Does the West deserve a #1 seed every year?

[dukedevilz]

I think you could make the argument that the West Region hasn't had enough success to host a regional ever year. Maybe every other year. Look at the data from the past two decades. If they were carrying equal weight, their numbers would be right at 25%.

2000-2009
1 seeds:
Stanford (3)- 2000, 2001, 2004
Arizona (2)- 2000, 2003
Washington (1)- 2005
UCLA (1)- 2008
Total 1 seeds: 7/40, 17.50%

Final Four Teams:
UCLA (3)- 2006, 2007, 2008
Arizona (1)- 2001
Total FF Teams: 4/40, 10%

2010-2019
1 seeds:
Gonzaga (3)- 2013, 2017, 2019
Arizona (1)- 2014
Oregon (1)- 2016
Total 1 seeds: 5/40, 12.50%

Final Four Teams:
Gonzaga (1)- 2017
Oregon (1)- 2017
Total FF Teams: 2/40, 5%

Past 20 years combined:
1 seeds: 12/80, 15%
FF Teams: 6/80, 7.5%

And, of course, 0 for 20 on winning the national championship. Only Arizona (01), UCLA (06), and Gonzaga have even played in the title game.

 

[jhmossy]

 

[5thGenJayhawk]

 

[Hank_]

No, and I’m fine with zero regionals being played west of Texas.

 

[dragonhawk1855]

its not if they should be given a 1 seed its more about who should get that #1 seed, the seeding is supposed to be about one of the top 4 teams NO MATTER WHO it is, that should get that #1 seed
each Region should get a #1 seed no matter who that team is, for example lets say that MSU and Kansas be in a position to get a #1 seed give the MW #1 seeded to the higher rated team and send the other out to the West Region
but if a team out West is rated a #1 seed give them the #1 seed, its not rocket science.

 

[dukedevilz]

its not if they should be given a 1 seed its more about who should get that #1 seed, the seeding is supposed to be about one of the top 4 teams NO MATTER WHO it is, that should get that #1 seed
each Region should get a #1 seed no matter who that team is, for example lets say that MSU and Kansas be in a position to get a #1 seed give the MW #1 seeded to the higher rated team and send the other out to the West Region
but if a team out West is rated a #1 seed give them the #1 seed, its not rocket science.

For the record, I know the NCAA would never seriously consider this. And I get what you're saying about determining the better of the two Midwest teams, but that's not the argument I'm making. What I'm saying is the West hasn't done enough to truly merit hosting a regional every year. There's been 60 Final Four Games this century, and teams from the West Region have only won 3 of those 60 games (5%). And it's no wonder. There are 6 power conferences (sort of 6.5 if you count the American Athletic). The Pac-12 is the only power conference in the West Region. Fortunately, they have Gonzaga, which helps a bit. But I don't know if that's enough to earn a western regional host city every year.

The geographic regions are already broad enough as they are. The Midwest, for example, could easily have a Regional in San Antonio (send Kansas there) and Cleveland (send Michigan State there). Those two cities are roughly 1,000 miles apart. The downside of having MSU or Kansas in the West, is they could easily be matched up against the likes of Gonzaga, Arizona, or Oregon.

Xavier was the #1 seed in the West in 2018. They ended up losing to FSU in round 2. Had they won, they would have felt the pressure of playing Gonzaga in San Diego. In 2015, Wisconsin the #1 seed in the West squared off against #2 seed Arizona in Los Angeles. Wisconsin won, but an obvious home field advantage for Arizona. Duke lost in the 2011 Regionals as the #1 seed in the West; they played Arizona in Anaheim. In 2007, Kansas (#1 seed) had to play UCLA in San Jose. They lost. The problem with the West Region, is the top 4 teams are rarely west of Mississippi. Yes, MSU and Kansas are frequently there. But they're natural region would be in the Midwest - and how many times are MSU and Kansas #1 seeds in the same year?

The West Region is a black hole. Nobody wants to go there (unless you're a Pac-12 team). #1 seeds make it to the Final Four more than 40% of the time. This century, the West #1 has only made it 4 times: UCLA (2008), UConn (2009), Wisconsin (2015), and Gonzaga (2017).

