Talk:NCAA Division I-A National Football Championship/Archive 2007

Important Debate on WP:CFB

There is an ongoing debate on the college football talk page that will impact this page. Please participate there if you have any viewpoints you wish to be considered.--Tlmclain | Talk 15:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Problems with table

This table has no headings at the top of the columns.

Retroactive/research polls
1869-2001	National Championship Foundation	NCF	Table below reflects selections from 1869-1882 and from 1924-1953
1919-1992	College Football Researchers Association	CFRA	Table below reflects selections from 1924-1953
1883-1982	Helms Athletic Foundation	H	Retroactive 1883-1941, Contemporaneous 1942-1982; Table below reflects selections from 1883-1953
Statistical analysis
1924-1940	Dickinson System	D	Contemporaneous 1926-1940
Media/opinion polls
1935	United Press	UP	Before Bowls
1936-Current	Associated Press	AP	After Bowls 1965 and 1968-current
1952-1957	International News Service	INS	Before Bowls
1954-Current	Football Writers Association of America	FWAA	After Bowls 1955-current
2005-Current}}	Harris Interactive Poll	HI	Used only for BCS Rankings
The Coaches poll, published by:
1950-1957	United Press	UP	Before Bowls
1958-1990	United Press International	UPI	After Bowls 1974-1990
1991-1996	USA Today/CNN	CNN	After Bowls
1997	USA Today/ESPN	ESPN	After Bowls
1998-2004	USA Today/ESPN	BCS	Required to vote for BCS title game winner
2005-Current	USA Today	BCS	Required to vote for BCS title game winner
Presidential Proclamation
1969	Richard Nixon	RMN	Declaration of championship awarded to winner of Texas vs. Arkansas (a number one vs. number two game at the time)

Without them, what are to make of the columns? Yeah, yeah, I know it's obvious that one column is the year, the next the name of the "poll" (or whatever) and the third is the abbreviation. But what is the point of the fourth column? If it's explanatory, it fails, because I find it confusing. Tables are supposed to organize information to make the infor easier to understand. This yields confusion. And what is the reason for having the third column (abbreviation) at all? This table looks like someone put in a lot of work, but not a lot of thought. An "A" for effort, a "C-" for result. Unschool 23:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The University of Alabama

Bama has 12 recognized titles. You have left out 1941. Feel free to check with the university or your own article on Frank Thomas. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.59.202.209 (talk) 17:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Alabama has 12 recognized titles. The dates that I found for them are: 1925, 1926, 1930, 1934, 1941, 1961, 1964, 1965, 1973, 1978, 1979, and 1992. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kisea (talk • contribs)

Alabama claims 12 titles. The number of recognized titles varies depending on who you ask. ESPN, for example, recognizes only seven of them, if memory serves me correctly. I don't have their encyclopedia on hand. Dlong 01:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The University of Alabama has 12 national titles. This is widely recognized not only by Alabama fans but many others as well. For example, the university website and others (i.e. RedElephant.com) report this. Also, in the 1992 national championship broadcast by ABC, the network recognized that Alabama had 11 national championships (before the game was over and the 12th was won.) This information needs to be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeypowell (talk • contribs)

Joeypowell: Let's look at 1941, which is one of the "Alabama National Titles." That year, 84.2% of the selectors said Michigan was number 1. 10.3% of the selectors said that Teaxas was number 1. Three other schools had just ONE selector pick them as number 1: Alabama, Duke and Georgia. So, if you are saying that Alabama had a national title in 1941, wouldn't you have to agree that Texas (who got 3 more votes) and Georgia and Duke also have a national title in 1941? In light of the overwhelming selection of Michigan in 1941, can any of the other four schools truly state that they were national champions in 1941? That is why many people draw a distinction between "national titles" and claims to national titles. It certainly can be said that Alabama can claim a national title in 1941 because they were named number 1 by at least one selector, but it is difficult to stretch that to making the claim that Alabama "won" the national title in 1941.--Tlmclain | Talk 19:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

New discussion

A new discussion about the direction of this article is now on WP:CFB at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#National Titles. Your input would be appreciated.--Tlmclain | Talk 22:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

1934

I fixed someone's "correction" for this year. If you want to include Bama fine but please list what group/organization has stated they were the national champions. Also even if some group considered them the national champions it does not change the fact that other groups (National Championship Foundation NCF, College Football Researchers Association CFRA, Helms Athletic Foundation H and Dickinson System D) listed Minnesota as the national champs. So please tell us who considers Alabama as champs for 1934 and please do not delete Minnesota's information Smith03 02:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Nixon's Presidential Proclamation

should this be kept? it one year (1969) Smith03 03:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Helms 1960 Washington

"Table below reflects selections from 1883-1953" I reverted the addition of 1960 Washington based on what is stated on the article about Helms being used from 1883-53. It seems a bit silly just to add one addtional year (1960) without adding 1954-59 Helms selections. Also why should Helms be extend out to 1960? Smith03 19:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I have implemented standards for list

I have updated the list of National Champions using the following sources:

1869-1882 - I have used the National Championship Foundation picks ("NCF"). There are few other sources available for this period, and this is the only one "recognized" by College Football Data Warehouse as reputable.

1883-1923 - I have used Helms Athletic Foundation picks. Although other reputable sources are available, this one, to my understanding, is the most widely recognized list for this period.

1924-1934 - I have included Helms, NCF, College Football Research Associates ("CFRA"), and the Dickinson System. Dickinson was a statistical evaluation conducted beginning in 1926, with retroactive analysis for 1924 and 1925. Helms, NCF and CFRA are all recognized as reputable by College Football Data Warehouse. Helms selections are listed first as the most widely recognized source. Indeed, it would be entirely reasonable to omit CFRA, NCF and Dickinson for this period and to list any particularly strong candidate as based on "other" sources.

1935 - I add the United Press poll for this year, the end of season press poll.

1936 - I add the Associated Press poll. The United Press poll was discontinued. AP selections are now listed first as the most widely recognized source. I continue Helms, CFRA, NCF and Dickinson, although these are far less relevant beyond 1935. Again, it would be entirely reasonable to omit Helms, CFRA, NCF and Dickinson for this period and to list any particularly strong candidates as based on "other" sources.

1941 - Dickinson results are no longer produced.

1950 - I add the United Press coaches poll. This becomes the 2nd priority selection. Helms, NCF and CFRA assist in sorting out post-bowl champions.

1952 - I add International News Service, another press poll.

