Talk:NCAA Division I-A National Football Championship/Archive 2006

This is an archive of past discussions about NCAA Division I-A National Football Championship. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Here is the 2004 NCAA source for the championship information.

Also here in non-pdf format. Which polls are we using? Rkevins82 03:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Why does Kentucky's National Championship in 1950 keep being deleted from the article?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.35.237.67 (talk • contribs).

Because only Sagarin chose Kentucky, not Associated Press, United Press, College Football Researchers Association, Helms Athletic Foundation, or National Championship Foundation (the sources used for 1950). If you believe that Sagarin should be used, make an argument here.Rkevins82 19:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

And why don't we simply use what the actual NCCA itself states? Instead of these BIASED guidelines? Ridiculous. NCAA Div 1-A Football Champions —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.35.237.67 (talk • contribs).

Because the NCAA does not state which team is national champion, just what each of the sources says. If ou believe there are less biased ways to show the information without conveying too much information, or unqualified information, please present it. Rkevins82 19:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying... use the sources approved by the ~NCCA itself~, no more/less. What is an arguement for using sources OTHER than what the NCAA itself deems appropriate??? There simply isn't one (not an unbiased one anyway). http://www.ncaa.org/champadmin/ia_football_past_champs.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.35.237.67 (talk • contribs).

First, please sign your posts. Next, you'll notice on the page you link that the NCAA is not claiming that these are reputable sources, that they picked the right team, or that they are anything more than selections (sometimes, a single newspaper writer). The sources used mirror those or expand upon those at the college football data warehouse, which has the best information and reasoning. Rkevins82 04:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

"which has the best information and reasoning" based on what? Your opinion? Of course there is no "perfect" system and the NCAA isn't claiming there is one, but the "best" would be what the ~NCAA itself~ deems so. That's the only real fair option here. I think it is ridiculous to see politics played out on a noble concept like wikipedia. But "whatever", right? That's what you want to hear, just let it drop. Let this bias slide(and just ignore the fact that such petty bias is bringing down wiki more and more all the time).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.35.237.67 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 2006 December 6

First of all, please sign your posts on Talk pages. Secondly, would you use only sources approved by the Republican Party in an article on said party? Would you use only Nazi approved sources in articles about Nazi's? Would you use only Paris Hilton approved sources in an article about her? I hope not. The same holds true for the NCAA. Third-party sources are very valid. If you think we are using an improper source or that a different source would be better, then please try to calm-down, please try to stop insulting people, and please try to make a coherent case for your opinion. Thanks, Johntex\^talk 05:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, what bias do the sources used have?Rkevins82 06:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

"would you use only sources approved by the Republican Party in an article on said party? Would you use only Nazi approved sources in articles about Nazi's? Would you use only Paris Hilton approved sources in an article about her? I hope not. The same holds true for the NCAA." Are you serious? Please think about what you just wrote...

Bias? I would state there is bias in listing teams/not listing teams using 3rd party "sources" while ignoring the athletic organization itself.

ps- MLB states foolishly that the St. Louis Cardinals are the actual 2006 MLB Champions... this is obvioulsy just one opinion and we should change the Cardinals article to reflect this. The Phillies won more games than the Cardinals and I have a 3rd party source that declares Philly the true 2006 champion. It's good enough for wiki.

Again, if you're going to use multiple and disputed sources... why not just use the sources the NCCA itself does instead of going by 3rd parties? It's not a complicated line of reason... but I understand it doesn't fit certain agendas... so that's fine, whatever.

Your line of reasoning is incredibly simple. It's also wrong. MLB is an incorrect analogy because there is a universal agreement on the procedure to determine their champion. No such agreement exists in NCAA Division I-A football. Since the NCAA has failed to come up with a decent method of determining a champion, we, as editors, are forced to use all sorts of third party sources to try to sort out the mire and muck. We'd be remiss in our duties if we didn't.

