Talk:College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS/Archive 2009

Gross misunderstanding of "Consensus"
There is a gross misunderstanding of "consensus national champion" selectors in this article. The article cites this NCAA webpage as the basis for the selectors that are considered consensus in this article. This reads way more into the information on that page than is actually there and thus violates WP:OR. "Consensus National Champions", as listed by NCAA on that website, refers only to national championship picks from 1950-2003 and utilizes the AP,UPI, FWAA, NFF as reference selectors. Nowhere are selectors designated as "consensus" for any other time period! Actually, there is no designation of any "consensus selector" only what are considered "consensus picks" beginning with the two poll system in 1950. The "Retroactive Poll Champions" selections listed on that website does not imply any endorsement or coronation by the NCAA that they are "consensus" as is implied in the wikipedia article. This NCAA webpage simply includes an abbreviated list of those that are listed in the official [ ' record book (page 76)]. In the official NCAA record book, the NCAA has only tried to designate what it considers to be "Major Selectors", that is those with national scope, and it has listed 37 of them. It implies absolutely nothing about "consensus selectors". The word "consensus" is being completely misused, and at best, should only be used to highlight selections in the time frame listed by the NCAA (1950 to present) and/or where both major polls (and perhaps later the BCS) are in agreement.

The current wikipedia article needs an overhaul to remove the improper notion of the existence of "consensus" selectors for any time period prior to 1950 as this is not indicated on the NCAA website or, more importantly, in the NCAA record book. Unless a reference can be found defining "consensus national champion", such as how it is done for All-American consensus designations based on receiving a minimal percentage of all selections, the word should be removed prior to 1950 or risk violating WP:OR. If there is any factual evidence not to transform this page to remove what appears to be the inappropriate notion of "consensus" prior to 1950, please post them here. CrazyPaco (talk) 19:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

If I come off too strong, I'm sorry. However, as far as I know, the titles in bold are consenus. I do not know who or what considers them that. But this is what the article goes by and so am I. Bcspro (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You certainly don't come off too strong, but we need to seek valid sources of the information provided in this encyclopedia. The bold is not consensus based on the reference provided to validate the article. The notion is at best a misunderstanding of the list on the NCAA webpage which only defines selections from a period from 1950-2003 as "Consensus", at worst it is  WP:OR. There are even issues with this list, as few would see 1964 ND as a "consensus" national champion based on the fact that it contradicts the well established notion by that time that the national champion was selected by the AP or coaches poll.  The only way to use "consensus" in the article, as far as I can determine, is to duplicate the NCAA table and restrict the listing of "consensus" champions to those listed by the NCAA from 1950-2003.


 * There are huge problems with the notion of "consensus". Just logically, one particular selector can't be defined as "consensus" as it doesn't even fit with the commonly understand definition of the word.  There can only be opinions on which selectors are more valid, such as is done by College Football Data Warehouse, but then use of this "selector of selectors" is also controversial as there is no widespread acceptance that CFDW as the definitive authoritative source. At least CFDW has done substantial research into the issue, and one of its prime contributors, Tex Noel, is widely acknowledged as an expert and is credited (pg. 77) to contributing to NCAA Record Book national championship section.


