Back then, the post-season tournaments were seen in the same light as the bowls historically, with the allure of playing in New York at the Garden being slightly more alluring than a far flung tournament that didn't even have all of the best teams. The polls were still looked at as the final authority and I don't think all the early NCAAT champs finished at the top of them IIRC.

(03-23-2015 06:31 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  I think you left a few out.

For Reference:
All time wins:
1. KY (2176)
3. UNC (2140)
4. Duke (2058)
7. UCLA (1781)
9. ND (1763)
11. L'Ville (1743)
15. Utah (1706)
19. Arizona (1678)
24. WVU (1651)
25. NC State (1639)
33. Michigan State (1581)
37. Oklahoma (1572)
>50. Wichita State, Gonzaga, Wisconsin, Xavier

All time NCAA tournament appearances:
1. KY (54)
2. UNC (46)
3. UCLA (45)
5. Louisville (41)
6. Duke (39)
10. ND (34)
15. Arizona (30)
t19. Michigan State (29)
t19. Oklahoma (29)
23. Utah (28)
29. WVU (26)
32. Xavier (25)
33. NC State (24)
40. Wisconsin (21)
54. Gonzaga (18)
88. Wichita St (12)

All time Final Fours
1: UNC (18)
2. UCLA (17)
3. Kentucky (16)
4. Duke (15)
6. Louisville (10)
8. Michigan State (8)
t19: Arizona (4)
t19: Oklahoma (4)
t19: Utah (4)
t26: NC State (3)
t26. Wisconsin (3)
t34. WVU (2)
t34. Wichita State (2)
56. ND (1)
NA: Xavier (0)
NA: Gonzaga (0)

National Championships:
1. UCLA (11)
2. Kentucky (8)
4. UNC (5)
5. Duke (4)
7. Louisville (3)
t9: Michigan State (2)
t9: NC State (2)
t15: Wisconsin (1)
t15: Utah (1)
t15: Arizona (1)
NA: Xavier (0)
NA: Wichita State (0)
NA: Gonzaga (0)
NA: Oklahoma (0)
NA: WVU (0)
NA: ND (0)

What site did you find that information on?

(03-24-2015 11:15 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Back then, the post-season tournaments were seen in the same light as the bowls historically, with the allure of playing in New York at the Garden being slightly more alluring than a far flung tournament that didn't even have all of the best teams. The polls were still looked at as the final authority and I don't think all the early NCAAT champs finished at the top of them IIRC.

Before circa 1950, there was no "real authority". There was the NIT and NCAA and each had their flaws and neither produced a real, recognized national champ.

That's why it is bogus to use anything retrospective like Helms or what have you. The fact is there simply were no actual national champions in college basketball before around 1950.

(03-25-2015 08:45 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-24-2015 11:15 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Back then, the post-season tournaments were seen in the same light as the bowls historically, with the allure of playing in New York at the Garden being slightly more alluring than a far flung tournament that didn't even have all of the best teams. The polls were still looked at as the final authority and I don't think all the early NCAAT champs finished at the top of them IIRC.

Before circa 1950, there was no "real authority". There was the NIT and NCAA and each had their flaws and neither produced a real, recognized national champ.

That's why it is bogus to use anything retrospective like Helms or what have you. The fact is there simply were no actual national champions in college basketball before around 1950.

Yeah, I keep telling UK fans That ! 47-48 and 48-49 weren't exactly the Real Deal and the 50-51 is still suspect being a real Deal. I would start with the 1960's as Modern Era Myself.

(03-25-2015 09:30 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(03-25-2015 08:45 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-24-2015 11:15 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Back then, the post-season tournaments were seen in the same light as the bowls historically, with the allure of playing in New York at the Garden being slightly more alluring than a far flung tournament that didn't even have all of the best teams. The polls were still looked at as the final authority and I don't think all the early NCAAT champs finished at the top of them IIRC.

Before circa 1950, there was no "real authority". There was the NIT and NCAA and each had their flaws and neither produced a real, recognized national champ.

That's why it is bogus to use anything retrospective like Helms or what have you. The fact is there simply were no actual national champions in college basketball before around 1950.

Yeah, I keep telling UK fans That ! 47-48 and 48-49 weren't exactly the Real Deal and the 50-51 is still suspect being a real Deal. I would start with the 1960's as Modern Era Myself.

That said, Kentucky (and fans of other champs from 1939 on) are still correct in that those 1940s NCAA champions are in fact the formal champions of the NCAA, as much as UConn was last year. That always means something.

I know that during the 1940s, at the time it was happening, the NIT champ was often regarded as more prestigious than the NCAA champ. But right now, I'd rather my team be an NCAA champ from that era than an NIT champ. NCAA is NCAA.

If I was back then, I'd rather go to New York, the most cosmopolitan city on the planet, and play among the best teams in the country as opposed to travelling to places like Evanston, Ill. to play. Going to the NIT was like going to the Rose Bowl in college football or even the Cotton Bowl.

(03-25-2015 08:45 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-24-2015 11:15 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Back then, the post-season tournaments were seen in the same light as the bowls historically, with the allure of playing in New York at the Garden being slightly more alluring than a far flung tournament that didn't even have all of the best teams. The polls were still looked at as the final authority and I don't think all the early NCAAT champs finished at the top of them IIRC.

Before circa 1950, there was no "real authority". There was the NIT and NCAA and each had their flaws and neither produced a real, recognized national champ.

That's why it is bogus to use anything retrospective like Helms or what have you. The fact is there simply were no actual national champions in college basketball before around 1950.

Couldn't we say that about college football until recently?

We sure could, they were comparable situations.

(03-25-2015 02:07 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(03-25-2015 08:45 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-24-2015 11:15 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Back then, the post-season tournaments were seen in the same light as the bowls historically, with the allure of playing in New York at the Garden being slightly more alluring than a far flung tournament that didn't even have all of the best teams. The polls were still looked at as the final authority and I don't think all the early NCAAT champs finished at the top of them IIRC.

Before circa 1950, there was no "real authority". There was the NIT and NCAA and each had their flaws and neither produced a real, recognized national champ.

That's why it is bogus to use anything retrospective like Helms or what have you. The fact is there simply were no actual national champions in college basketball before around 1950.

Couldn't we say that about college football until recently?

I don't think so. For better or for worse, the AP and Coaches poll have defined in the public mind who has been the national champion since at least the 1930s. I mean, everyone regards Pitt as the 1976 national football champ as much as we regard Ohio State as this year's champ. And I hate Pitt, LOL. And everyone regards Nebraska and Michigan as 1997 split champions, despite the silliness of that concept.

Now, before around 1920? Yes, then you have the same situation in football that existed in basketball before 1950. That's where you have teams playing highly regional, 7-8 game schedules, with very little intersectional competition, and consequently an alphabet soup of title claims.