1954 - I add the Football Writers Association of America (FWAA), which offers the Grantland Rice Trophy to the national champion. I drop Helms, NCF and CFRA since four contemporaneous sources are now available. In 1955, the FWAA begins deciding its championship after the bowls, the first to do so, likely in response to the 1950, '51 and '53 losses by the regular season champs.

1958 - UP and INS merge and continue the UP coaches poll as the UPI.

1991 - UPI coaches poll is taken over by USA-Today/CNN.

1997 - USA-Today/CNN coaches poll is taken over by USA-Today/ESPN.

1998 - Coaches poll agrees to be bound by winner of BCS National Championship Game, so champion is now referred to as "BCS". Since the major conferences have agreed to be part of the BCS and its championship game system, the BCS replaces the AP as the first listed national championship.

In several cases I have included champions selected by "other" sources. I believe that there are strong cases for each of these. A similar case could be made for several schools during the 1876-1923 period that I have not included here. There are many references included below, however, that can be followed to learn more about these.

One championship that I did not include is the National Football Foundation and Hall of Fame's MacArthur trophy. It is now linked to the BCS like the coaches poll. It would add only a couple of champions from 1959-1990, none of which, I believe, were widely recognized.

I have changed Ohio State's redirects to redirect to Ohio State Buckeyes instead of the Ohio State University, since that seems to be the standard for most of the list.--Majorpayne27 18:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems that my changes have been deleted without any explanation, does anyone disagree that the schools; link should go to their respective athletic's website? --Majorpayne27 03:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Sam left a message as to why he reverted your changes. I believe that Texas is the only school linked to the athletics website. Rkevins82 13:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

…and poof; just like that, they're all gone -- KelleyCook 18:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

For the years prior to the 1936 AP Poll, may schools claim the national championships given by alternate sources since there was no one ranking system that was a consensis standard. For example, TCU and LSU claim a 1935 NC through the Williamson System. I found an intersting commentary on the Williamson System at Hickocksports.com. If we include a statistical system like Dickinson System, we should include the Williamson System. My bottom line is there was not necesserally a consensis NC prior to 1936 and the creation of the AP poll. We should use Wikipedia as a source of information not an arbitor of who won what NC in an era where there wasn't a widely accepted method for determining a national champion. Today we wouldn't include the Sarigan ratings because the AP Poll and the BCS system are widely accepted and those are the NC that schools claim. I appologise for my poor spelling General125 21:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Breakdown by conference

How about a chart including a breakdown of championships won by conference? The chart would have to include the conference the school was a member of when playing (e.g. Miami's titles count for the Big East not the ACC). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.229.162.185 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC).

1960 Champions

According to news sources, Washington has recently recognized themselves as the 1960 champions. In 1960, the championship designation was given prior to the bowl games. So Minnesota was given that honor, despite already having one loss. They then went on to lose the Rose Bowl to Washington. Washington ended the season with one loss while Minnesota finished with two. This should probably be reflected in the chart so Washington can get their due. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.245.75.2 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC).

The the Helms foundation recongized Washington as the National champs in 1960. That is what the school is baseing this on. They are not just "recongnizing themselves". Currently no Helms champs are listed from 1954 to 1982 if you want to added Washington as the Helms 1960 champs than please added the the other Helms champions (1954-59) and (61-82) to the list and update the information in the various tables to reflect all the changes not just Washington's 1960 championship. Smith03 16:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Most National Championships

I like the list of most national championships since 1901, but have reformatted it to put those who have won the most recent championship first, followed by the second most recent, etc. This convention is used within each "tally" of wins (e.g., those with 11 national championships, four, etc.). This seems fair to me and is not meant to offend Tide fans or Wolverines, (or Harvard fans, for that matter). Also wondering what the rationale is for stopping at four. Maybe have this list multiple winners (i.e., extend the list to those teams that have won at least two national championships, as defined)? Newguy34 15:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

This year's Championship "Controversial"?

I highly disagree with that statement. Before the games were actually played you could say Michigan was unfailrly left out, but Florida DID win more games against more 'quality' opponents than Michigan did. Now, after the games were played, how can you say it's controversial? Michigan couldn't even win the Rose Bowl against USC, so it's fair to say they didn't deserve to be there, and OSU being in the championship IS justified because they were undefeated. Bio2590 01:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Dickenson system

I think the Dickinson system can only be included with caution. As pointed out a couple of times below, it produced a champion that essentially none of the other selectors chose. Another example of this is the 1939 championship that USC claims. Dickinson chose USC, but everyone else, including the AP poll, chose Texas A&M. USC didn't even finish second in the AP poll, but finished #3. Recognizing this Dickinson selection doesn't hold water. I also agree in general that the Dickinson system is no different than, say, Sagarin's system now, and that's not generally regarded as anything to be taken officially.

As far as the Dickinson system being highly regarded at the time, I don't see it. I'm looking in the New York Times, and I see one column mentioning it, and the language that the column uses, "Southern California was rated the No. 1 football team by Frank Dickinson...originator of the point system which bears his name," sounds like the language most people today would use to describe a statistical system. I.e., interesting but nothing to pay the bills with. While the language used to describe the AP Poll, "[Texas A&M] has been voted the nation's outstanding football team by the final ballot of sports writers and gridiron experts in every section of the country," connotes a lot more prestige and confidence in the poll. Mcrawford620 05:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the Dickinson system is worthy of inclusion either. Also, the practice of listing Helms, CFRA, and NCF championships until 1953 is very unusual. The listing of NCF championship usually ends with the beginning of Helms' selections (1883). The listing of Helms' and CFRA's choices commonly ends with the beginning of the AP Poll in 1936. ~ João Do Rio 19:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, from the Wikipedia Dickinson System page:

The Dickinson System was a mathematical point formula that awarded national championships in college football. Devised by University of Illinois economics professor Frank G. Dickinson, the system crowned national champions from 1926 to 1940, and included predated rankings for 1924 and 1925.

The Dickinson System was the first to gain widespread national public and media acceptance as a "major selector", according to the NCAA Football Records Book[1] prior to the establishment of the Associated Press poll in 1936.

