Good, smart people can disagree, but it's a legitimate question. Does Rick Pitino's name belong in the rafters at Rupp Arena?

The answer isn't as simple as a lot of people want to believe.

I'm not a demagogue. Really, I despise demagoguery. I don't watch cable news for the simple fact that if it's on television long enough then I'll be forced to watch two people screaming at one another, pretending like they're mortal enemies with irreconcilable differences, when they're often just talking past each other and emphasizing different things that can both simultaneously be true.

I defended D.J. Eliot. Yes, I defended one of Kentucky's coordinators after a disappointing end to a disappointing season. I generally defend offensive coordinators from criticism, especially when it's related to play calling and really anything that's rooted in hindsight.

The point here is I'm not comfortable taking this position, because I don't like running the risk of the demagogue label.

There are people who believe Pitino's name should be taken down from Rupp's rafters simply because they hate the man. While I sympathize with their discomfort when it comes to all things Pitino, I think the case for something unprecedented like pulling down a jersey has to be, at least, thoroughly explained.

When I floated the question of whether Pitino's name ought to come down from Rupp, via a social media poll, three things jumped out. First, although I don't know how the poll will come out and although it's completely unscientific, I was surprised at how many people agreed with the suggestion that the Pitino name should come down. I wasn't too surprised, because it was the same day that Pitino made a certain gesture and went a little crazy in his criticism and demonstrative acting following some officiating decisions. Second, of people who actually responded to the question beyond voting (i.e. sharing an opinion) the people who believed the jersey should stay in the rafters were actually far more passionate. Although the poll did not reflect their belief that the question was a non-question, the most vocal respondents depicted the issue as sensational, incredible and beyond the pale.

Finally, the media itself was disproportionately represented in the replies that included incredulity. Kentucky media from the very popular Matt Jones to others working in many varied roles expressed reactions from, "That's ridiculous," to, "While Pitino distaste is understandable and justified, this question is still obviously off base."

Fair enough.

I understand up front that a certain segment of the Kentucky fan base and a large portion of the opinion-sharing media world will laugh the question off the stage. I'm asking the question anyways, because for once I think a question that seems like sensationalized demagoguery and opportunism is actually a legitimate question.

The question of Pitino's place in the banners and whether it's rightfully there or not hinges entirely on the criteria for getting and keeping a banner. This is a subjective question. There is no obvious answer.

If a person believes that the only question is what contributions a person made to the Kentucky basketball program while he was associated with Kentucky, either as a student-athlete or an employee, then there really is no case for removing Pitino's name from the rafters. I readily concede that.

But if a person believes there's more to getting a keeping a banner that bears your name then suddenly the question isn't nearly as ludicrous.

There is absolutely no question that Pitino's contributions to Kentucky were outstanding and unique. It wouldn't be fair to just say he won a national championship and contended for others. Perhaps the most convincing point in the argument that says, "This whole question is ridiculous," is the fact that Pitino took the job when Kentucky was on probation, he kept the job until the program gained back its prestige, and he added a championship banner to the rafters, something Kentucky hadn't accomplished since Joe B. Hall's 1978 team.

Nobody is disputing what Pitino accomplished at Kentucky. And if that's all you care about in the whole banner discussion (assuming you're participating or care), then this question really does seem ridiculous. Based on your criteria it would indeed seem justifiably ridiculous.

But there are intelligent people with good intentions who believe there is more to the banner than just what a person did.

To this it has become popular to point to Richie Farmer, whose indiscretions are well documented. That's a fair point, on one hand. On the other hand Farmer isn't the topic in this discussion. Some people believe Farmer's banner should come down. Those people would have no issue with the Farmer point. Others believe it shouldn't. For the, "Keep Pitino's banner up" crowd that would seem to be hypocrisy. It needn't be. A person can believe that Pitino's place in Rupp's rafters was rooted directly and entirely in what he did related to the Kentucky basketball program.

That same person, who believes the banner should come down, would likely argue that the banner should come down because of what Pitino has done directly and entirely related to the Kentucky basketball program since his departure. Farmer's crimes are crimes. A person can hold they're worse on the moral plane than what Pitino has done. But a person can also hold that what Pitino has done is of a different character, and one that's more directly oriented against the Kentucky basketball program.

So what exactly has Pitino done that makes this a legitimate question?

For starters, he took a head coaching position at Louisville. Not to beat a dead horse, as this argument has been raging for much longer than it took to write this opinion piece, but his decision to coach the Cardinals is nearly (if not really) unprecedented. Imagine Roy Williams leaving for the NBA and returning to coach at Duke, or Urban Meyer trying his hand in the NFL and returning to Michigan. It's a ludicrous exercise trying to imagine that, because there really is an unspoken rule that speaks to something in humanity that such things are out of bounds. Surprisingly, many media figures who cover Kentucky sports not only have moved beyond this most socially unacceptable move, but will defend Pitino's decision, saying either that he loves the Commonwealth so much he just wanted to coach there, or that it was the best job he could have taken. There might be merit in both justifications, but they do not absolve Pitino of what everyone knew would be the consequences from inevitable tensions that would develop over time.

Accepting the job in Louisville made Pitino's success and Kentucky's a mutually exclusive, zero-sum competition. The fact that he's 1-8 in his last nine against Kentucky, and 5-12 overall, just means that he's less difficult for most Kentucky fans to tolerate. But what if Pitino's greater ambitions had been realized and he had actually accomplished mastery over the Wildcats? His hopes and dreams for his Louisville program would have certainly involved a lopsided winning record against Kentucky, and anyone who believes otherwise is foolish.

He took the one job that he could not take, in the eyes of many people. Whether you think that's overplayed, worn out or overly dramatic, you have to concede that a lot of people feel that way.

