....teams west of the Mississippi. I thought that was an interesting stat. Only Arizona in 1997 and Kansas in 2008 have broken the ACC/SEC/BigEast stranglehold on the NCAA title the last 20 years.

Is this just statistical noise or is something giving teams in the eastern time zone a permanent upper hand?

510Bear;842671880 said:

---

....teams west of the Mississippi. I thought that was an interesting stat. Only Arizona in 1997 and Kansas in 2008 have broken the ACC/SEC/BigEast stranglehold on the NCAA title the last 20 years.

Is this just statistical noise or is something giving teams in the eastern time zone a permanent upper hand?

---

Population.
I was thinking it's because most of the US population is east of the Mississippi, but googled to find it's only 58%.
How about concentration of talent (58% being in smaller map) or number of top schools being in the east?

Because winning a championship isn't random. It takes commitment, money, the best coaches and the best players. Schools that have made that commitment and have that legacy are in that part of the country. Outside of Arizona and sometimes UCLA you don't have that tradition out here.

GB54;842671885 said:

---

Because winning a championship isn't random. It takes commitment, money, the best coaches and the best players. Schools that have made that commitment and have that legacy are in that part of the country. Outside of Arizona and sometimes UCLA you don't have that tradition out here.

---

We used to

Year Winning team
1939 Oregon
1940 Indiana
1941 Wisconsin
1942 Stanford
1943 Wyoming
1944 Utah
1945 Oklahoma A&M
1946 Oklahoma A&M
1947 Holy Cross
1948 Kentucky
1949 Kentucky
1950 CCNY
1951 Kentucky
1952 Kansas
1953 Indiana
1954 La Salle
1955 San Francisco
1956 San Francisco
1957 North Carolina
1958 Kentucky
1959 California
1960 Ohio State
1961 Cincinnati
1962 Cincinnati
1963 Loyola Chicago
1964 UCLA
1965 UCLA
1966 Texas Western
1967 UCLA
1968 UCLA
1969 UCLA
1970 UCLA
1971 UCLA
1972 UCLA
1973 UCLA
1974 North Carolina State
1975 UCLA
1976 Indiana
1977 Marquette
1978 Kentucky
1979 Michigan State
1980 Louisville
1981 Indiana
1982 North Carolina
1983 North Carolina State
1984 Georgetown
1985 Villanova
1986 Louisville
1987 Indiana
1988 Kansas
1989 Michigan
1990 UNLV
1991 Duke
1992 Duke
1993 North Carolina
1994 Arkansas
1995 UCLA
1996 Kentucky
1997 Arizona
1998 Kentucky
1999 Connecticut
2000 Michigan State
2001 Duke
2002 Maryland
2003 Syracuse
2004 Connecticut
2005 North Carolina
2006 Florida
2007 Florida
2008 Kansas
2009 North Carolina
2010 Duke
2011 Connecticut
2012 Kentucky
2013 Louisville
2014 Connecticut
2015 Duke

concordtom;842671886 said:

---

We used to

---

Was just about to post this. The "last 20 years" cutoff means that you lose the period from 1995 and before, when UCLA won its last title and there had been several "west of the Mississippi" teams that had won in a short time frame. I'm not sure if anything "happened" here other than some random noise owing to a smaller sample.

In the broader sweep of NCAA basketball history, western teams do just fine.

And hey, there's still a chance this year. Oklahoma could win it.

Distribution of BCS Schools is heavily favored East.







And I'll throw this out there, because I happen to think that people with African genetics tend to be better basketball athletes than European genetics. Stats back that up, as blacks are 74% of NBA despite being only 12% of the overall US population:

[INDENT]According to racial equality activist Richard Lapchick, the NBA in 2015 was composed of 74.4 percent black players, 23.3 percent white players, 1.8 percent Latinos, and 0.2 percent Asian.

Meanwhile, Non-Hispanic whites make up 63 percent of the U.S.; Hispanics, 17 percent; blacks, 12.3 percent; Asians, 5 percent; and multiracial Americans, 2.4 percent. About 353 of the nation's 3,143 counties, or 11 percent, are now "majority-minority." (Jun 13, 2013)

[/INDENT]

sycasey;842671887 said:

---

Was just about to post this. The "last 20 years" cutoff means that you lose the period from 1995 and before, when UCLA won its last title and there had been several "west of the Mississippi" teams that had won in a short time frame. I'm not sure if anything "happened" here other than some random noise owing to a smaller sample.

In the broader sweep of NCAA basketball history, western teams do just fine.

And hey, there's still a chance this year. Oklahoma could win it.

---

Well, if we make it 40 years (i.e. "After Wooden"), there's still only 5 titles being won west of the Mississippi during that period. Not a lot.