Seems legitimate enough for me. 76.187.17.173 22:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

2003 USC

Someone deleted USC's 2003 AP national championship. While I agree that the BCS national champ should be listed first since the major conferences have agreed to the BCS system, the AP championship is widely recognized as legitimate even in the BCS era. My revision of the list is intended to reflect most widely recognized champions, including co-champions. USC's claim is better than many included for earlier years and I have restored it to the list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drewinmaine (talk • contribs) 11:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

And, now some clown is up to it again. Deleting USC's 2003 AP national championship in the desperate and pathetic attempt to rewrite history. 76.187.17.173 22:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Football Bowl Subdivision

Sometime soon this article will need to be moved to NCAA Division I FBS national football championship. The public has been informed of the name change and is becoming more familiar with it, and, more importantly, Division I-A is no longer the official name of the subdivision. Wikipedia should always have the best and most recent information, and the name change is no longer too recent to ignore. Several minutes ago I had to undo an anonymous edit which changed the bold text at the beginning on the article, as well as a couple of other references to Division I-A, to Division I Football Bowl Subdivision. The name of this article is outdated, and people are noticing. I suggest we move the article to the forementioned page in the near future, especially as the college football season is nearly underway. Iowa13 14:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI, the page should not be moved. This is a historical list and it was not called the FBS for 99% of the teams. It was a stupid politically inspired name change by the NCAA that was ignored by all the major media outlets. Moreover, the NCAA does not maintain the championships, so they have no say in the matter. Ironically if they ever do take over this function, then they would have to rename their premiere division again. -- KelleyCook 15:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point about the NCAA not maintaining the championship. Case closed. Iowa13 21:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Coaches' poll issue

Some have taken offense to the correct punctuation when referring to USA Today's Coaches' Poll. The plain and simple fact is that USA Today, who owns the poll, refers to it as the "Coaches' Poll", complete with a possessive apostrophe. I suspect it's because there is more than one coach that votes in it. If there are other articles that have the same error of omission, shouldn't they be fixed? 76.187.17.173 22:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

National Football Foundation

The NFF national champions have been added to the By Year list. Those champions are listed as consensus champions in the official NCAA record book, but do they really deserve mention here? I doubt, for example, that anyone would recognize a national championship for Notre Dame in '64. Iowa13 03:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Gone -- KelleyCook 16:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Most NC's: LSU

Can someone fix LSU's most national championships? Iowa13 03:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. These folks are getting silly. Newguy34 04:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

NCAA Official Page Below

This is the “official” NCAA page. I don’t believe that the Wikipedia page (section with championship by year) is complete or accurately reflects the NCAA summary of prior selectors’ selections of national champion for football.

http://www.ncaa.org/champadmin/ia_football_past_champs.html Past Division I-A Football National Champions The NCAA does not conduct a national championship in Division I-A football and is not involved in the selection process. Since 1998, the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) has conducted a contest between it's two top-ranked teams to determine a national champion. More information on the BCS is available at their Web site. A number of polling organizations also provide a final ranking of Division I-A football teams at the end of each season. Below is a year-by-year history of Division I-A football national champions as determined by the BCS championship game and these polling organizations. More information on national poll rankings is available in the Division I-A section of the NCAA Divison I-A/I-AA Football Records Book.

<snip>Long copy and paste of teams and their championship years was removed to save space and to avoid copyright concerns - please follow the above link.</snip>

• Note : Organization chose multiple schools —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wolvve85 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

COMMENT: If you're going to use this list, you'll have a ton of championships that aren't recognized(like OSU's 1998 Sagarin championship....since I'm an OSU fan). CFBDatawarehouse's "Recognized" list is much better, and so I've edited it to reflect that Mlebowski313 07:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The official national championship reference is the NCAA Division I-A and I-AA Football Records Book. All of the information is correct. The above page [1], despite being part of the official NCAA website, has errors. Several of Richard Billingsley's championships are credited incorrectly (i.e., Iowa in 1922). I am not sure if there are other discrepancies, but the errors I have found suggest that said page was poorly compiled. The record book should always be used as the official source. Please note that the National Poll Champions section of the book is not a list of NCAA-recognized championships — there are no such things (yet). Iowa13 00:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The statement above is NOT true. The NCAA handbook reference on pp. 75-78 is NOT consistent with the table in this article. It is consistent with the other NCAA reference at http://www.ncaa.org/champadmin/ia_football_past_champs.html. At the moment, this table reflects an imagined consensus about which teams were national champions. Instead, it should reflect reality--the cacophony of voices that have existed through history over this issue. At some point, if it's not done earlier, I will update the table to reflec the NCAA's own listing--it is the only appropriate source unless there is substantially more discussion and consensus about what should and should not be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gvharrier (talk • contribs) 22:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

I say we delete all poll era championships that aren't AP, UPI, or FWAA. I also say we only recognize the champions of Helms and Dickinson polls from 1883-1935. And yes, we should recongnize USC's 2003 AP title. Finally, for most national titles, we put, in parentheses, next to each team, the number of post-1901 titles each team recognizes. Anthony Del Fiacco 17:40, 9 September 2007

Also. UGA's 1943 rose bowl championship is not listed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.103.186 (talk) 03:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

What's your reasoning on a 1935 cutoff for the Helms poll? From my perspective, we either include a poll or we do not. And if we include a poll, we include every year the poll existed. --Don Sowell 16:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason why the Helms should be used exclusively for the 1883-1935 period, but the NCF carries weight both BEFORE and AFTER that period. It's pretty obvious that there should be MANY co-champions in the 1883-1935 period because so many teams failed to play each other (especially on opposite coasts for obvious reasons). The correct method is to choose which ranking systems are appropriate and reliable, and then use those systems THROUGHOUT the chosen ranking period, e.g., the NCF up to a point at which it becomes obvious that it has been deemed less reliable. I suggest using the NCAA's page which has a pretty complete listing of championships, and to which probably most schools are referencing their listings: http://www.ncaa.org/champadmin/ia_football_past_champs.html. Unless we're smarter than anyone else, we should be relying on this listing in all likelihood. Gvharrier 21:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Controversial NC's

"We can DISCUSS THE DEFINITION OF CONTROVERSIAL" The BCS was put in place to crown ONE national title champion. In 2003 LSU won the BCS Nation Title Game, making them the national champions 2003. Yes, the AP polls did decided of a "split" champion. But the win was not earned, and was given by modern and flawed ranking systems. That why AP writers write, and players play. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.195.162 (talk) 08:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Neither the BCS nor the AP are sanctioned by the NCAA, so neither is greater than the other. The AP was NOT rendered defunct with the advent of the BCS. It is still considered a credible selector. Just as LSU earned the national championship in the Sugar Bowl (the 2003 BCS National Championship Game), USC earned the national championship in the Rose Bowl. There is nothing wrong with a split title. If LSU wanted an outright championship, they shouldn't've lost to Florida. Iowa13 (talk) 21:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Here are a few national champions frequently added to the By Year list which are not normally recognized:

Boston College (1940) Alabama (1941) Washington (1960)