 * The real way to do this would be to define "consensus" as a school obtaining the majority of all selectors, or both polls, or a point system of some sort the way it is done to official list All-American selections as Consensus. However, there is no official (NCAA) existing criteria to do this for National Championships (and the NCAA actually doesn't recognize National Championships in the FBS, it only lists their selections by 3rd party selectors). The article needs reconstructed to remove the false notion that there are "consensus" selections unless anyone has a valid 3rd party sources that would suggest otherwise. As far as I am aware, and I've looked into this for some time, such a thing doesn't exist. I'm willing to try to revamp this article accordingly, but want to give the issue time to air out in the discussion forum first because football MNCs are such a emotional topic for some. CrazyPaco (talk) 00:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe user:Iowa 13 created the tables. Bcspro (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article displays a gross misunderstanding of the term "consensus national champion." Ohio State, for example, was listed as having 7 consensus national championships...except that Ohio State itself does not claim a "consensus national championship" for the 1970 or 1961 seasons (where their only major select was the FWAA), only a national championship. I therefore added some tOSU sources where it is acknowledged that the 2002 national championship was tOSU's first consensus national championship since 1968. I don't mean to pick on Ohio State, as I'm sure there are many other national championships listed in the table that weren't actually consensus championships, but it calls into question the accuracy of much of the section.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 21:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Like I said, until the chart is settled, don't change it just for one team. I beleve that every source will have different information as to what is consensus and what isn't. The NCAA does not crown a champion, but to they recognize certain polls are being "consensus"? Bcspro (talk) 23:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think they aren't really recognizing certain polls as being consensus. After all, how is one particular selector a consensus? One could maybe surmise that they are referring to a consensus of popular opinion that a particular selector is the most legitimate of selectors? However, this is not described or referenced anywhere and the NCAA only makes the designation of "major selectors" in their record book so we are left guessing what it means by "consensus".  What I can ascertain from this web page is that they are defining the era  where the AP and coaches polls predominated as the "consensus era", not designating particular selectors as such. They probably don't want to endorse any one over the other since they have nothing to do with it in the first place. The page you are referring to is an abbreviated list of their record book.  From a practicality point of view, the beginning of the two poll system began an era where consensus national champions was more legitimately possible (when both AP and coaches selected the same team).  During this period, it became the generally accepted practice to consider the AP and coaches selections as the legitimate national champions picks (as is still done today, but throwing in the BCS).  No school claims a championship during this era that didn't come from one of those two polls. Therefore  it could also be that, as mentioned above, the consensus opinion was that AP and coaches polls' selections were the legitimate national champions. I think this is somewhat the NCAA was going for in this web list (however, I have no reference to actually use to integrate this opinihttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:NCAA_Division_I_FBS_National_Football_Championship&action=editon into the wikipedia article), but I don't know if you can actually list two teams and say they were both "consensus" because it violates the meaning of the word, and certainly, you can not apply that to the earlier championships they have listed in the previous eras. I absolutely agree that the lists in the existing wikipedia article should remain as is until it is further sorted out.  In fact, the data could stay the same, as long as "consensus" is used consistently or changed appropriately to reflect the actual references it comes from. CrazyPaco (talk) 00:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and changed it. Just because there are, most likely, some other teams erroneously credited in the table with a consensus national championship in a given year is not adequate justification to keep information about another team that we know is inaccurate.  The Ohio State Athletic Department itself does not recognize 1970 and 1961 as "consensus" national championship seasons.  Neither can we.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 00:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Because there is no such thing as "Consensus" as it is being used in this article, and no one has been able to provide a reference to suggest otherwise, what are the objections to changing "Consensus" to "CFDW Recognized National Champions" instead?  CFDW is the only resource I can find that has researched all of the selectors and selections on a year-by-year basis and from list made a list of their own "recognized champions".  Also, Tex Noel who contributes to CFDW is a regarded expert in college football history and, as noted above, is even listed as a resource in the NCAA record book. CFDW recognized selections would then be the source of the bolded or italicized teams in the all-inclusive year-by-year National Championship Table.  The given source of "Consensus" only applies to the list of national champions on the NCAA webpage from 1950 to 2003. These teams could also be bolded or italicized (whatever is not used to indicate CFDW selections) as there are some differences between those and CFDW. All the other champions in that table could come from the year-by-year list in the NCAA record book (or CFDW). Keep in mind that the NCAA does not ever speak to the legitimacy of one selector or champion over any other nor officially recognize any selectors or champions, it simply lists most of them (even the ones that aren't considered legitimate by the popular standards of today, such as the NY Times computer poll).  This is the goal though, as we must use reliable sources to cite information and not to delve into original research.CrazyPaco (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I have not read any discussion on this topic so forgive me if this was already metioned. For the tables we should replace consensus with major meaning the AP, Coaches, NFF, etc not the sagarin, computer polls and others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.11.2.51 (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What was major though in 1920? Everyone here knows these days the AP, Coaches, and BCS are the major selectors but we need third party reliable sources to determine what those were for the early years and that is certainly hard to come by.  For instance, I'm not convinced in 1936 that the AP poll, in its first year, had the legitimacy or importance that we retroactively assign to it today (much like how the NIT was as big or bigger of a post-season tournament in the 40s).  In my opinion, CFDW selections of champions are the best researched for a determination of which are each season's most legitimate selections.  It is a freely available third party resource with expertise that is cited by the official NCAA record book. It also avoids WP:OR. In terms of what I think you are getting at, the table listing the polls (AP/Coaches/BCS) covers what you are implying as "major selectors" pretty well. CrazyPaco (talk) 06:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to get feedback for the All-time year-by-year table. All champions listed in the NCAA record book list of all-time champions from "major selectors" would be included. College Football Data Warehouse recognized selections would be in bold, consensus selections (1950-current according to NCAA record book) would be underlined, and we can keep retroactive selections italicized (although that it sort of unnecessary as they are described already in the tables of selectors). This would essentially replicate what was previously attempted in extending the consensus selectors to the earlier times but avoid the violation of WP:OR. CrazyPaco (talk) 06:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Do soccer games belong in the list?