If the Mississippi is the cut-off, Wyoming ('43), Kansas ('52) and Arkansas ('94) are West as well.

Of the four schools left, three are clearly "basketball schools." Villanova doesn't even play Division I football, at North Carolina, football is an afterthought, and Syracuse hasn't been relevant in football since the Jim Brown-Ernie Nevers era. Only Oklahoma is a sometime football power. There's just a lot more emphasis on basketball in the eastern part of the country. Part of it probably has to do with the weather, and the need for both athletes and fans to have some outlet when there's eight feet of snow on the ground. The level of interest in high school ball, and then college ball, seems to me to be much greater back there.

concordtom;842671889 said:

---

Distribution of BCS Schools is heavily favored East.

---

+1. THis is by far the more telling map. It is far to easy to forget in California.....

1) How many people live in the Bo-NY-Wa corridor
2) How "empty" so much of "The West" is.

I am, however, beginning to warm to the idea of expanding the conference. Oregon (and to an extent ASU) simply do not provide evidence that we actually are committed to academics. Given that (and out of a desire to get some balance which we could have with a 16 team conference) how about

1) SDSU (adds the SD TV Market)
2) UNLV (adds the Vegas TV Market)
3) Boise state (adds purple field)
4) UTEP (realistically not that far from Zona)

North
Washingtons/Oregons/Bay Area/Utah-Boise

SOuth
So Cals/Zonas/San Diego-UNLV/CU-Utep.

concordtom;842671886 said:

---

We used to

Year Winning team
1939 Oregon
1940 Indiana
1941 Wisconsin
1942 Stanford
1943 Wyoming
1944 Utah
1945 Oklahoma A&M
1946 Oklahoma A&M
1947 Holy Cross
1948 Kentucky
1949 Kentucky
1950 CCNY
1951 Kentucky
1952 Kansas
1953 Indiana
1954 La Salle
1955 San Francisco
1956 San Francisco
1957 North Carolina
1958 Kentucky
1959 California
1960 Ohio State
1961 Cincinnati
1962 Cincinnati
1963 Loyola Chicago
1964 UCLA
1965 UCLA
1966 Texas Western
1967 UCLA
1968 UCLA
1969 UCLA
1970 UCLA
1971 UCLA
1972 UCLA
1973 UCLA
1974 North Carolina State
1975 UCLA
1976 Indiana
1977 Marquette
1978 Kentucky
1979 Michigan State
1980 Louisville
1981 Indiana
1982 North Carolina
1983 North Carolina State
1984 Georgetown
1985 Villanova
1986 Louisville
1987 Indiana
1988 Kansas
1989 Michigan
1990 UNLV
1991 Duke
1992 Duke
1993 North Carolina
1994 Arkansas
1995 UCLA
1996 Kentucky
1997 Arizona
1998 Kentucky
1999 Connecticut
2000 Michigan State
2001 Duke
2002 Maryland
2003 Syracuse
2004 Connecticut
2005 North Carolina
2006 Florida
2007 Florida
2008 Kansas
2009 North Carolina
2010 Duke
2011 Connecticut
2012 Kentucky
2013 Louisville
2014 Connecticut
2015 Duke

---

Of course a lot of this history is when the field was smaller and a western team had to appear in the final four. You also have to take into account the consolidation of basketball power at the top. There is the notion that everyone has a chance but they don't-only a dozen or so teams have a chance. Go forward to present from the great UCLA run and you have UNLV and Arizona and Kansas from the West. UNLV was a recruiting anomaly and BTW, I'm not sure Kansas would consider themselves "Western." Only top programs can afford to win a championship these days and there aren't that many in the West.

LOUMFSG2;842671892 said:

---

If the Mississippi is the cut-off, Wyoming ('43), Kansas ('52) and Arkansas ('94) are West as well.

---

Don't mean to be controversial, but blacks weren't integrated into basketball in 43 and 52.
(Per above: blacks are 74% of NBA despite being only 12% of the overall US population).

socaltownie;842671896 said:

---

+1. THis is by far the more telling map. It is far to easy to forget in California.....

1) How many people live in the Bo-NY-Wa corridor
2) How "empty" so much of "The West" is.

I am, however, beginning to warm to the idea of expanding the conference. Oregon (and to an extent ASU) simply do not provide evidence that we actually are committed to academics. Given that (and out of a desire to get some balance which we could have with a 16 team conference) how about

1) SDSU (adds the SD TV Market)
2) UNLV (adds the Vegas TV Market)
3) Boise state (adds purple field)
4) UTEP (realistically not that far from Zona)

North
Washingtons/Oregons/Bay Area/Utah-Boise

SOuth
So Cals/Zonas/San Diego-UNLV/CU-Utep.