Just to name a few. We continue to have problems with disgruntled fans adding their "championships" to the list. I know many fans feel that BC and Wash deserve recognition for their accomplishments in '41 and '60, respectively, and Bama fans hate seeing their illegitimate 1941 title left out, owing to the endlessly brainwashing "12 National Championships" recital. This list, however, is supposed to reflect as accurately as possible the true champions of each year, chosen only by major selectors. Also, I beg LSU fans to please stop removed USC's '03 championship from the list. Don't hate the AP - they gave you the '58 title nod. If you don't like "sharing" the championship, deal with it your own way. This article should be informative, not an outlet for fan frustration. Continuously reverting edits is getting very old. Please respect the integrity of this list. Iowa13 21:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Well Bama fans simply hate it when people spout incorrect information about how many national championships they have. Also, why give recognize national championships for a team than they recognize (i.e. Notre Dame)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.202.190.50 (talk) 14:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with these comments, but would add that disgruntled Auburn fans seem intent on having a comment about winning their bowl game, but not sharing the 2004 national championship with USC. The circumstances are different than in 2003 (or other years). While this is a legitimate gripe (due to a broken system), it doesn't belong in an article about which teams won national championships, rather than those teams that did not. 76.187.17.173 03:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I forgot to mention that point. There is an almost endless list of undefeated teams that have not won national titles. Auburn's '04 team is neither the first nor the last. I agree that the system is less than perfect, but Tiger fans should just be glad they didn't have to play the Trojans that destroyed a great OU team 55-19. Thanks for removing the bowl comment. Iowa13 21:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added the Helms poll for the years 1954 to 1982 since I see no discussion either on the page itself or in the discussions here as to why that poll is recognized from 1953 and before but not from 1954 to 1982. If you want to undo that change, please direct me to where that decision was made and why. Thanks! --Don Sowell 18:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see any rationale as to why the NCF is NOT used for one period 1883-1923, but for periods before AND after. Also, as I noted in my added text, the table gives the grave misimpression that there were mostly consensus NCs prior to 1924, but then co-champs proliferated and were the rule afterwards. This is absolutely ridiculous as anyone who understands football history and the regionalism that existed prior to air travel making interregional games much more common. Without even common opponents (and the Ivy League's long insistence not to play any but a few other "elite" colleges) rankings were very difficult. The only valid solution is to start with the NCAA's table (reference on the page) and decide which "polls" REALLY should be excluded.

Another issue is that this page is simply inconsistent with what the NCAA, universities and the media are using today. This makes this page both confusing and irrelevant. It needs to be both representative of the larger consensus and authoritative. As it is now, it is neither. Gvharrier 22:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Finally, I see a reference for the creation of the NCs table (at least its not original research unless this is self referencing--and we can't check for that)--the CFDW (whatever that is). However, I have no idea why we should take the judgment of what appears to be 2 individuals who are not recognized experts over the NCAA, the governing association.

I propose one of 3 solutions (which also should fix the LSU issue for directly). 1) Remove the current table and reproduce the NCAA tables and create a new list of total championships based on that source--it is the least controversial source. I also suggest that a second column be added to the total championships list that shows what the individual schools claim (probably most consistent with the NCAA list, not the CFDW list.)

2) Add the NCAA table, and add a third column with the CFDW championships total

3) Eliminate the year by year tables and just simply reference them individually.

The current solution will not stand, and I will come back and remove the current table in a few weeks, essentially instituting solution 3 on a continuing basis unless solutions 1 or 2 are instituted. The current solution is not a consensus and is controversial. I will put a POV of warning on this. Gvharrier 03:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with many of Gvharrier's discussion, I disagree with the bully-like mandate he/she has forced. Wikipedia is for all to contribute. No one person has a mandate to stomp their feet and demand that a solution be instituted. Let's discuss and agree on a compromise. 76.187.9.84 04:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I've offered up 3 compromise solutions. And yes, I'm demanding a solution because the current situation is one imposed by what seems to be 2 individuals affiliated with CFDW. I have not imposed a solution however--that's up for discussion. Obstinance on the part of other parties IS imposing a solution. So, what's your proposed solution--relying solely on CFDW is NOT acceptable however. Gvharrier 18:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Well put, 76.187.9.84. Gvharrier, I understand your points and I appreciate that you are trying to help, but you have no right to demand a solution. The issue of past national champions is extremely complicated, and has yet to be solved after 81 years of debate. It is ridiculous to think that one person, even an expert researcher, would be able to come up with a solution. Iowa13 21:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree--no ONE researcher can come up with a universal solution. And that's why I proposed a couple solutions that broaden the range of opinions expressed, rather than narrow it. The current presentation does exactly the opposite, attempting to impose order, particularly on the most chaotic of periods, by relying on a single source (which the joint opinion of 2 uncredentialed individuals). My proposal would not reflect my opinion on this matter at all--it would just introduce the apparently considered opinion of the governing institution, the NCAA, which is excluded from this article at the moment. My statement bottom line response is just informing all parties of my final trigger point in the negotiations. I would think that we won't get to that point--there might be a solution that I have not proposed which solves the dilemma. Just right now, the current situation does NOT resolve that concern. So I'm still listening. Gvharrier 18:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to add to the lack of clarity among the various athletic departments, here's a quote from the Wikipedia article on the USC program:

USC holds 11 national titles, although two are contested. Since the NCAA does not conduct a playoff in Division 1-A football, there is no official national champion. The NCAA does have a list of polls, computer systems and others that are often used to attempt to determine National Champions. Because there is no playoff there are often disputes over who really has won the National Championship. Some years there are undisputed champions (where one school is ranked number one in all the polls), other years there are consensus champions (when one school clearly has been ranked number one in most of the polls) and some years there are split or shared championships (where two or more schools are ranked number one in major polls) Two of the championships - 1928 and 1939 - have been challenged by some sports historians. In both cases USC bases its claim on winning the Dickinson System, a formula devised by a University of Illinois professor which awarded the only championship trophy between 1926 and 1940. In both these years, Dickinson was the only poll or system to rank the Trojans number one. USC's stance, however, is in keeping with that of most other schools which won the Dickinson title; only Notre Dame, which won the Dickinson crown in 1938, does not claim a major national title for that year. Since at least 1969, USC had not listed 1939 as a national championship year; but in 2004, USC once again began recognizing the 1939 team as national champions after it determined that it qualified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gvharrier (talk • contribs) 20:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Iowa13--this is not YOUR list or criteria of national championships. Your protection of this entry appears to reflect ORIGINAL research, which is verboten in Wikipedia. The entry is intended to reflect a range of opinions and citable authority. This list reflects your opinion, and perhaps the two folks at CFDW. However, Wikipedia prefers that it reflect a broad consensus. I still haven't seen a proposed resolution of the issue that I have raised. How do you propose to fix this entry so that is reflects the historic lack of consensus over the selection of a national champion, particularly earlier in the 20th century? I've put forward three proposals--which one do you prefer, or do you have another? Gvharrier 06:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, I have not personally made any decisions regarding inclusion on this list. I have only made sure that the standards set forth for this page are upheld. Certainly, those standards are not perfect. They are, however, the result of many debates whose lifespan long exceed this one, most of which I doubt you have even seen. Many opinions were brought to the table, and after months, possibly years, of discussion, the current format was decided on. While I do not completely agree with the present criteria, it is my responsibility to make sure that it is followed. My own, or your own, opinions have no right to override all of the research and discussion that has taken place. I know you claim that what you have presented is not your "opinion" — but, seeing as this is the farthest thing from a black-and-white issue, it is not possible to suggest a solution which is not at least somewhat opinionated. Another clarification is that this list is similar to but not exactly the same as the one recognized by CFBDW. The Wikipedia list is unique, at least to the Internet. Also, I'd like to point out that, as the NCAA has no place in deciding past or present national champions, having never officially recognized a national champion, they have no place in this list. The official record book can be used as an accurate source of information about past and present selectors and the champions they have selected, but it is not a representation of who the NCAA feels should be credited with championships. Finally, I once again remind you that you have no right whatsoever to require that this list be changed. If you really want to achieve your end, work with us, not against us. Iowa13 16:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you've made a personal decision that the NCAA list of championships, which is the most universally agreed upon authoritative source, is not the appropriate source for this article. I don't see any evidence that of the previous debate or the rationale for the selection of the championships listed. I note that you have only been a contributor since May 2007--that's only a few months ago, so I don't know why you should have been privy to a discussion that is not documented on this page given the relatively short period that you have been participating prior to this. The research and discussion that occurred previously must NOT be ORIGINAL--that is a PRIMARY objective of Wikipedia. If the list is unique to Wikipedia, that is a clear violation of this principle, and it can't be referenced outside of Wikipedia. Unless there is a clear, transparent discussion of the criteria (and the criteria is clearly inconsistent throughout as I've pointed out), then it is unattributable and should be instead on a web page where personal opinion can be expressed by a group not affiliated with Wikipedia. As to the inclusion of the NCAA reference, the NCAA is the governing body--there is no denial of this. Further, even thought the NCAA does not award an actual championship, it has 1) seen fit to rename this division acknowledging the current championship selection process and 2) it publishes a list in its guidebook of the past champions. Regardless of what you and others may think (again personal opinion), the NCAA is the recognized authority on this matter by virtually all of the interested public and media. That they list so many champions is in fact a VERY important aspect of this list--it should show the wide heterogeneity of championship selection, and how that was even more evident prior to the establishment of the wire polls--the current list gives the entirely wrong impression that unanimity exists about the pre wire poll period.

This listing does not meet the Wikipedia "verifiability" criteria, [2] and that page suggests that I should aggressively remove it. Here is Wikipedia's guideline on verifiability and the burden of proof, which is upon you in this case:

Burden of evidence Policy shortcut: WP:PROVEIT

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question.

If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider moving it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag the sentence by adding the template, the section with or if the entire article is unsourced by adding or .

Leave an invisible HTML comment, a note on the talk page, or an edit summary explaining what you have done.

Do not leave unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living people.

I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."

And here's the section on "no original research" and a directly relevant passage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.[1] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.

It's obvious that this principle has been violated in compiling the championship table. ONLY a reference to an outside recognized authority is acceptable here. That "(t)he Wikipedia list is unique, at least to the Internet..." is admission of this fault, and thus should be purged. (You can put this into MetaWiki if you want a spot for original research and synthesis.)

One last point: this article MUST be able to stand up on its own to subsequent challenges by future editors like me. If someone else comes along, as I have, and says "where did this come from--it's not transparent at all" then the article has failed to fulfill its requirements. It can't be sustained by having a watchman such as yourself who just swoops in and says "this was the way it was done and you can't change it now." The whole point of Wikipedia is that it is a fluid resource that can be updated for new information and viewpoints. That apparently isn't being allowed in this case because somehow I've come late to the party.

Now, I'm quite willing to work with you on this issue, but I need to see some concessions on your part. I've offered up several solutions. I have tried to remove my judgment as to who should be listed as the champion in each year by suggesting a reference to a recognized outside authority which has a clear listing criteria. You might not like that, but until I see a clear reference to an outside authority and reference with no original research and judgment, I can't abide by the current articles structure. Note that I have not yet made any large redactions from the article so I have been patient and willing to discuss this issue. I've only put in warnings for other readers so far. I really don't want to get into a edit war on this article. I still haven't heard a response to those--only that somehow I should not be absolutist (which I'm not). So what are you offering to change in response--as I've said the status quo is not acceptable unless you can produce a long and detailed reference that shows the rationale for the developed list? Gvharrier 18:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Much of the past discussion is archived. Much of it also took place on several other websites which offer credible Wikipedia users better resources for debate. I know you will counter that discussion on third-party sites should not be considered, but that's how the Internet works. Also, I would recommend that, before calling people rookies, you actually create a user page.

Actually, I don't care that I'm a rookie. I'm making the point that you are a rookie. Counterattacking is not an acceptable form of arguing--it violates the principle of fairness. Stay on point please. Gvharrier 19:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The list in the NCAA record book, in fact, receives zero acknowledgment from the public and media. It lists 340 national championship selections in 137 seasons, an average of between two and three selections every year ever. Notre Dame is credited with 21 championships, Oklahoma and USC with 17, Alabama and Michigan with 16, Ohio State with 13, Nebraska and Pittsburgh with 11 — the list goes on and on. Nebraska, for example, is credited with five consecutive titles from 1980 to 1984, a time period in which they were not once awarded a championship by the selectors recognized by the NCAA as consensus selectors. Such obscure schools as Centre (1919), Washington & Jefferson (1921) and Detroit (1928) are credited with titles in the same years as championships were also awarded to such national powers as Notre Dame (1919), Cornell (1921), and Georgia Tech (1928). Princeton and Yale are credited with a ridiculous 28 and 27 championships, respectively, the vast majority of which came before 1912. None of these or the many other statistics derived from the NCAA list are recognized by the public or media. A USC fan, for example, will tell you that the Trojans have won 11 titles, not 17. When USC competed for the 2005 national championship in the Rose Bowl, Keith Jackson, "the voice of college football", mentioned several times that the Trojans were gunning for No. 12, not No. 18. I could go on and on. Besides this, imagine what would happen if the NCAA list was adopted. People would go crazy. Imagine what a Florida fan would do when they saw Ohio State listed as one of the 2006 national champions, as they were selected by the DeVold System and Harris Interactive. Gators 41, Buckeyes 14. You don't have to be Richard Billingsley to figure out who the better team is. These are just a few examples. Hopefully it is obvious why we don't use the NCAA list. Yes, they are the governing body of college football, but they don't sanction a national championship. We have no responsibility to recognize their list. Iowa13 19:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't answer my point that the current list is composed of original research and synthesis and thus violates Wikipedia policy. If need be, then the table should be deleted entirely. Another solution is to compose a table of each championships selection process, but don't try to combine them or judge their validity (inclusion or exclusion of a selection method in its entirety may be an acceptable form of judgement.) As for having other discussions and references, the table would need a clear, transparent link and reference to the Wikipedia archives (which might expire at some point in the near future) and to ALL of the Internet discussion forums and their archives. And it is NOT just "how the Internet works." The cowboy process of throwing around unverifiable information and speculation as though it is composed of facts is one of the major drawbacks of relying on the Internet. The point of the Wikipedia criteria is to reverse this unverifiable nature of Internet resources. And I am pursuing this.