Whatever Parke said, I don't think soccer games belong in the list of college football championships. All the games before 1875 were soccer games. The 1869 Princeton-Rutgers game might have looked like American football or rugby or something else, but it was played by the rules of "Association Football" written by the Football Association in London. That game is now called soccer in the U.S. Rugby-style football between American college teams began in 1875. --1spendy (talk) 18:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As long as that is what the record books show as the starting year (1869), I would say that it should probably stay listed as the starting year. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with Cardsplayer4life. It has long been established that the 1869 game between Rutgers and Princeton was the first collegiate football game. Have to avoid OR. CrazyPaco (talk) 00:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Info box
Having Florida as the "current champion" strikes me as original research or POV. The article talks about all the orgs that give NCs, and recognizes Utah as the "current champion" of a few of those. Why, then, does Florida get the inclusion in the info box? And, yes, I hate the BCS as much as those that...well...hate the BCS. I say, playoffs, but that's not what we have. Newguy34 (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably a good move. I was attempting to leave out contentious information such as "Team with most championships" or "Conference with most championships" or anything like that, since there is obviously big disagreement (as outlined in past conversations here) on what that means. I didn't realize at the time that including the Florida Gators as the current champ would be contentious, but as you point out it is. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 07:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Revised infobox is looking good. Newguy34 (talk) 08:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Harris Poll
Why the inclusion of the Harris Poll in the Year-by-Year? Good question, because no one thinks the final Harris Poll #1 is a national championship. Unfortunately, the year-by-year table is comprehensive listing of poll championships listed in the 2008 NCAA Record Book (see page 81). To remove Harris arbitrarily might be construed the same as removing all the other national poll championships that are not AP or Coaches' poll selections and that, unfortunately, violates No Original Research rule of Wikipedia. We all know that since 1950, that popularly no one considers the non-AP/Coaches poll selections to be national champions, and that is why there is a separate table of just the polls. However, it is impossible to determine the general national consensus prior to the two poll system with so many other selectors and a much less standardized and established system. The NCAA doesn't even attempt to decipher this, deciding instead to list "major selections" and leaving it up for the reader to decide. CFBDW has an even more comprehensive listing, but then does try to decide which are most legitimate and that is why that is now used in the table instead of consensus (because consensus as defined by the NCAA does not exist before the two poll system initiated in 1950)....that and because the co-collaborator of CFBDW is actually cited by the NCAA as having been consulted on the national championship section (satisfying expert knowledge criteria of Wikipedia). The problem is that there are really only two readily available comprehensive listings of national championship selectors: the NCAA record book and College Football Data Warehouse, everything else out there is not as comprehensive or a distillation of those two. I would love to get rid of Harris on the year-by-year table, but I do not know how to do it for a comprehensive poll listing using the NCAA Record Book as a source without violating WP:OR. A small consolation is the fact that many early polls, including the AP, were also conducted prior to the bowls so it is sort of a throwback poll. Perhaps instead of National Championships (Year-by-Year) the heading should be changed to National Poll Champions (Year-by-Year) as this is how it is headlined in the record book. As it is, strictly sticking to the mostly neutral third-party source material seems the best way to keep this opinionated and controversial article as non-biased as possible. Please feel free to list other possible solutions that can maintain the comprehensive nature of the poll and not violate the original research rule. CrazyPaco (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and changed the section heading to try to diffuse some of the controversy. It now reads National Poll Champions and Championship Selections (Year-by-Year).  Awkward, but I think it is accurate and straight forward. Please leave suggestions. CrazyPaco (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * After thought and discussion, I have decided to reverse course and remove the Harris Poll. As BCSpro has noted, it does not conduct a final poll, nor does it name or reward a national champion. It is commissioned by the BCS only to help determine its standings.  I do believe the NCAA Record is in error in listing this poll because it misinterprets its purpose.  Because the poll has only existed since 2005, I believe the editors of the NCAA Records Book are in error in including it and they have likely not consulted the outside experts they seemingly did for their original list of "major selectors".
 * .... Further strengthening my opinion that the editors of the NCAA record book have gotten sloppy is the disagreement between CFBDW and the NCAA record book as to Harry DeVold's final selection as national champion in 2006. The NCAA has it listed as Florida and CFBDW has it as Ohio State. In addition, for 2007 the NCAA seems to have replaced listing all individual selectors that participate in the BCS system with just listing the final BCS champion.  It is noted just after that "Present Major Selectors" include BCS*, AP, FW, NFF, and Coaches (it mistakenly lists the Coaches' twice). The * notation next to BCS also mistakenly states that it includes all selectors which is also incorrect as the Seattle Times selected Missouri.  Thankfully, I have yet to find discrepancies between the NCAA and CFBDW prior to this.  However, it seems that seeing where the NCAA goes with this in their next record book will be useful.
 * ..... I have therefore gone ahead and removed the Harris poll titles from the Year-by-Year chart while adding notes as to why they are excluded from the list that is otherwise derived in its entirely from the NCAA Record Book. This is uncomfortably treading along WP:OR, and can certainly be reversed (though my guess is that no one is dying to put it back in the chart).  Again, the primary concerns are compromising the chart with original research that may lead to later biased-edits.  Please leave commentary addressing this issue if you feel strongly about it. thank you. CrazyPaco (talk) 00:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

