I've been pointing this out for decades. The typical response here is, "Stop whining. If our coach wasn't so incompetent and we didn't lose so many games, we'd be the ones getting favorable treatment as a high seed."
It's not whining to take notice when a system systematically disadvantages a set of franchises that includes UCLA. Sure, in any given year it's probably not a big difference. But in this industry, brand name matters, and over the DECADES systematic disadvantage eats away at brand name, and systematic advantage gives you Duke, North Carolina, Kentucky, UConn, et al. (who seldom get sent outside car-driving range). The west coast is what, 1/5 of the U.S. population? But how many west coast teams have made it to the Final Four, let alone won a natty, since 5 decades ago when the "regional" system was transformed into a farce, with West Coast teams playing in the east 75% of the time?
HERE ARE THE NUMBERS:
In the first 20 years of the NCAA tourney (1939-1958), west coast schools (I include Utah and Arizona) went to 14 final fours and won 5 of the titles. (Oregon, Stanford, Utah, USFx2)
In the next 20 years (1959-1978), west coast schools went to 19 final fours and won 11 of the titles. (Kal, UCLAx10)
***********************************************
In the next 20 years (1979-1998), during which time the regional system was revamped into its present phony form, west coast schools went to 9 final fours and won 3 of the titles. (UNLV, UCLA, Arizona)
In the next 26 years (1999-2024), with the unfairness of the phony regional system taking its long-term toll, west coast schools have gone to 5 final fours and won none of the titles.
Anybody see a slight trend?