I've added other discussion and references to Wikipedia policy above while you were responding earlier, so I suggest reviewing that and deciding how to respond. I will go to the Wikipedia mediation and arbitration if this is not resolved. I have a very clear case that this violates the original research criterion. Gvharrier 19:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I've also reviewed the archives page. I see that my issues were raised before and dismissed with little discussion in a perfunctory unacceptable manner. In addition, the CFDW source is clearly referenced, but it's authority is never validated. I certainly don't agree that two guys constitute an authoritative source. They're no better than Saragin or Dickinson who are so roundly dismissed in the discussion.

I've now propose a fourth solution--separate tables for each selection method. I believe that I have put forward a number of viable compromises that will improve the authenticity of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gvharrier (talk • contribs) 20:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Alabama Polytechnical Institute

Please give API credit for winning the 1957 NC. API was re-named Auburn in 1960. 'Auburn' has never won a NC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomli004 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Auburn has won a national championship, just under a different name. I say keep it as Auburn because the average reader will probably be more inclined to recognize "Auburn" rather than "API". Just my two cents on that issue. -- Rbkdan 15:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, the fact of the matter is that even when Auburn was officially called API, everyone still referred to it at "Auburn." Seancp 22:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Georgia 1942

I think Georgia should be recognized for 1942. They were consensus champions picked by at least half of the recognized polls. (Recognition by the National College Football Hall of Fame and the Official NCAA Record Book.)

http://www.georgiadogs.com/ViewArticle.dbml?SPSID=46724&SPID=3571&DB_OEM_ID=8800&ATCLID=526158 http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/div_ia/sec/georgia/national_champs.php http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/div_ia/sec/georgia/all_national_champs.php Failureofafriend 06:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Iowa13 is in the midst of building a new table that will list that and other championships. The listings will include added info on the level of credibility and whether it was awarded contemporaneously or retroactively. See the discussion above under Controversial NCs at the bottom. Gvharrier 15:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Creating a new NC table and rewriting the article

I've considered a solution similar to separate tables in the past. It is slightly different than what I believe you are suggesting. Possibly there could be a table of one of the more liberal lists, probably the one from the NCAA record book, and within that table a more conservative selection method could be documented, possibly by noting (by bolding, for example) the champion(s) each year that would be recognized by the latter method. This would document both sides of the issue while keeping the article from exceeding a realistic length. Example:

Year	Team	Record	Coach	Selector
1960	Iowa	8-1	Forest Evashevski	B, BS, L, SR
	Minnesota	8-2	Murray Warmath	AP, FN, NFF, UPI
	Mississippi	10-0-1	Johnny Vaught	BR, CFRA, DeS, DuS, FWAA, NCF, WS
	Missouri	10-1	Dan Devine	PS
	Washington	10-1	Jim Owens	HAF

Obviously, the final draft would be slightly different, but that should give you an idea of how it would look. Iowa13 03:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I like that idea. It convey both the plethora of championship selections, but also that some are considered less "legit" than others by many observers and commentators. One more distinction could be useful: noting the difference between retrospective and contemporaneous awards, e.g, it appears that all of the pre 1925 (Dickinson) championships were awarded on a retrospective basis. That seems to be an important distinction. Anyway, I appreciate that you made this suggestion. Go for it! Gvharrier 17:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

One other addition: add a column to the total championship table that shows the total maximum claimed. The table can still be ranked by most credible selections (and I suggest referencing CFDW for that criteria), but it would show the "could be as high as" amount as well, so that those who have a complaint that the number has been undercounted are recognized. BTW, your discussion about the high numbers from the NCAA guide is quite good, so I've edited it and put it into the article. Gvharrier 17:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. I will use the NCAA list for the plethora (good word) of titles, but I'm not sure what to use for the legit ones. In the example I gave, I used the Consensus National Champions list from the record book, which only goes back to 1950. What do you think?

I'm not quite sure of your question--aren't you using the CFDW list for the proposed criteria? Probably using the NCAA consensus moniker would be useful as well. Also, instead of simply alpha order for selectors, you might order by subcategory, most credible group first, less credible contemporary second, retroactive last. There seems to be so many step functions here: 1901-truly national, 1925--1st contemporaneous titles (Dickinson); 1936-first polls, 1950--NCAA list of consensus, 1968-first inclusion of bowl game results, 1998-BCS. Gvharrier 22:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

We could use the NCAA consensus list 1950-present, minus NFF, and CFBDW 1869-1949, for the "main" championships (CFBDW is spotty 1950-present, i.e. Arkansas' '64 FWAA title is recognized, while Iowa's '58 FWAA title is not). Also, there is a list on NCAAsports.com — [3] — that might be useful pre-1950; however, they use only AP 1936-1949, which is not synonomous with most respected lists. I'm not sure how the NCAAsports.com list compares with CFBDW pre-1936. Here are my basic thoughts at this point:

"Main" champions: 1869-1949 — CFBDW; 1950-present — NCAA Record Book Consensus National Champions (page 80)

"Other" champions: 1869-present — NCAA Record Book National Poll Champions (page 75)