I've read what Rkevins82 and Johntex have said on this and their arguments have merit. Your arguments do not. Until you start signing your posts, stop insulting your opposition, stop making vague references to assumedly sinister agendas, and start behaving like a responsible editor, you're unlikely to sway anyone. You certainly haven't convinced me. --Don Sowell 17:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

there is an * by 1947 Michigan anyone know what that is supposed to mean? Also 1950 Kentucky (Modern Analysts) Who are the mondern analysts ? Smith03 15:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: the * by the 1947 Michigan team, there was an unofficial post-bowl poll that moved Michigan ahead of Notre Dame. The official final AP poll, taken before the bowls, had Notre Dame #1 and Michigan #2. This is likely the reason for the * next to Michigan, as I can't think of any other reason why it would be there. Georgiablue 14:38, 07 April 2006 (UTC)

Would like comments on whether following list is preferred to that currently posted:

above unsigned suggestion by Drewinmaine

• Personally, I prefer the current version of the table, which features more information. I think more info is usually better so long as it is relevant and remains readable, which I think the current version does nicely. I did restore USC in 2003, as was suggested above. Also, if anyone does decide to change the table, please note that I changed University of Texas to Texas Longhorn Athletics as the second article is more directly relevant. Johntex\^talk 18:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep the Inclusive Table

I like the more inclusive table as well. However, if the thinned-out version is used, I would keep the Dickenson System champions as they have become more accepted and represent the first attempt to use statistics to determine a champion. It was also the pre-eminent selector of its time.

It has? I give it no more value than I give any of those other random NC selectors. I propose, as mentioned below, we use the same criteria as the College Football Data Warehouse.--NMajdan•talk 18:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Please also note that any controversy regarding the split of 2003 should really be non-existent as the BCS itself recognizes the split on its website under the discussion of the 2003 season.

I think the thinned out version should be used. The Dickenson system is ridiculous to use when every other measure gives the championship to another team. It's crazy to use a system that awards a "statistical" championship to a team with a loss, especially if that loss was in their bowl game. 67.64.114.187 20:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

As a a retroactive title wasn't recognized in the year that the team played, I think it is disingenuous to use retroactive rankings, such as National Championship Foundation, College Football Researchers Association, and Helms (pre 1941) as a an "official source" for National Championships in the total numbers awarded. If no-one comes up with a good argument why Wikipedia should use retroactively generated lists, then I will adjust the Team-by-team totals in a few days. -- KelleyCook 13:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe those were originally used because they are used on the College Football Data Warehouse website. It is difficult to determine which polls to use in the Pre-AP era.--NMajdan•talk 13:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I think we should just use the same criteria that website uses.

1869-1882  National Championship Foundation
1883-1935  Helms Athletic Foundation
1919-1935  College Football Researches Association
1936-Current  Associated Press Poll
1950-Current  Coaches Poll

I have a tough time justifying the use of the Dickinson System mainly because it award ND the title in 1938 and it was the only poll to do so.--NMajdan•talk 14:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Nmajdan. However, we should note that there are no 'official' national champions until the BCS.Rkevins82 17:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Dickinson used math much in the same way the present BCS computers do. I must once again note that it was the pre-eminent selector of its time. I certainly believe that it was far superior to most if not all of the other systems of its day and was so until the AP began. Even then it was important and remained so until it ended in 1940. Please also note that while the BCS has a very strong grip on the National Championship it is by no means "official." There is still no "official" NCAA Div. 1 college football champion.

You guys are giving FAR, FAR too much credit to the criteria that College Football Data Warehouse uses. The only relevant ones post 1935 are Associated Press and the Coaches poll. The only relevant ones prior to that are ones that actually had selectors. Anyone that was a recent retroactive poll (read computer geek with access to Stassen's database) deserves zero credit by Wikipedia. And the BCS clearly is not a poll nor even the determiner of an official champion, but only a bowl matchmaker. The Coaches poll, of course, is obligated to make their first pick the winner of the BCS #1 v #2 game, but that doesn't mean that their is a BCS final pick.