New organized article
According to previous discussion, I have gone ahead and reorganized the article. The goal was primarily to eliminate original research from the article so that it was present as a non-biased delivery of information on college football national championships. To this end I have relied primarily on the official NCAA Division I College Football Records Book and College Football Data Warehouse as reliable, expert, third-party sources of information. Because national championship counts are often controversial, hopefully the sole reliance on these sources will make it standardized and comprehensive enough to provide non-biased information and allow readers to draw their own conclusions about a championship's legitimacy. To this end, I have tried to eliminate as much interpretation from the article as possible and standardize the information presented. I also reorganized the sections so that they would more logically flow together. I hope these changes have upgraded and strengthened the article, and will also make it easier to maintain. I would like to note that I did verify the information in the CFBDW Recognized National Championship tables and in Poll-era tables, but I have not yet had time to verify all of the information in Year-by-Year and Total All-Time tables from the NCAA Record Book. CrazyPaco (talk) 23:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Stop putting "mythical" in the top summary of this article
Please stop putting mythical in the top of this article, this is considered vandalism to wikipedia. The use of the term mythical is putting an opinion into an article and presenting it as fact. Wikipedia is not the place to be airing grievances about the college football system in NCAA D1A. If you want to create a sub-section regarding the OPINION that people have in terms of the disagreement about the current system. The use of the term "mythical" does not belong in the upper summery section of this article.