I also like the idea about the order of the selectors. More credible-less credible-retroactive sounds like a good place to start. Iowa13 03:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of making the distinction between retro and contemp championships. We could possibly italicize the retroactive awards (I've incorporated that into the 1960 example above). I haven't given much thought to the total championship table, but I agree that a maximum column should be added. Yes, CFBDW would be the best source for said column. Also, should the current post-1900 format be kept? I realize that most pre-1901 championships were awarded to Ivy/Eastern teams, but in the interest of historical accuracy, we might expand the table to include all titles, 1869-present. A note about pre-1901 championships would then be needed, although I guess there already is one. It would probably need to be more emphasized, though. Just a thought. Iowa13 21:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Italicizing makes sense--that usually indicates diminutive. You probably should include the pre 1901 champs, all italicized. Being complete is probably a preferable objective. Maybe the pre 1901 period is shaded grey as well to indicate the truly non-national nature (it was worse than lacrosse is now ;^) ). For the totals, I suggest including the max only in parentheses, e.g. Yale ... (28). Gvharrier 22:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like a good plan: It's reproducible and relies on outside sources and it as complete as can be. Gvharrier 15:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is a working start to the eventual revamped table. This is the information from the NCAA Record Book only; records and coaches (and other columns if necessary) can be filled in later — although as far as I know none of these teams had recognized head coaches.

Year	Team	Record	Coach	Selector
1869	Princeton			BR, NCF, PD
	Rutgers			PD
1870	Princeton			BR, NCF, PD
1871
1872	Princeton			BR, NCF, PD
	Yale			PD
1873	Princeton			BR, NCF, PD
1874	Harvard			PD
	Princeton			BR, PD
	Yale			NCF, PD
1875	Colgate			PD
	Harvard			NCF, PD
	Princeton			BR, PD
1876	Yale			BR, NCF, PD
1877	Princeton			BR, PD
	Yale			NCF, PD
1878	Princeton			BR, NCF, PD
1879	Princeton			BR, NCF, PD
	Yale			PD

Iowa13 23:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks good so far. Gvharrier 18:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep working on it and check back in frequently for feedback. Iowa13 21:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm through 1939. This is slow work, but I'm going to try to do a decade a day from here on out (although 2 or 3 days would be more realistic). Currently I am including purely the information from the record book: year, team, and selectors (with retroactive selectors italicized). Once all of that is in place, I will add the records and coaches. The final step will be to bold the consensus champions and selectors, which will be more complicated than records and coaches and such. I'll check back in when I have years, teams, and selectors finished through 2006. Probably 1-2 more weeks. Iowa13 03:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to propose a slight change in the original plan. We had loosely agreed to use CFBDW consensus national champions. Rather than using a third-party source, I suggest we use the list on NCAAsports.com, one of two official NCAA sites (the other being NCAA.org, which is the source for the "non-consensus" champions, through the official record book). While CFBDW is inconsistent in what selectors they recognize as consensus, NCAAsports.com is 100% consistent. The National Championship Foundation is used from its earliest selection in 1869 to 1935, the Helms Athletic Foundation from its earliest selection in 1883 to 1935, and the College Football Researchers Association from its earliest selection in 1919 to 1935. The Associated Press poll is used from its inception in 1936 to the present, the coaches poll (published by various organizations) from its inception in 1950 to the present, the Football Writers Association of America championship from its inception in 1954 to the present, and the National Football Foundation championship from its inception in 1959 to the present. The post-1949 selectors are synonymous with the Consensus National Champions list in the official record book, which goes from 1950 to the present. The NCAAsports.com list is the closest thing out there to an official list of NCAA-recognized consensus national champions, and is the most consistent of any of the credible lists in existence. What do you think? Iowa13 (talk) 20:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, I've posted the new list through 1959 (with years, teams, and selectors) on my user page. Once through 2006, I will add records and coaches (along with any information we later decide is necessary) and do any necessary cleanup work. Iowa13 (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been away at the Michigan-Ohio State game (so much for Go Blue! :^< ). I think your approach is good. I like the annotations. Certainly captures the plethora of champions early on. I suspect the work will get easier as you progress in years. Is there an easy way to copy from one Wiki table to another? Gvharrier (talk) 03:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Michigan/Ohio St? That must have been awesome. I was bummed Michigan lost too, although I'm not really a fan of either team. The work actually got harder going into the '20's/'30's, which is when many of the retroactive selections began, but now into the '50's, it's gotten easier. I've set up the entire table through 2006, so the only work is filling in the champions and selectors. I was able to copy the "year template" — | 19-- || [[|]] || || || — over and over again to set up the entire table, so that process went quickly, and I don't have to worry about the technical stuff while filling in the information. Hopefully I can get the '60's and some of the '70's done during the rest of the weekend — I don't always have a lot of time. The records and coaches will be more painful, but they won't be as time-consuming, at least not the records. I'll continue with the current format the rest of the way, unless you have any suggestions. Thanks for checking out the table. Iowa13 (talk) 05:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The entire stadium stood the whole game! I was hoping you could copy over the records, bowls and coaches, especially for the latter years when the table won't change much, but that might be too difficult. If you want me to experiment, email the table you've done to gvharrier@yahoo.com. (I'm ignoring the changes to the tables on the main page while we work on this.) Gvharrier (talk) 17:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I understand about the copying. I'm not sure that would be possible, but I'll see what I can do, and I'll email the table as well. I don't think it's a big deal if it doesn't work, it won't be too difficult to copy manually. Iowa13 (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The champions and selectors are finished. I'm going to start the records and coaches on Thursday. Iowa13 (talk) 00:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I made a quick scan of your table. A lot of work! It looks quite complete. Quick question: which "poll" is HS? It looks like it becomes contemporaneous in 1927, choosing Notre Dame. Is that the case? If you can get update the acronym list, I can try to look at it this next weekend. To be honest, this might end up being the most authoritative compilation on the web. Gvharrier (talk) 07:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

HS is Houlgate System, and it did become contemp in '27 with Notre Dame. This probably sounds like a stupid question, but what is the acronym list? I'm still a little bit of a Wiki terminology noob. Iowa13 (talk) 13:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Acronym list = key to abbreviations/initials for the the different polls, eg. HS=Houlgate System. Gvharrier (talk) 06:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, right. Yes, I will put one together once I finish the table — I only have about two decades of records/coaches left, so it should be done in several days. Iowa13 (talk) 14:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Finished! Check it out. I will begin work on the acronym list and the new Most National Championships table(s) on Wednesday. Iowa13 (talk) 18:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

When you're done with the acronyms table, send me the links to your source documents and I'll double check the table for typos etc. Gvharrier (talk) 19:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