The College Football Data Warehouse told me in an e-mail that he would look at the Dickinson System a second time. While I like this web-site, it is not all-inclusive and is also the opinion of that particular individual. Almanacs and many reference books now utilize Dickinson and the fact that their selections might differ is not relevant. It was major AT THE TIME. But using the Data Warehouse is alright as long as you can augment it. Please also note that they give 1964 Arkansas a championship although they were not slected by major selectors (I agree with that as well and I also agree with 1953 Notre Dame being granted a championship.)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.119.25.226 (talk • contribs)

Notre Dame is listed as a school that does not count all potential titles, but by consensus counts has 11 championships. I've removed the following (with reasons:

1. 1946 Helms (contemporaneous) split between ND and Army, CFRA also chose Army
2. 1947 Helms split between ND and Michigan, AP picked ND, NCF and CFRA picked Michigan
3. 1973 UPI picked Alabama, AP/FWAA picked ND

Rkevins82 19:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I have excised the link to a video on YouTube that someone had added in the External Links section. I think it was supposed to be funny, as it suggested a homoerotic relationship between Texas quarterback Vince Young and Texas coach Mack Brown, criticized rainbow iconography, and liberally used the word "homo" in a derogatory way. But yeah it had nothing to do with Division I-A national championships. At all. So it's gone. And yes, I do live in Texas. And no, I am not gay. And from what I understand, neither are Mack Brown and Vince Young.

For reference, here is the link: The Vince Young Mack Brown Story

Kind regards J. Charles Taylor 11:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for taking care of this. I do some editing in locations where I can't access some media (like many others), so I can't vet videos. Best. Rkevins82 15:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Why have this section? People can much more easily look at the list to see who has won recently, than since 1901. I hope it is not to maximize Miami's visibility. Rkevins82 18:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The 90% of that article that contains interesting information is redundant with this article. The other 10% appears to be a very contrived attempt to come up with other MNCs to link to the term. It seems to me that since the CFB material is rendundant (think don't repeat yourself) that we'd do well to offload the other to one sentence each in high school football and college basketball, and perhaps create a section here called something like "'Mythical' national championship?". If the juxtaposition with other sports is needed, it's probably most appropriate here. I just don't think mythical national championships per se (as opposed to the mythical D-I-A football championship, which is where we've all heard the term) are a sufficiently encyclopedic topic to need a separate article. Cheers - PhilipR 02:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I am (mildly) against the merge proposal. I do appreciate that a lack of redundancy can be a good thing (especially in computer programming per the link you cited). However, redundancy can also be a good thing. It is an essential component of virtually all human knowledge.

Also, similar information can be presented in differing ways, sometimes with good reason. For instance, until I just now re-read the article on Mythical national championship, I didn't realize any national publications tried to crown a national high school champion. I also did not know that college basketball ever lacked a playoff. In other words, having those things brought into one article was helpful to me, as it may be to other readers in the future.

Finally, this is a substantial article. I think having the info in mythical national championship makes the info easier to find. Johntex\^talk 03:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I am against a merger. The article has developed into a pretty good article and will only get better. I plan on improving it with sources and examples, especially for the college basketball and high school football sections. I cannot tell you how many times (trust me, it's a lot) I've seen people on the internet see the letters MNC in message board posts and have them ask, "What's MNC?" This article was created for that reason. And like Johntex said, many people don't even realize that there are MNC's in sports other than college football. This deserves its own article. Seancp 13:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

"This article was created for that reason." - WP:WINAD. Whatever suitable place is agreed upon for this material, we can certainly use disambiguation and redirects to make sure MNC and Mythical [Nn]ational [Cc]hampionship lead there. But you both raise some valid points that I'm still processing. - PhilipR 14:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I am against a merger for the same reasons as above. Mythical national championship relates to any national championship declaration that doesn't have a national playoff to determine thus, thus adding a level of subjectiveness. While this has been mostly applied to college football, there are other examples that are just as valid. Merging them implies that Div. I-A is the mythical national championship, which, as apparent in the article, isn't the same thing. Besides, if this were to merge, I think it would be much better merged with the Bowl Championship Series page or the Bowl Game page rather than this one. Hawk405359 21:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Executive summary: See "The new proposal" subheading. Sorry I'm so long-winded.