There are no actual NEWS articles that refer to the use of the term "mythical national championship" the only use of this term is through blogs or opinion pieces in articles. There are no official documents anywhere that refer to this championship as mythical, and it does both the article and Wikipedia as a whole a huge dis-service by trying to portray an opinion as a fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.67.105 (talk) 02:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * First off, please sign your comments with 4 ~'s so people don't have to sign them for you like I just had to do. Secondly, you would likely be better served discussing this on the Mythical national championship article page, as this term is pretty well established already. Third, there are indeed lots of news stories using the exact phrase "mythical national championship"(note: default for Google News is only back for 1 month; click other dates for further back), which proves both its widespread use, and its verifiability for inclusion on wikipedia. It is not an opinion that there is a term for non-playoff championships; Just because you are not fond of the term itself does not mean it is not a recognized term. I personally happen to be a fan of the BCS in its current form, but I realize that "mythical national championship" is the term used to describe non-playoff systems. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 08:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you need a lesson on what the difference between a "fact" and an "opinion" are. A colloquial term is not a fact. Also, there are no actual news sources who refer to the Championship as mythical, it's not recorded in the record books as mythical, and the trophy they receive is not mythical. If you or anyone wants to make a note about it as a sub-section since there no consensus about the actual "truth", that in and of itself makes it impossible for it to be considered a "fact" and it shouldn't be in the summery section at the top of the article. I also submit that if you have a group of people who all get together and agree to a system of how to determine a champion, it takes away a majority of the ability for it to really be considered "mythical". Also, there aren't ANY actual news stories where the actual story calls it a mythical national championship, what you have are stories that quote other people as calling it a mythical national championship, or a blog or editorial/opinion piece which calls it that. You may want to get a better understanding the difference between news and an opinion. Thats really the point.
 * Address it somewhere, but keep the use of the term out of the summery if it is going to be included in this article at all, or go with the edit I am about to do which properly addresses the non-consensus opinion that is held by some people. 65.96.67.105 (talk) 18:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that's enough with the disruptive edits and POV. The term is clearly defined in Wikipedia, is properly used here, and iss a term that has a long history of consensus around its use.  Newguy34 (talk) 19:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The term is far from "clearly defined" and there is no real consensus about the use of the term, especially due to it not being used in any mainstream NEWS sources. I have adjusted the article which includes the term and also clearly states that it is not an fact, but an opinion held by some, not all people. The manner in which you edited the article is misleading and shows a slanted point of view based on opinion, not fact.
 * Yes, please stop. Take it up on the other page and submit it for deletion or something if you want to. (it will swiftly be voted as a "keep", I assure you) There are many "actual news stories" if you go to the link I provided. (Not opinion pieces, pieces on actual real different sports stories that are not editorials, blogs, or opinion pieces. However, it doesn't matter if it is opinions or editorials for purposes of inclusion on wikipedia; See: Verifiability.) You also say "it's not recorded in the record books as mythical, and the trophy they receive is not mythical"; The different record books (clearly listed) is in fact what makes it a mythical championship, as well as the different trophies given by different agencies. (if a playoff determined the winner, there wouldn't be this disagreement) The fact is, this is a well established phrase that is widely used, and the inclusion in this article is well within the accepted definition of the phrase. Also, please keep in mind the three revert rule that you are far outstripping at this point. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have included the term in my edit, and it is perfectly reasonable edit that is far more reasonable and is a much better explanation via a neutral point of view, which is really the point and goal of wikipedia is it not? This is supposed to be a neutral fact based site right? By referring to something the way you are doing it, and trying to portray something as fact is misleading and fails to pass the Neutral_point_of_view -- Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors.
 * My edits are not vandalism, they are actually improving the article in order to maintain the neutral point of view by making sure that all significant views are represented properly in the article in order to not appear misleading to the casual user who is reading the article.65.96.67.105 (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutrality is indeed a cornerstone, but so is verifiability. Imagine if the article on Earth were only to include in a subsection the fact that it is a widely held opinion that it is spherical in shape instead of flat because Flat Earth Society members believe it to be flat? This would be "neutral", in relation to them, but would be ridiculous because of our current scientific understanding of the world. (Yes, I completely understand this is a ridiculous and unrelated example, but I had to give an unrelated example to show that we both agree that some things are not strictly meant to be neutral.) It is not misleading to say that the championship is a "mythical national championship", because that is a widely accepted phrase for the way the championship is determined. If I were to say "double play" or "grand slam" (for a baseball game), or "Sweet Sixteen" (in reference to the NCAA basketball tournament), or tell you that a college football player was "redshirting" or "grayshirting", or any of a thousand commonly accepted phrases, you would know instantly what I meant. (assuming you were familiar with the sport being discussed) These are phrases that have entered the lexicon, and just because you personally disagree with the phrase does not make it any less valid. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is the point, you are using the term mythhical in a manner which makes it appear as a 100% fact to anyone who reads the article who isn't familiar with the sport or the current situation, it is a colloquial term that is not known to everyone - especially those who don't follow it closely, it is not not the actual word used to describe it by the member schools of the teams who are members of the FBS. This IS the actual championship as it is named by the members of the FBS, it is referred to by some people as mythical due to how it is determined. That is a huge difference between reality and perception. 65.96.67.105 (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I would appreciate it if you could please explain what the exact problem is with my alteration of the language used is in regards to this article. I have maintained all information and used language to clarify the actual meaning behind the use of the terms in the summery. It improves readability and understanding for anyone unfamiliar with topic, which is the real purpose of an article, it's to educate those who do not know.65.96.67.105 (talk) 20:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

