Hmmm, Opinion only, not fact...
Taildragger is much more simple to manufacture, and the originals did not even have a wheel at the tail, just a piece of wood. The main landing gear was easy to build to be robust. No need for lots of nosewheel attachment structure in the nose (heavy and expensive, as it concentrates the loads into the airframe in a not so good way). With lots of training, and oversight, and less interest in the simplicity of the aircraft, it was just easier and cheaper to build and use taildraggers in the early days.
During WW2, some tricycles emerged, simply out of a design need for that arrangement, and it caught on with fewer runway excursions and noseovers. After the war, when light civil aviation caught on, tricycle was just easier for the masses to fly well, and insurance companies liked the fewer claims for landing accidents. The cost, weight, and complexity of the nose wheel became worth it.
Now we have reached the point where taildraggers are the rareity, and the pilots who can fly them well are equally rare. they still have their virtues though. It's kinda like standard transmission, How many drivers will grow up having never driven standard, and never understanding the benefits offered by that type of transmission? I certainly know many - but my wife and kids learned standard, and that's what they drive.
As for the aerobatic types, again, my opinion only. I expect that there is a desire to save weight and complexity, and, the general level of pilot skill flying those types is a notch higher, so the taildragger is manageable.
I have a taildragger amphibian, and I never take my eyes of it for a second going down the runway. What it lacks in runway grace, however, it more than makes up for, and exceeds tricycle, on the water.
A trained taildragger pilot will be a better pilot all the way around - they will have learned what the rudder is really for!