So I see that you finished the table, and I've printed it out for review. Maybe I already have the links you used? Gvharrier (talk) 19:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I used two sources for the Selectors and National champions tables: #1 and #2 (search for "National Champion Major Selectors" in #1). I still need to fill out the Years column in the Selectors table. That should be done within a day or so. Iowa13 (talk) 19:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I finished the Years column in the Selectors table. Feel free to check that against the National champions table and the two sources if you like — the Years column, though, will not be entirely synonymous with the first source (the record book), as some information in the latter is not correct. The record book also does not include the BCS. Iowa13 (talk) 04:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the NCAA record book has the BCS champs on p. 105, but that's an easy one so it doesn't matter. I'll proof the tables. We'll need a short write up explaining the coding and why we chose certain rankings as being most credible (denoted in bold.) Another demarcation might be to denote polls vs. mathematical systems vs. expert assessments. It might be useful to separate selectors by these (or other) categories. Also, denoting successor selectors might be useful. Once I go through the tables, maybe I can take that on. Gvharrier (talk) 19:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I was considering denoting the different types of selectors — I believe that is the practice in the current selectors tables. More break-downs could be necessary as well. Possibly a separate table for consensus selectors. I'll take care of the write-ups once we get everything else rolling (I'm currently working on Most national championships tables). The majority of this article will probably need rewrites and reorganization, anyway — see this discussion below — and we can discuss that once the tables are done. Iowa13 (talk) 20:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I've separated the selectors into three different tables: math, poll, and research (the formats listed in the record book). Take a look and see if it looks okay. It's definitely a lot easier to read this way, and it shows how polls have carried a lot more prestige over the years — three quarters of the polls are or have been consensus selectors, while only one of the 22 math selectors (the BCS, which uses both math and polls) is consensus. As for successor selectors, i.e. the evolution of the coaches poll, I would rather explain in words. The changing of hands of the coaches poll from UPI to USA Today is complicated, especially as it took place around the time when the NFF was forming brief coalitions with UPI and USA Today. It would be virtually impossible to explain it within the tables. Iowa13 (talk) 21:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this. You're right that conveying too much info could make the table too complex. One thought on successor polls is to put them in a separate color font, e.g., blue for the coaches' poll. We also might color or shade the BCS polls (but avoid past coalitions, e.g., NFF, except to describe them in the text.) Gvharrier (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

As an outline of the new article, we might use the following topics:

A) What is the current "championship" and how it's unique

B) General history of the selection process with subheadings on 1) when these started with contemporaneous selections 2) development of retrospective selections 3) evolution of polls 4) push toward a "consensus" selection and the BCS

C) Description of the different selection methods in general terms (and maybe invite specific sections on the most interesting and historic selectors)

D) A brief run down on past championships and interesting streaks and trends and 1) controversial NCs prior to the BCS and 2) reference to the BCS (we can probably recycle from the current article on these).

E) A description of the NC table and the criteria used for the consensus picks, and 1) a comparison to what various schools claim versus what's in the table. (A comparison table would be interesting, and I can start researching that.)

This is just one idea of a format just to start the discussion. Gvharrier (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

On

That's a good start. One key idea to keep in mind during "the rewrite" is simplification. We could have one heading, "History" or something like that, possibly with subheadings for the different eras of the selection process. That section would go hand-in-hand with the Selectors table and would be followed by the National champions table, which would be accompanied by an explanation of how the table is set up. I like the idea of showing streaks and trends — that would go well with the Most national championships table, which, of course, would also need an explanation. I've also thought about including school claims in the past. A table or a variation on it would be great if we could put one together; I tried once and didn't make much progress. It is difficult to get that information from most schools — I was reduced to emailing AD's, a process during which I learned that 90% of the time AD's are on vacation and 10% of the time they forward emails to other people who are on vacation. I'm sure you could check media guides or something...good luck on whatever you decide to do. I'll see if I can look into it as well. Iowa13 (talk) 21:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Using LSU, other abbreviations

Some want to use "Louisiana State" but I see in the NCAA "Official Division Football Records Book" that it uses "LSU". Note that the University of Southern California is denoted "USC" despite South Carolina using the same abbreviation. At least LSU is unique. We are rebuilding the championship tables which rely heavily on the NCAA sources and uses "LSU". Gvharrier (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Reduce Michigan's Poll Era total by 1

We have Michigan's 1947 extra poll tallied both in the overall champioships and in the poll era, but not in the AP subtotal. As the Associated Press itself does not recognize the validity of this unofficial poll run by the Detroit Free Press, I am correcting the two entries and moving the reference to it's proper spot. Note that the total championships is remaining the same as well as the AP championships. -- KelleyCook 20:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Michigan lists 4 more championships (11 total) based on the NCF results. Also, the NCAA history page also lists these championships: http://www.ncaa.org/champadmin/ia_football_past_champs.html (Note that the other NCAA page http://www.ncaafootballchampions.com/ fails to mention ANY national co-champions, which most certainly is incorrect!) It seems that the list presented here relies overly so on the Helms results for this period to the total exclusion of the NCF, yet relies on the NCF for an earlier period AND for a later period. This is simply inconsistent. The list should either include the NCF throughout, or exclude ALL NCF results. The current decision appears arbitrary.

1903: Michigan and Princeton recognized as National Champions UM recognized by: Billingsley, National Championship Foundation (tie with Princeton) Princeton recognized by: Helms, Houlgate, Parke Davis, National Championship Foundation ]

1904: Michigan and Penn recognized as National Champions UM recognized by: Billingsley, National Championship Foundation (tie with Penn) Penn recognized by: Helms, Houlgate, Parke Davis, National Championship Foundation (tie)

1918: Michigan and Pittsburgh recognized as National Champions UM recognized by: Billingsley, National Championship Foundation (tie with Pittsburgh) Pittsburgh recognized by: Helms, Houlgate, National Championship Foundation (tie)

1923: Michigan and Illinois recognized as National Champions UM recognized by: Billingsley, National Championship Foundation (tie with Illinois) California recognized by: Houlgate Illinois recognized by: Boand, Football Research, Helms, Parke Davis, National Championship Foundation (tie) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gvharrier (talk • contribs) 20:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

One thought, I don't know how to or can't change the page, but at the end of the section Most National Championships, there is a comment "Several universities claim more championships than are listed above (e.g., Michigan claims 11 national championships, Alabama claims 12), and some claim fewer championships than are listed above (e.g., Notre Dame claims 11 national championships, Oklahoma claims 7). No one knows why they are listed as such here." I would delete that last comment, No one knows why they are listed as such here, since the preceding paragraph describes why they are listed as such. Madpole33 (talk) 03:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)pete

I agree, Madpole. I'm not sure when that sentence found its way into the article, but it shouldn't be there. I'll remove it. Iowa13 (talk) 04:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)