<---(Moving indent back) Fine, it is a colloquial term; So are all the other examples I gave. (Someone not familiar with college football could read a phrase like "XXXX redshirted their first season at the University of Southern California" and conclude they wore a red shirt the whole year; Just because everyone in the world is not familiar with a term is not grounds for removing it.) Your essential argument seems to be that the word "mythical" is a pejorative term. That is the same argument some non-science-literate individuals use when they confuse a scientific Theory with the commonly confused word "theory". (They mean dramatically different things in case you were wondering; and no I am not turning this into a science debate, haha.) Nevertheless, even if it were indeed a pejorative term, as you seem to be claiming, that would still not mean it should be removed. The phrase itself means a certain thing that is clearly understood to those who know about it. (also, the term is in quotation marks, clearly distinguishing it from something that is being stated as a clear cut fact, and linked to for further information for those that might not know what it means) It is indeed vandalism to continually remove/change content on a wikipedia article when the consensus has been determined not to take that action. (which is clearly the case here; You are the only one arguing the other side and several people keep reverting your edits.) This is especially the case when you go beyond the previously invoked three revert rule. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 20:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The term was not removed in the more recent edits I made, yes, the initial edits I made removed it completely, but in thinking about it I have realized that it should be included, hence the different way in which I was including the information in my more recent edits. The more recent edits allow for both points of view in a much better manner. Referring to it as mythical is a 100% point of view held by people outside the organization, while referring to it as mythical is not the point of view held by the people who are in the organization and agreed upon the method of determining. That is the reason why the manner in which the "mythical" tag is better off the way my more recent edits are presenting the information. I have not vandalized the article with the more recent edits since vandalism is the removal of information to the detriment of the article, my most recent edits have not removed any information, they have only further clarified the understanding of the topic by making sure that anyone reading the article understands the difference in dissenting opinions about the use of the term.TheTruthLeadsMe (talk) 20:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I see you registered for a screen name to get around your edit war block; Nice. As I said earlier, you would likely be better suited attempting to get the "mythical national championship" article either removed or significantly altered before making changes here since the article is clearly linked to for clarification. I have tried to explain the reasoning for inclusion a number of different ways, but you still do not seem to be understanding. (You keep harping on this term "mythical", which I have explained I think 3 different ways now.) I really do not have anything else to add here unless you have specific questions or objections to points I have raised. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, TheTruthLeadsMe, you asked for it and we aim to please. I have added references to at least seven (7) reliable sources that refer to the NCAA DI FBS championship as "mythical."  Remember, Wiki is not about fact.  Wiki is not about the truth.  Wiki is about verifiability.  We have added such to the article as it relates to your issue with the term "mythical" so we are, as I see it, done with this discussion.  Wiki's rules are clear.  Follow them or kindly don't participate.  Thanks.  Newguy34 (talk) 22:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have edited it one more time, ALL CONTENT AND REFERENCES REMAIN, the context was altered in order to more clearly explain what this is, as well as address the controversy while keeping the article as neutral as possible. I see no need to do anything over at the Mythical National Championship article, nor do I see any reason for it to be deleted. The issue with this article was the way the top paragraph was skewed via a point of view. Which, just for the record, I agree with, but the way this article was written, someone who knows nothing about the situation would have been confused and mislead. TheTruthLeadsMe (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction tag
I see no real contradiction between the articles. The main contradiction is in how the Top 10 article is counting its national championships as it appears to be using two different methods: 1) CFBDW for the Ivys and 2) individual university's own claims for the others. Other methods to calculate championships, such as from an individual school's individual claims, may be valid as there is no one way to calculate totals, and that is certainly could be viewed as a legitimate way to calculate them. In fact those number could be added to this article and I myself have contemplated that. However, using two different methods in the same chart, such as the top 10 article does, is inconsistent and therefore I feel can be misleading and probably violates WP:SYN. In contrast, I feel this national championship article is well referenced with neutral 3rd-party sources (NCAA, CFBDW). I see little contradiction of this article with the Top 10 article though, just its own internal contradictions.

