburn Tigers, however, that meant a date with the Bears of Baylor. The most interesting aspect about this matchup wasn’t the fact that two high-major programs were opening the season against each other or five-star freshmen Aden Holloway and Ja’Kobe Walker squaring off in their college debuts. The most interesting storyline surrounding this game was its location in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, over 900 miles from Baylor and 1,200 from Auburn.
Neutral site games have always been a major part of the college basketball landscape. Many of the greatest moments in college basketball history have come at neutral sites between early-season tournaments, charity events, conference tournaments, and the NCAA Tournament itself. But for games such as Auburn/Baylor, regular events played at sites far away from campuses and fanbases have become a growing trend. Auburn’s Bruce Pearl has even gone as far as to say that the Tigers had to play that game “to stay relevant in the world of college basketball.” Of course, he isn’t necessarily talking about media coverage. Traveling to South Dakota to play the Bears did not make Pearl’s program any more or less relevant in the public eye than if they played in Waco, Alabama or even if they played a team like Northern Arizona. What it did have an impact on, though, was Auburn’s NET rankings, which is the main ranking used by the committee that selects and seeds the teams for the NCAA Tournament.
While the NET rankings themselves can be based on a tricky algorithm used to determine which teams are better than one another, they are also used to determine the strength of schedules and which games mean more than others. Matchups are broken down into four quadrants based on the opponents’ NET ranking and the game’s location. Quadrant one games are the toughest games a team can play. A win could provide teams, especially smaller programs, with an ultimate resume booster, while a loss won’t severely damage their ranking. Conversely, for high-major teams, a quadrant four loss could be deadly for their season, while a win won’t mean much in the long run. Because of this, high-major programs are trying to avoid scheduling more games that would fall into the Quad Four category, and instead opting for more Quad One games.
First, let’s break down exactly what qualifies as a Quad one game. As mentioned, quadrants are separated based on opponent NET ranking and game location. If UConn plays a team ranked 1-30 in the NET at home, it qualifies as a Quad one game. For a neutral site game to fall into the same category, the opponent’s NET ranking has to be 1-50, which opens the field to another 20 potential matchups for UConn that would count as a Quad One matchup. With rankings fluctuating throughout the season and matchups played early in the season shifting between quadrants, coaches would rather play at a neutral site. This would keep the game in the Quad one category if their opponent falters late in the season and drops in the NET rankings. For true road games, that number balloons to 75. However, with teams still trying to find their footing early in the season, coaches are skeptical about traveling into hostile environments. Therefore, the number of true road and home games between high-major teams dissipates. Because of this, more “Neutral Home and Home” series, such as UConn’s matchup with Gonzaga, are making their way into existence. This December, Connecticut will travel to Washington to take on the Bulldogs. But instead of this game being played in Spokane, Gonzaga will take the relatively short trip to Seattle so the game can qualify as a neutral site game. In response, Gonzaga will travel to the East Coast to face the Huskies next year, but rather than playing at Gampel Pavilion or the XL Center, the teams will meet at Madison Square Garden.
Are more events like this better for the game? It’s hard to argue that the product on the court is not more entertaining. Two high-major teams competing, especially early in the season while so much is unknown, is almost always bound to be a better game than one between an elite program and a non-competitive opponent. What’s unfortunate is how this affects the atmosphere, mainly from a student perspective. When games are at home, students have the ability to make the contest feel like a true college basketball game. When two teams play a game hundreds of miles away from their campuses, especially during school, most students can’t make the trip. Similarly, everyday fans also face a similar dilemma. It creates a below-average atmosphere where the arena is mainly filled with casual goers. While the experience from a fan perspective isn’t all that great, it can be just as bad, if not worse, for the players. Instead of playing in front of a raucous home crowd pulling for them or a hostile road environment, players are subjected to playing in front of half-empty, quiet arenas, sometimes in completely different time zones. It’s disappointing that this is how college basketball has evolved, but if you want to beat the NET, you will have to miss out on the energy of your students and fans.