OK, as I'm processing the emerging consensus, here's my summary of what seems to be more-or-less the consensus or at least not-yet disputed:

• The MNC article has some information of value
• The juxtaposition of cfb to other sports, historical or present, without organized championships is interesting and encyclopedic
• This existing article is already a good size, and moving material into it may not be a good idea.

Here are a couple of other points that you've made me think about:

• While a certain amount of redundancy is tolerable in a prose encyclopedia, WP has a pretty standardized way to avoid extreme redundancy by setting up subordinate articles to deal with topics in depth. E.g. United States, History of the United States, History of the United States (1789–1849), etc. The reasons that make DRY applicable to programming also make it applicable to documentation. For example, I posted a quote from Bernie Machen on this article, but in principle I should also post it at MNC to keep it current, and any other article referencing the present playoff controversy. I would hope that each new piece of info would have an unambiguous home where it belongs, though I recognize there are exceptions (such as linking the same article at Bernie Machen, etc.).
• I'm still not convinced that Mythical national championship isn't in essentially intended to be a dictionary entry. Indeed, Seancp's reply actually confirms this original impression. I've recently been looking into an example where WP:WINAD was absolutely flouted. A Motorway and a Freeway are virtually the exact same thing, but because they've grown up on a term-by-term basis instead of a concept-by-concept basis, each article is now jealously guarded by its editors in its US-centric or UK-centric form. Wikipedia articles are about concepts, not specific terms.

Now, that said, there's obviously material there that people think is beneficial to maintain separate from NCAA Division I-A national football championship, and I've come to agree. So how about this?

• Migrate material from both this article and Mythical national championship concerning the college football controversy to something like, NCAA Division I-A national football championship debate (although I'd like to make the title shorter). There's precedent for this: Free trade and Free trade debate, for example.
• Make what remains of Mythical national championship into a list. Wikipedia has all kinds of useful lists and I think a list of sports with mythical championships (or list of sports without established championships or pseudo-championships) is certainly valid. I don't actually think it should just be "national championships" though, because that's fairly arbitrary. (Why wouldn't something transnational like a poll of European soccer clubs predating the European Champions' Cup not be equally relevant to this list?)
• Use the {{main}} template and disambiguation as appropriate:

• Mythical national championship should probably direct to the appropriate college football articles. Someone looking under the term "mythical national championship" almost certainly either doesn't know what the term means or wants to read about the football debate.
• Of course the debate article should explain the term MNC and probably have a templated dab at the top like
  "Mythical national championship" redirects here. For a list of other mythical championships, see List of sports with unofficial championships.
  .
• The debate article should cross-reference the list of other sports in addition to the dab
• The present article NCAA Division I-A national football championship should give a brief intro to the debate but point to the debate article, cf. Free trade.

This would meet my needs because new material concerning the cfb debate would now have a single unambiguous home. At the same time, if we discover that say some prefecture in Japan has a Sumo "championship" that's as disorganized as I-A cfb, then that fact/juxtaposition has an unambiguous home too (the list).

As a fallback compromise, if Mythical National Championship is held to be the proper title for the article about the cfb debate then I would suggest moving the relevant material from here to avoid redundancy. But now we have an article both about the MNC and about various mncs. The confusion over capitalization, in my book, exposes a greater confusion about the purpose of that article. (The status quo has the title capitalized, but is an article ostensibly about various championships, not one particular one, which seems thoroughly inconsistent.)