A list of universities' official claims could be useful in this article. However, such a list wouldn't be as extensive because it will be very hard to weed through every school's claims (I guess via their media guides), and some claims (see Boston College) are very dubious. However, I guess it would be just official school claims, so it wouldn't matter how dubious they may be to the public at large. However, determining what is a school's official claim vs that of a fan involved in boosterism may be difficult. However, I think it would be beneficial to collect opinions on whether to add such a Nat. Champ. table to this article, under a new additional subheading, as long as each entry was referenced as is done in the Top 10 article.

As a side point, the entirety of the top 10 article seems to violate WP:NPOV and WP:OR as well, since it arbitrarily decided to cut off the list at 10. It also duplicates NCAA division I football win-loss records. I can't figure out why such an article is necessary, it borders on WP:Spam in my opinion. CrazyPaco (talk) 04:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with the last paragraph (well, probably all three, but especially the last one). Why not the "Top 10" based on fight songs, or uniforms, or cheerleaders (yes, 'SC wins!), or any other arbitrary distinction?  I think the Top 10 article is a good AfD candidate, which would also solve the contradiction issue.  My two cents (well, less given the market's performance lately).  Newguy34 (talk) 04:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As is, it should be AfD and I don't think it would survive, but I'd like to give the editors a chance to address the issues. I've commented as such on the disscusion for that article.  I hate nominating any article for AfD (I'm sort of an inclusionist), but it is just so arbitrary with the cut-off at 10. I certainly won't stand in the way of an AfD nomination for it. CrazyPaco (talk) 05:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, nothing has been addressed in the Top 10 article or on its discussion page in over two months. Anyone want to nominate it for AfD or redirect it to NCAA Division I football win-loss records? ACrazyPaco (talk) 04:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

New NCAA record book
The 2009 Official NCAA Football Records Book is out. The Official NCAA Records book list of "Major Selectors" selections is the basis for the Major National Poll Champions and Championship Selections (Year-by-Year) table in the article. The list of National Champions selected by "major selectors" in this table is essentially identical to that in the record books. Through 2006, the criteria of the champions listed in the records book is consistent, with the exception that the use of the Harris Poll since 2005 is in complete error since, as noted in the table's introduction, the Harris Poll specifically states it does not name a national champion. However there are now additional discrepancies and issues with the champions from 2007 and 2008 as listed in the records books that I think warrant consideration and discussion. It seems that recent additions to this list in the official records books have been added in a manner inconsistent with previous years revealing that the more recent listings of selections in the records books are incomplete and, frankly, sloppy.

In the 2008 Official NCAA Record Book LSU was listed as the champion for 2007 and all selectors are listed as selecting LSU. This list of 2007's "major selectors" consolidated some of the "major selectors" previously listed separately under the "BCS", and for LSU this resulted in an abbreviated/incomplete list of "major selectors" compared to previous seasons. In the 2008 record book, Dunkel was listed separately, but incorrectly included in the list selecting LSU in 2007, when in fact it had selected USC. In the 2009 Records Book, it has been corrected to show that the Dunkel actually picked USC as its 2007 selection and the 2009 records book now has USC listed separately as a champion.