 

[Wall2Boogie]

It’s irrelevant, because as long as shit teams like Gonzaga continue to play shit teams in a shit conference they will always get the one seed

 

[dukedevilz]

It’s irrelevant, because as long as shit teams like Gonzaga continue to play shit teams in a shit conference they will always get the one seed

Always get the one seed? You mean, like three times in the program's history?

Also, fun fact-
NCAA Tournament wins since 2015
Gonzaga: 15
Kentucky: 13

 

[Wall2Boogie]

Always get the one seed? You mean, like three times in the program's history?

Also, fun fact-
NCAA Tournament wins since 2015
Gonzaga: 15
Kentucky: 13

In all fairness we have only been a one seed once in that time frame

 

[dukedevilz]

In all fairness we have only been a one seed once in that time frame

Not that much of a difference between the 2 schools, to be honest. Gonzaga had an outlier in 2016 with an 11 seed. Both had 3 years where they were either a 1/2 seed - and 2 years as a 4 seed or higher. The median seed is the same.

Gonzaga:2015- 2 seed
2016- 11 seed
2017- 1 seed
2018- 4 seed
2019- 1 seed

Average: 3.8
Median: 2


UK:
2015- 1 seed
2016- 4 seed
2017- 2 seed
2018- 5 seed
2019- 2 seed

Average: 2.8
Median: 2

 

[sdsufan10]

The number 1 seeds should go to the 4 best teams with the best resumes, past results should be irrelevant

 

[dukedevilz]

The number 1 seeds should go to the 4 best teams with the best resumes, past results should be irrelevant

But do you think the West deserves to host a regional every year? A lot of east coast schools have struggled to have success in the West as a #1 seed. I love watching teams play in the Pac-12, MWC, and WCC, but I just don't know if they've played well enough from the past two decades to host a regional. Playing in Seattle, Los Angeles, Phoenix, or wherever is a huge disadvantage for a #1 seed that might be coming from 1500-2000 miles away.

 

[Ipartiedwithhopgood]

Are you saying anything accomplished in the sport prior to the year 2000 has on relevance?

It would be interesting to see ticket sale comparisons region by region for the 2nd weekend. If ticket sales were significantly down out West then that would be a stronger argument than timeframe of program performance.

I think it would be unfair to eliminate Western cities from the rotation - that would eliminate that boost to their economy for the 4 days ... as long as ticket sales are similar to the other 3 regions.

 

[dukedevilz]

Are you saying anything accomplished in the sport prior to the year 2000 has on relevance?

It would be interesting to see ticket sale comparisons region by region for the 2nd weekend. If ticket sales were significantly down out West then that would be a stronger argument than timeframe of program performance.

I think it would be unfair to eliminate Western cities from the rotation - that would eliminate that boost to their economy for the 4 days ... as long as ticket sales are similar to the other 3 regions.

I'm not suggesting that western cities are eliminated from the rotation. But rather that they host a regional every other year.

 

[F-Duke]

You can cancel the West regional if you take Duke's first two round games out of North Carolina. Since Duke more often than not doesn't live up to their seed in the tourney, they should not be rewarded with gimme games early in the tournament.

 

[KisteK]

You can cancel the West regional if you take Duke's first two round games out of North Carolina. Since Duke more often than not doesn't live up to their seed in the tourney, they should not be rewarded with gimme games early in the tournament.

Surely no bias ... surely.

 

[dukedevilz]

You can cancel the West regional if you take Duke's first two round games out of North Carolina. Since Duke more often than not doesn't live up to their seed in the tourney, they should not be rewarded with gimme games early in the tournament.

Love the screen name.

Honestly, it wouldn't matter to me if Duke ever plays a tournament game in the state of North Carolina. I think we've had a better percentage of the crowd in New York, New Jersey, Pittsburgh, and DC. North Carolina games are ACC Country, which means 99% anti-Duke. I'd say the Lehigh and Mercer games, both played in North Carolna, had at least 70% of the crowd rooting for the underdog.

Also, since the tournament expanded to 64 teams we've won more tournament games, more regional finals, and more national championships than any other school. So...