(09-28-2020 12:39 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(09-28-2020 11:49 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(09-28-2020 09:30 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Louisville has had a national championship victory stripped away; UConn has not. Louisville may have had longer-term tournament success in the form of bids, S16s/E8s/F4s, but it is UConn that has more national championships. Both are elite-level, not blue blood, basketball programs. A slight edge needs to be given to UConn due to their national championship victories.

I give the slight edge to Louisville, GW11. UL still "won" those titles when they were played. And I would say the same thing about UConn if it had all its titles stripped. Those title games were played. Also worth noting: UL won the NIT in the mid-1950s, when the NIT was as big a deal (if not bigger) than the NCAA.

Three things of note:

* From the mid-1940s to the late 1980s, UL was considerably better than UConn (lots more NCAA and NIT wins, players sent to the pros, big national wins on TV, etc.)

* UL has had (seemingly) three nationally significant coaches to UConn's two.

* UL has achieved impressive success despite being an "urban public university" located in the same state as University of Kentucky basketball. That is almost stunning when you think about it. How it was done over the years in an intangible we simply can underestimate. That alone is worth major props.

I do agree with you that both are elite-level, not blue blood, basketball programs. But I give the slight edge to Louisville. Many will disagree with me. That's fine.

I personally don't believe in the "vacated" title punishment by the NCAA. You can take away a trophy, rip down a banner, erase the wins from the record books, but it doesn't take away the memory, per se, of a team's accomplishments. However, since the NCAA is the official governing body, it is what it is. I don't agree with it, but there needs to be some basis for determining on-court postseason success.

I think it giving tiers to programs, not only the number of championships a program has won is considered, but when they won is also a big consideration. UConn, for this reason alone, will never be a blue blood, simply because all of their elite level success has occurred within the past 25 years. Louisville has been steady for much longer and with more consistency. However, once again, UConn still has more national championships (condensed or not), so more value needs to be placed there. St. John's, for example, has five NIT Championship victories (four which occurred between 1943 and 1965); if we add those on, like we are discussing right here given the time-frame, then St. John's would have as many nationally recognized championships as Indiana or Duke.

All strong points, particularly the "when" a team won a title (NCAA or NIT).

Clearly, Louisville and UConn are in the tier below the four to six blue bloods and are extremely close in stature. An argument could be made for "ranking" one slightly above the other, with you giving the slight edge to UConn and me to UL. And then I would have St. John's (and your Marquette Warrriors, for example) in the third tier (a prestigious grouping also). Obviously, any program in the first three tiers (about 25 to 35 programs total) is outstanding.