---

The Acela corridor is definitely underperforming in NCAA football

socaltownie;842671896 said:

---

3) Boise state (adds purple field)

---

Boise State should not be allowed in our conference unless they have a normal football field. Like for 5 years and even then no promises. We don't need that gimmicky BS - we already have Oregon.

concordtom;842671901 said:

---

Don't mean to be controversial, but blacks weren't integrated into basketball in 43 and 52.
(Per above: blacks are 74% of NBA despite being only 12% of the overall US population).

---

??? What does that have to do with which schools are located West of the Mississippi?

GB54;842671906 said:

---

The Acela corridor is definitely underperforming in NCAA football

---

Guess? That this reflects more than anything that modern football (a more passing, catching, running game and more agility on the lines) reflects a bias toward High Schools that can allow 365 days a year practice. It also is likely that densely urban areas have a challege of finding fields and space for practice. This isn't an issue for colleges but is an issue for high schools and youth football.

GB54;842671906 said:

---

The Acela corridor is definitely underperforming in NCAA football

---

Black kids play basketball and white kids play Lacrosse and Soccer out here. Did I get that right?

socaltownie;842671909 said:

---

Guess? That this reflects more than anything that modern football (a more passing, catching, running game and more agility on the lines) reflects a bias toward High Schools that can allow 365 days a year practice. It also is likely that densely urban areas have a challege of finding fields and space for practice. This isn't an issue for colleges but is an issue for high schools and youth football.

---

I think it more likely that Universities (and a lot of high schools) in this corridor don't care about college football. The players produced in New Jersey, PA and NY wind up in the Big 10 or elsewhere

NYCGOBEARS;842671910 said:

---

Black kids play basketball and white kids play Lacrosse and Soccer out here. Did I get that right?

---

Chad approves this post

Expansion may have been good for football, but not for hoops. Cost a double round robin, conference tourney is unwieldy, and Wednesday to Sunday road trips are insane. Would prefer going back to ten than growing to sixteen.

GB54;842671911 said:

---

I think it more likely that Universities (and a lot of high schools) in this corridor don't care about college football. The players produced in New Jersey, PA and NY wind up in the Big 10 or elsewhere

---

Hmmmm....Exclude Penn because of Penn State (and the fact that the Western Half of the state (at least in respect to population centers) is more "midwestern" and "West Virginia" centric than ACELA corridor.

But I bet that if you take

% of US population for Mass/NJ/NY/CONN/RI/Maryland/DC/Delaware (and you could refine even more to look at just young adults) those states are very much underrepersented in respect to home towns of D1 football players and the SOuth and West are very much over represented.

BearDevil;842671913 said:

---

Expansion may have been good for football, but not for hoops. Cost a double round robin, conference tourney is unwieldy, and Wednesday to Sunday road trips are insane. Would prefer going back to ten than growing to sixteen.

---

Wednesday to Sundays are occurring right now.

socaltownie;842671914 said:

---

Hmmmm....Exclude Penn because of Penn State (and the fact that the Western Half of the state (at least in respect to population centers) is more "midwestern" and "West Virginia" centric than ACELA corridor.

But I bet that if you take

% of US population for Mass/NJ/NY/CONN/RI/Maryland/DC/Delaware (and you could refine even more to look at just young adults) those states are very much underrepersented in respect to home towns of D1 football players and the SOuth and West are very much over represented.

---

Agree, I don't think it follows population; it follows interest

socaltownie;842671915 said:

---

Wednesday to Sundays are occurring right now.

---

That's one of the current problems. Why would we want more of that?

Rxrg09b;842671907 said:

---

Boise State should not be allowed in our conference unless they have a normal football field. Like for 5 years and even then no promises. We don't need that gimmicky BS - we already have Oregon.

---

I'll bet Boise State keeps it that way in part just to troll everyone who has such a crazy irrational hatred for it (not unlike Aaron Rodgers saying "Butte CC" in his pregame intros).

BearDevil;842671919 said:

---

That's one of the current problems. Why would we want more of that?

---

Not sure it gets worse. I think Wednesday and Sunday is more a function of the Pac-12 TV contract/network wanting content on those days rather than the burden of travel. All the schools I mentioned (UTEP being SORT of an exception but even there better service than Wazzu) are all served by decent airports. In and out quickly.

socaltownie;842671926 said:

---

Not sure it gets worse. I think Wednesday and Sunday is more a function of the Pac-12 TV contract/network wanting content on those days rather than the burden of travel.