I welcome your thoughts. - PhilipR 00:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate all the effort you're putting in here, but I think what you suggested just makes everything way too complicated. I suggest we allow the article to develop as it has been. Like I mentioned before, I am going to get to work on sourcing it and adding info about high school football and college basketball. I'll also look for other sports that have mythical national championships. Separating the info, merging some here, moving some there, etc, etc just really makes things messy. They MNC article is a pretty decent article. If it is redundant it is redundant in a way that is useful. For instance, let's say a non-football fan overhears a reporter on ESPN mention "Mythical National Championship" and wonders what he means by that then he can just go to the wikipedia article and learn a lot about it. The information on the DI-A national football championship page would be harder to find for a non-football fan, and even if they did find it, they'd have to read through a lot of other information before finding the answer to their question. As far as the capitalization goes, I really don't see how that implies that there is only one MNC, especially when one reads the article. However, if Wikipedia has a capitalization policy that states it should be lowercased then we should make it lower case. To summarize, I would like the see the MNC page left as it is and allowed to develop. It is a decent page right now and will continue to get better. Seancp 13:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Seancp. Let MNC develop. I think there is plenty of room for this article and MNC and BCS articles (where most of the debate really occurs). --MECU≈talk 13:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that, except for the header, this paragraph is reproduced in its entirety at NCAA Division I-AA national football championship. In other contexts I would suggest moving this to one canonical place and linking it from there, but redundancy and branching revisions are very much in vogue in Wikipedia so I really don't see any need to bother. Just pointing it out for future editors who change that graf. - PhilipR 19:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It was a disingenuous statistic of summing together the AP and Coaches titles; so I removed the section[1]. It is incorrect to say that Texas won two titles last year. If someone wants to recalculate the section with total number of titles awarded by either AP or Coaches (set theory applies here) then it would be fine. For another reason why the revert was warranted, awarding Oklahoma the top spot with 13 titles goes against the entire rest grain of the article which has them with a total of 9 throughout their history. -- KelleyCook 21:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Added back. It's a legitimate statistic, found in most media guides ([2], [3] (last page)), that helps reflect and account for undisputed wire national championships. There was no reason for you to blank the section just because you don't like wherever your particular team ranks. Please refrain from blanking in the future.-PassionoftheDamon 11:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The complaint has nothing to do with where a particular team ranks. It does have everything to do with being misleading. It essentially halves the championship value between 1936–1949 when the coaches did not yet vote. Modify the table to be an OR instead of a SUM and it would be fine. -- KelleyCook 21:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a valid objection about the pre-Coaches poll years. I'll split the table to make separate tables for each poll.-PassionoftheDamon 21:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it should be removed. It's quite misleading. I'll refrain from removing it for now though, in case some others have something to say, but if no one else says anything, I will remove it. Dlong 21:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I find it both informative and unobjectionable. As PassionoftheDamon stated, it does a good job of reflecting the weight of each national championship a school has won; i.e. split championships count for less. It should be kept.-JDD18 21:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Separate tables for AP and Coaches championships are up.-PassionoftheDamon 22:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no list of NCAA official national champions for DI-A football in their records book and if there were official champions, where are the trophies that would be awarded to the national champion? The NCAA does not make a championship trophy for DI-A football.

Although I like the current set up of this site, I do think that there should be a category for "claimed titles". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 38.100.146.10 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

On the Texas A&M Wikipedia site, it claims the Aggies won the national championship in 1919 and in 1939. Although it does mention the championship in 1939, this page does not mention the championship supposedly won in 1919. Anyone have a source supporting/declining this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.53.17.190 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The only sources I could find for a 1919 championship for A&M were James Howell, a computer ranking that I believe was conducted in 2000, and a 3 way tie in the National Championship Foundation retroactive research results. The Aggies were undefeated and untied that year and it is quite possible that the press in Texas and elsewhere declared them national champions at the time. During this period, though, the NCF declared multiple champions on several occasions, making the inclusion of its champions on this list less useful than some other sources, as one would prefer a source that actually chooses a single national champion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drewinmaine (talk • contribs) 22:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)