Legit as in, what? NCAAT? Of course not. But it was a system used....Just like the AP/Coaches polls in football for 100 years. I mean back in the "poll era", if you didn't start the season in the Top 10, you had almost NO chamce of winning a natty. It was heavily flawed, and was a HUGE advantage for schools like ND, Michigan, OSU, Nebraska, Alabama, Penn St, FSU, Miami, Fla, etc...And that advantage still exist today. IMO, all, yes, ALL titles won in CFB, could be questioned, and easily debated.
For me personally, all that matters TO ME, is NCAAT titles. BUt even then, I mean shit, the NIT was widely consider the more prestigious tournament----For decades. I mean one could dispute which title meant more from 1938-1970. NIT, or the NCAA?
We could also dispute the difference in rules era, number of teams in the NCAAT, as aother tool as to which "means more"---I mean, right? Seems we are discussing what means more---what is more legit, etc....So I mean, what is more legit-----A title won with a Field of 8-----or a Field of 32----Or a field of 48---Or 64? A tournament won when freshman could not play? A tournament won with no 3-point shot---A rule that has had the most impact to the game, like ever.
So how should we break this all down? NCAAT won with 8 teams, not as legit as tournaments won with 16----Tournaments won with 16 teams, not as legit as tournaments won with 32----So on and so on, Titles won with no shot clock, vs those won with a shot clock? Tournaments won without thee three, mean more than tournaments won with the three?
Point is----it can ALL be argued.