---

I think it also has to do with the desire to have all MBB games on TV (something that was not the case in the past). That means they now have to be on different days so the broadcasts don't overlap.

It's a good thing to have games on TV so that people can see them, but this is one of the side effects.

Ivies only play on Fridays and Saturdays, makes sense. ACC plays every night but Friday. Makes zero sense for Miami or Syracuse to play each other midweek. If PAC insists on Wednesday night games, none should ever be scheduled involving WSU.

Interesting topic. Two comments:

First - The expansion of the NCAA field actually helps the Power 5 conferences. When the big conferences are getting 6-10 teams in every year - (most of which are more competitive anyway) it actually makes the odds of a mid-major winning the NC less likely. Makes for great drama and narrative about upsets and runs to the sweet sixteen and final four - but NOT for the NC (which the OP is using as the metric). I'll leave out the Pac-12 outlier for now.

Second - The future of the tournament is driven by popularity and money. There is very little about making sure it is the right competitive format or taking the interests of student athletes into account. I also think that Football and Basketball are on diverging paths in many ways. Football is becoming a have vs have-not situation where many schools and conferences are not willing to support it (See many WCC schools for example). The number of programs could easily fall in to a two tier alignment with 64 Big schools and 64 smaller schools, allowing for conference-type alignments that fit nicely into geographic and tournament pods. Basketball is different in that more team are moving to D1 and the 'cinderella story' promoting the ideal of small schools competing with big schools (and many do).

When you add the differing relations with professional and international play between the two sports, it is not hard to imagine that one or both of the revenue sports will eventually break from the existing conference model anyway.

:gobears:

p.s. if the big one comes and busts Memorial stadium before it is paid off - don't be surprised to see Cal drop D1 football.

16 is a workable conference size for football, but sub optimal for other sports. Texas men's swimming is a juggernaut, but there are only three men's swimming programs (UT, West Virginia, and TCU) left in the Big XXII.

The common denominator is great coaching (x's and o's and recruiting) combined with great talent. The "power programs" of the West are basically UCLA and Arizona. Those two programs were built by two HOF coaches and though they've had rough seasons here and there (more so for UCLA than AZ), generally compete on the national stage, even if FF's and National Titles have been elusive.

UCLA likely needs a new coach to get back to that "elite" level where they are competing on a national stage. UCLA thought they had a legacy coach in Howland, but he couldn't sustain an elite level program for a myriad of reasons. Miller's had elite level teams at AZ, but hasn't been able get past the Elite 8. Stanford had a run where they were very successful in the regular season, but that ended with Monty. With the right coach (we'll see if Haase is the guy), they can be back.

There's room for a couple of other programs to get into the mix, and I think the level of coaching in the conference is solid across the board, and the some of the coaches are young enough that there's still upside with some of them.

sycasey;842671932 said:

---

I think it also has to do with the desire to have all MBB games on TV (something that was not the case in the past). That means they now have to be on different days so the broadcasts don't overlap.

It's a good thing to have games on TV so that people can see them, but this is one of the side effects.

---

More teams would mean more nights of the week needed for 'optimal' TV scheduling, but if the conference office were on top of things, I'd think they could limit each school to a few 'bad' weeknight games as there will be more teams to fill the bad slots.

I'd say tues/weds are the 'bad' slots. Monday is no worse than Thursday. Friday is actually good for attending fans IMO. With 16 teams, and some rules about tues/wednesday games, I think the conference could actually make things better for teams than it is now. For conference season, play 8 games every weekend (3-5 on sat and the rest on sunday). rotate the weeknight games. maybe get rid of travel partners when it doesn't make sense. Maybe play only 1 game weds and tuesday and make it an instate rivalry game where travel is more limited.

And there's no reason they couldn't do all of this now with only 12 teams.

LOUMFSG2;842671908 said:

---

??? What does that have to do with which schools are located West of the Mississippi?

---

Easy, not as many blacks (read: top athletes) west of the mississippi. I thought I explained that.

Uh, sorry, maybe we are talking past each other. The OP asked why there were only 2 titles west of the mississippi. I tried to explain:
1) more population east of
2) more top athletes east of
3) more schools east of

The deck is stacked against the west these 3 ways.

GB54;842671906 said:

---

The Acela corridor is definitely underperforming in NCAA football

---

totally agree. what's up with that?!?!

socaltownie;842671909 said:

---

Guess? That this reflects more than anything that modern football (a more passing, catching, running game and more agility on the lines) reflects a bias toward High Schools that can allow 365 days a year practice. It also is likely that densely urban areas have a challege of finding fields and space for practice. This isn't an issue for colleges but is an issue for high schools and youth football.

---

excellent. I'll buy it.