College Basketball is still Regional Sport (Though not for long)

[Fred T. Jane]

The BCS Playoffs thread has had the implication that a playoff system for football would not work because a similar tournament for basketball has low ratings for games in early rounds not involving top-ranked teams as its focus. However, such a statement ignores the fact that comparisons between college basketball and college football are fraught with difficulty because college basketball is still essentially a regional sport, unlike college football, which has a nationwide base.

Now, to the evidence. I haven't done any major compiling of data on my own, so there's no pool of data to peruse easily, though Sports Studies researchers have done a good deal of research on the topic, coming to the above conclusion. However, I figured I'd use a pretty good single data point for the thread that tends to pop up often--national championships. It's a fairly all-encompassing way to look at things, as national championship teams, especially universities with multiple titles, exhibit certain characteristics, namely healthy prep sports scene from which to recruit, which in turn provide better teams which win said championships, and as a result fan support is higher, giving more children the dream of playing for a championship team, thus reinforcing the momentum a title (and especially more than one) brings to an area with regards to the sport.

So before we delve into the data, let's define what I would consider the regions of the US. Geographers, Sociologists, and Anthropologists constantly bicker over the exact details, but if we are to divide regions solely on state lines, most folks would agree that the US would be delineated as such:

New England: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut

Mid-Atlantic: New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, West Virginia (Washington DC)

Southeast: Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida

Deep South: Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas

Midwest: Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri, Iowa

Southwest: Texas, New Mexico, Arizona

Great Plains: North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma

Rocky Mountains: Colorado, Utah, Nevada, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho

Pacific West: California, Oregon, Washington (Alaska and Hawai'i)

So with that said, let's look at College Football champions since the advent of the AP Poll in 1934:

As you can see, national championships (of which most years was split because of limited bowl appearances early on and later conferences locked into bowl commitments) are well-spread across the nation, with virtually every region of the country having states with multiple titles.

In comparison, look at the college basketball champions since the advent of the NCAA Tournament in 1939:

See the difference? Apart from North Carolina (wins by Duke, North Carolina, and NC State) and California, the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic states hold most of the titles.

Now, you may say "But everyone's got a basketball program, and look! Florida's won the last 2 titles, as well as Kansas and those titles won by Rocky Mountain states and Texas too!" Well, to answer those, Kansas is perhaps the only traditional exclave of college basketball outside of its heartland, and those titles won by Rocky Mountain states were won in the tournament's early years, and Texas' lone title came from Texas Western (now UTEP)'s famous upset of Kentucky.

To answer the final point (Florida's back-to-back titles), college basketball has, since 1979 become far more nationwide in its following as a result of the Michigan State-Indiana State title game, and the ensuing careers of Magic Johnson and Larry Bird in the NBA. The explosion of the NBA's popularity, boosted to even further heights by Michael Jordan, brought more and more players to basketball with hopes of playing in the NBA, and as a result the power structure of the game is slowly diffusing across the country, as evidenced by titles for UNLV, Arkansas, Arizona, and Florida. The process is not complete, as evidenced by traditional powers from a rather limited geographic area still making up most of the heavyweight division of college basketball, especially compared to the heavyweights of college football.

What sayeth the forum?

[rams80]

I must say that that is very interesting research. I cannot say much more than that about the relative nature of college basketball's popularity, because I have spent my life in the Midwest, and was indoctrinated into believing that watching as much of the tournament as possible is an acceptable, nay required, practice.

As a result, this may have been one of the few times where I actually believed the media's statements about college basketball's nationwide popularity.

I'd also be curious about how the map would look if you added in the early NIT champions (since it could be argued that THEY were the national champs back then.)

[Fred T. Jane]

I must say that that is very interesting research. I cannot say much more than that about the relative nature of college basketball's popularity, because I have spent my life in the Midwest, and was indoctrinated into believing that watching as much of the tournament as possible is an acceptable, nay required, practice.

As a result, this may have been one of the few times where I actually believed the media's statements about college basketball's nationwide popularity.

I'd also be curious about how the map would look if you added in the early NIT champions (since it could be argued that THEY were the national champs back then.)

Give me 30 hours, and I'll have NIT winners on a map too. 3 Tests to grade that I'm giving tomorrow + fantasy scoring from this weekend= long waiting list for stuff to do.

[ShinyHubCaps]

Aren't some regions / programs in college basketball boosted also by having Final Four teams, and college football by having teams in the biggest three or so bowls every year (Fiesta Bowl, Rose Bowl, and Sugar Bowl if none of those is also the national title game)? I'd be interested to see the breakdown for that, because if a mid-major college basketball team were ever to up their division or move into a larger conference, it would usually be as a result of having succeeded in a smaller conference. Marquette made the Final Four with Dwyane Wade in 2003, and as a result of having the Final Four bid or having Dwyane Wade, the department received more money to spend on recruiting, etc., and then moved from Conference USA to the Big East the next year. I think that with the size of the pool in NCAA Basketball, making the Final Four is just about as good as winning the championship, but maybe that's just me.

Anyway, interesting study. I would have liked more contrast in the map colors, but anyway, it's really nice to see a breakdown.

[illwauk]

I'd actually include Minnesota, Iowa and Missouri in the yellow states and kentucky with the purple states (even though it takes away a grip of titles from my region). The style of ball played in the Great Lakes region is actually more similar to what is played on the East Coast (it's not a coincidence that the Big East now has a lot of teams from this region) than with the other states that are included in the orange blob.

I didn't know that the first 2 rounds of the NCAA tourney got low ratings because that's the part of the tourney I look forward to... seeing all the directionals, hyphens and "State's" that aren't actually states that I'd never be able to see on TV otherwise. But then, I'm in a "hot" region for college hoops, so that may have something to do with it.

But this was a very interesting read for a sports, georgpahy and sociology nerd like me. I can't help but laugh at how the term "college sports" is almost synonymous with Badgers football in Wisconsin, yet we're a much more successful in hoops as a state.

[ShinyHubCaps]

I agree about liking the first round. Last year we got out of school at noon and were planning on going to Buffalo Wild Wings, and that just so happened to be on the first day of the tournament. We got to see Davidson nearly upset Maryland, as well as three other games on their TV assortment. That night I went to the Spurs @ Bucks, and I got to see VCU upset Duke on the TV by the concession stand. Good deal on those bracket busters, much more fun than the championship in my opinion.

[Fred T. Jane]

I must say that that is very interesting research. I cannot say much more than that about the relative nature of college basketball's popularity, because I have spent my life in the Midwest, and was indoctrinated into believing that watching as much of the tournament as possible is an acceptable, nay required, practice.

As a result, this may have been one of the few times where I actually believed the media's statements about college basketball's nationwide popularity.

I'd also be curious about how the map would look if you added in the early NIT champions (since it could be argued that THEY were the national champs back then.)

Here you go! Look which regions have most of them too!

[illwauk]

Seems like the NIT championships follow the general rule of "abundance of catholic schools=abundance of titles." It makes sense since most athletically competitive catholic schools didn't belong to a conference until the late 70's and for a long time, being in a conference was the only way to win an NCAA bid.

I might be in the minority, but as a lifelong fan of Marquette hoops (in spite of the fact that I went to UWM), the 1970 NIT championship is a bigger source of pride for me than the 1977 NCAA title. Al McGuire didn't like his seeding in the NCAA tourney and gave the symbolic middle finger by playing (and winning) the NIT instead. The NCAA had to change its rules (to protect its monopoly) the following year.