Secondly, the program he has run at Louisville has now come under such vast and unseemly scrutiny, following his well-documented personal failings, that Pitino's public figure itself has been irreparably damaged.

Third, Pitino's longevity at Louisville and, yes, his national championship there, mean that he is now very likely more associated with the Cardinals than the Wildcats. This is a man with a red "L" carved colorfully into his very person. For a person who routinely claims that this or that team or player is his best ever (and do you really believe he's not winking at Kentucky fans who remember '96 when he does this?), it's yet another example of someone who no longer has a blue bone in his body. Furthermore, he has aligned himself with the opposite.

Some people who believe Pitino's name should remain in the rafters surely have that opinion for the right reasons. They probably believe, in many instances, with real conviction that any suggestion it should be removed is ridiculous. They likely believe the banner is a sign of Kentucky taking and keeping the higher road.

But I've also sensed another motive in some people. Without judging any individual cases, there is a kind of insecurity that is peculiar to some Kentucky fans. They bristle whenever there's a national reference to couch burning, arrested individuals who happen to be wearing Kentucky apparel, or when there's talk of "For Sale" signs in Tubby Smith's front yard.

Understandably, those things don't reflect well on anybody. But for some people any talk of the above is deeply unsettling to the point where a person goes above and beyond to demonstrate they are not like "that vocal minority" that casts the entire program and fan base in a bad light. Some of the people holding this attitude, which desires approval and a different image for Kentucky, seem to relish the banner as a piece of evidence that Kentucky really isn't full of fanatics who can't separate sports from life.

That's just to say that the banner, for some people, serves a utilitarian purpose as a means by which certain myths can be combated.

I don't think that's a good reason for keeping the banner up.Why? Because the banner creates a level of unnatural and very strange tension within the psyche of Kentucky basketball fans when a simple clarity is in order. There is no other scene in sports quite like Rick Pitino entering an arena that celebrates his name, only to be roundly booed and detested by many of the very people who will passionately defend the banner being there.

I understand this issue is complicated. There's nothing simple about Rick Pitino and Kentucky. There's nothing simple about Rick Pitino or Kentucky. Maybe resolving the tension by removing the banner would be breaking up a tension that's beautiful on some level. But I think it's a tension that, at this point, is ridiculous. Pitino's era and accomplishments should be forever celebrated. Pitino the man is now synonymous with Kentucky's archrival, with repeated attempts to 'troll' his former fans, and with, now, a second scandal that leaves open the strong possibility that he showed the bird to fans in the very arena that holds his banner.

There's another kind of insecurity beyond the desire to show the nation that Kentucky fans are really more reasonable than the crazies. A certain portion of the Kentucky fan base actually feels indebted to Rick Pitino, as though the program hadn't paid him millions of dollars and increased his public, professional profile to a level that gave him national fame and the Boston Celtics. Were it not for C.M. Newton hiring Rick Pitino, where would Rick Pitino be today? This is not a one-sided relationship even through the lens of history. Rick Pitino did what C.M. Newton hired him to do. He did what every athletics director at Kentucky has hoped every coach he has hired would do -- and five have done it in the program's history. That's not to diminish the great work that was his wonderful rebuilding project, but it is to say that Pitino received just as much from Kentucky as Kentucky received from Pitino.

Furthermore, let's contest the false narrative that says or implies that Kentucky would have gone the way of Indiana or UCLA if Pitino hadn't come in on a white horse to save the day. Kentucky might not have resurrected as quickly as they did under another coach and it's possible there could have been a longer, darker period after probation. But Kentucky basketball, along with Alabama football, are really the kinds of unique jobs -- due to fan demands and a willingness to drop millions of dollars -- that will only allow for mediocrity that lasts so long. Indiana's basketball arena was falling apart recently, and UCLA's facilities have been the subject of Los Angeles Times' scrutiny. Kentucky has the Wildcat Lodge and a fan base that would never accept Tom Crean's outcomes for as long as he's produced them.

Someone else would have brought Kentucky back. Maybe later. Maybe not with as much style. The point is, Rick Pitino was the one who gets credit for saving Kentucky basketball at that moment. But he did not, in all likelihood, save the program from eternal ruin.

Yet, again, some actually believe that Pitino is entitled to the banner. Entitled. This is a mistake.

Honors are privileges and privileges are not rights. If a person callously and blatantly conducts himself in a manner that's contrary to the spirit of the award, or he demonstrates a level of ingratitude and behavior that's inconsistent with what the organization stands for, there is no reason for a self-respecting organization to continue to recognize the honor.

For many people the banner is a sign of submission to the man that more Kentucky fans dislike than any other figure in sports. More than Christian Laettner. A sign of submission. "No matter what he does, no matter how hard he trolls or what gestures he makes in Rupp Arena, no matter his decision to complain incessantly about officiating and imply a bias in favor of his former team, no matter where he coaches and regardless of the unprecedented decision to coach an archrival, no matter what -- he keeps his banner." An act of submission indeed.

But if Kentucky owes Pitino no more than Pitino owes Kentucky and if honors are privileges, it's easy to see why a person might have a little problem with the banner. When you consider that the Pitino era is best honored in the 1996 national championship banner and a celebration of the players of that era, without the controversy and cognitive dissonance than come from honoring such a lightning rod of a figure, then the banner makes less sense.

Removing a banner would be unprecedented, I would presume. That's not conclusive evidence for why it shouldn't happen. I'm not saying it will come down. I'm almost sure it won't. But those who believe it should don't deserve to be marginalized or shouted down as part of some lunatic fringe, because the entire issue is a matter of what a person chooses to weigh in considering the honor that is a banner. What a person believes the banner represents will determine whether the question is legitimate, and it can absolutely be legitimate in the minds of intelligent people.