[alfus21]

LOL...I'm talking the last century idiot...not the last twenty years. Don't compare UK to UCLA either. UCLA won their national championships in the modern era. UK won four in the stone age. Again, when the NCAA wasn't the prestigious tournament. Check your history. U of L has one in the fifties when Charlie Tyra was a star at U of L. That team was as good if not the best in the nation. UK also has played basketball longer than U of L. U of L was once a private school. You must be a child because you are clueless. And by the way...check out Western Kentucky on the all time wins list. They are in the top twenty. Sorry bud....just because one your drunken coaches tried to lay a label on U of L...only UK fans are dumb enough to think otherwise. Of the all time wins record.....I respect North Carolina's the most. The ACC has always been a great basketball conference. If you want to check the modern era....you will find U of L has accomplished pretty much what UK has. Crum took U of L to six final fours. Pitino has taken U of L to four. Not to shabby. But that Mike guy at Duke? What he has done is even more impressive.

Just for fun, when did the "modern" era begin? Louisville is actually pretty close in all the major categories in certain time eras.

Since 1990.....

Kentucky - 3 NCAA Championships, 1 Runner Up, 3 Final Fours

Louisville - 1 NCAA Championship, 2 Final Fours

Since 1980.....

Kentucky - 3 NCAA Championships, 1 Runner Up, 4 Final Fours

Louisville - 3 NCAA Championships, 4 Final Fours

Since 1970.....

Kentucky - 4 NCAA Championships, 2 Runner Ups, 5 Final Fours

Louisville - 3 NCAA Championships, 6 Final Fours

Since 1960.....

Kentucky - 4 NCAA Championships, 3 Runner Ups, 5 Final Fours

Louisville - 3 NCAA Championships, 6 Final Fours

So it's actually not too crazy to say that since 1960 the two have been even on championships.

But the problem is, you keep saying the NIT was the premier tournament of the 50's when it wasn't.

In the early 1950's, the NCAA began a slow progression of minimizing the NIT's prestige by making it mandatory for winners of the top-10 conferences to participate in the NCAA Tournament and not the NIT. In addition, the NCAA began to expand their field, first to 16 teams (from 8) and then to 22 teams. This further put a crimp on the NIT. Both tournaments prestigious in the 1940's so winning either was quite an accomplishment.

Not to mention that UK won the NIT in 1946 when you say it was indeed the most prestigious. When UofL won it in '56 most of the best teams in the country weren't even in it.

So...

Since 1950.....

Kentucky - 6 NCAA Titles, 3 Runner Ups, 5 Final Fours

Louisville - 3 NCAA Titles, 7 Final Fours

These numbers can be skewed many different ways to make one team look as good as they other but in all cases when it comes down to it, titles are all that matters, and in none of my examples does UofL have more than UK.

Also important when looking at head to head stats. Kentucky leads the ALL TIME series vs. Louisville 30-15. But what about the modern era?

Since 2000?

Kentucky 9 >>> Louisville 5

Since 1990?

Kentucky 16 >>> Louisville 8

Since 1980?

Kentucky 21 >>> Louisville 12

I could keep going but we know how it turns out. Kentucky has always been better than Louisville, and will most likely continue to do so.

I'm not pushing a panic button. I might after a loss, but Kentucky has lost to 3 top 15 teams by a total of 14 points.

I'm not even going to get into an argument about conferences, because I think you'd be shocked that the SEC has more than held it's own over the years compared to the ACC and any conference that Louisville has been in.

I respect Louisville's program. They've been solid since the 1980's. Probably a little more up and down than Kentucky with success, but no need to call fans idiots when they're just stating and supporting their opinions.