Using simple math of 8 seasons per year for each world for one-game-a-day and 12 seasons per year for two-game-a-day, you end up with the following championships for non-BCS teams (of the 8 worlds I'm in):
|
Completed |
|
1 year |
|
2 year |
|
3 year |
|
4 year |
Naismith |
71 |
63 |
0 |
55 |
0 |
47 |
0 |
39 |
1 |
Rupp |
71 |
63 |
1 |
55 |
0 |
47 |
1 |
39 |
2 |
Smith |
70 |
62 |
0 |
54 |
0 |
46 |
0 |
38 |
0 |
Iba |
69 |
61 |
0 |
53 |
1 |
45 |
3 |
37 |
3 |
Crum |
65 |
57 |
0 |
49 |
0 |
41 |
0 |
33 |
1 |
Tark |
88 |
76 |
0 |
64 |
0 |
52 |
1 |
40 |
0 |
Knight |
69 |
57 |
0 |
45 |
0 |
33 |
0 |
21 |
0 |
Phelan |
68 |
56 |
0 |
44 |
0 |
32 |
0 |
20 |
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
1 |
|
5 |
|
8 |
So in the last two years there's a grand total of 2 championships, Girt/daalter in CUSA (Marshall) and Lostmyth in A10 (St. Bonaventure).
Going back 3 years you add 3 A10 teams in Iba, Gonzaga for Rupp, and North Texas for Tark.
Going back 4 years- Cal Riverside in Naismith, Gonzaga and Delaware for Rupp, 3 A10 teams in Iba, Wyoming in Crum, and Air Force for Phelan.
So why is this? Does nearly every championship caliber coach decide to go to a BCS school to coach their favorite team? Or is it more likely that coaches see the writing on the wall in terms of being in a half or near empty conference, wherein your prestige is capped due to the suck of the rest of the teams in your conference, and your ability to recruit championship caliber players is hindered due to not only a lesser prestige than your team should have due to performance, but also because the Big 6 schools can carry $20,000+ more dollars in their pocket due to the postseason cash advantages.
The question isn't "Is it possible to win a title in a non-BCS conference". That question had some debate, but under extreme circumstances, like CUSA, it can happen. Wherein you need a very good/great coaches to sacrifice their ability to get better higher prestige jobs and instead toil away for quite a few seasons teaming together for the eventual betterment of the conference.
The WCC in IBA is trying this as well as people dumped championship schools to go to D prestige garbage. If the commitment is there from everyone they may well be at the top of IBA, albeit it's tougher because their baselines are lower than CUSA. I've seen numerous attempts to try and cram good coaches at a mid-major just to see it implode when those good coaches decide it's just an easier path to success taking over the BCS schools.
Back to the point, success in a midmajor is an extreme outlier. If I want to make Marist, Robert Morris, or James Madison into a championship contender I need:
1) To be good at the game, obviously.
2) To be committed to the school, and not jump when a better opportunity arises.
3) The hardest: Get 8-11 other very good coaches to also be committed to the conference.
Doesn't #3 seem like one extremely high bar to clear?
Suggestions:
1) Make prestige more dependent on the individual team and less on the conference.
2) Dramatically reduce postseason cash and/or make more/all the cash go to the school that earned it. Problem here is that it would make an elite school coming off a good postseason run invincible, but would get rid of/reduce it being necessary for your other conference mates to be as successful.
3) Get rid of baseline prestige. I actually dislike this idea, but it gets thrown around. If you want everything equal, D2 and D3 are available.
I'll leave with this. The first team goes to the NT every season (even without the CT titles, would be in with an At-Large) and wins games (two Sweet 16s). The second team is in a BCS conference and makes the PIT 3/4 seasons, and gets some wins there. Despite much better individual success for the first team they have them same prestige, but if they're in a recruiting battle (with openings being even) the second team has a higher chance of landing the player due to their conference earning $24,000 more dollars per team.