The result is for the 2007 season, LSU and USC (Dunkel) are now listed as championship selections. However, another designated major selector (Seattle Times A&H) picked Missouri in 2007, but the Tigers are not listed as a selection in the official records book despite Seattle Times A&H selections being listed separately in previous seasons. This is true for the 2008 season as Utah is not listed as a championship selection despite its selection by the three previously designated "major selectors". The issue is, for the 2007 and 2008 seasons, the record book is not listing the all of the selections from the "major selectors", and because of the error correction, there is now a discrepancy on which selections/selectors are listed in the records book, seemingly giving undue preference to some over others mainly due to sloppy error correction. It seems to me that the NCAA records book is no longer adding selections in a consistent or well thought out manner, beginning in 2005 when it erroneously started listing Harris as a selector. Potentially, only near unanimous selections in 2005 and 2006 prevented additional omissions for those seasons.

The question is how to continue with the chart: either 1) adding all selections that have been named by the selectors designated as "major" in the NCAA records book (as the article's table has done so far), ear-regardless of the teams themselves being listed as selections (e.g. Utah 2008); or 2) using the inconsistently applied listing of the teams selected in the records book (seemingly unfairly including USC (2007) but not Missouri (2007) or Utah (2008))? CrazyPaco (talk) 07:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected status for this article?
Lots of vandalism and unsourced edits. Thoughts? CrazyPaco (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That'd be good, especially given the time of year we are in and the resulting rivalries, etc. QueenofBattle (talk) 21:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Move to NCAA Division I FBS national football championship
Thoughts?—NMajdan &bull;talk 18:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Decapatalizing the title to "national football championship" is probably more accurate because "NCAA Division I FBS National Football Championship" isn't an official title. As it stands, the title may be misinterpreted that it is a championship awarded by the NCAA, instead of a broader idea of a championship awarded by various organizations to teams competing within the NCAA Division 1 FBS. I would be ok with the move. CrazyPaco (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Then, on thinking about it with FBS being such a new term and the article covering the entire history of championships, perhaps it should be moved to something else: College football national championship (highest level of play) or College football national championship (NCAA Divsion 1 FBS) or College football national championship (top level)? CrazyPaco (talk) 23:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, for the title it wouldn't be accurate, in terms of grammar, with the exception of a, an, the, of, for, and other minor words in a title, all others should be capitalized.76.19.168.81 (talk) 02:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Claimed titles table
I've completed in my sandbox of a table of sourced claims on national championships by every applicable school. Input on how to integrate into this article, or into its own separate article would be appreciated. I would think it may fit either as the lead table (because the infoboxes for each team used "Claimed national titles") or to slip it in right after the first table derived from the NCAA Records Book (which I believe is probably better). I also think the table of CFBDW FBS National Champions should probably be eliminated. There seems to be no necessity to have this duplicative table.

The information in the table and sources must specifically indicate which national titles the school claims and come from the institution itself (either the athletic website or media guide in most cases). Please let me know if you any thoughts or objections to me including this list in this article. CrazyPaco (talk) 02:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The table of National championship claims by school is now inserted into the article. CrazyPaco (talk) 23:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Information about this article
I thought it might be worth it to provide a simple description about the purpose and content of this article for new editors who may not be familiar with the topic on what is a reasonably controversial topic.

This article attempts to provide and overview of the concept of college football national champions for the entirety of the history of the sport. A primary point for this article is that there is not now, nor ever has been an "official" NCAA national champion in FBS/D1A football. Therefore, there is no "official" publication or website beyond those of the individual independent selectors, of which the current AP and Coaches' polls are only two, listing yearly national championships. The closest the sport has ever had to a true championship is the modern BCS Championship game which began with the 1998 football season. However, the current BCS Championship Game is a BCS Championship, not an NCAA one, and the winner of the BCS is contractually awarded only the National Championships of the Coaches' Poll and the National Football Foundation.

Therefore, throughout college football history, each national championship selection, and corresponding commentary or decisions on the vailidity of various selections, in actuality represent only individual opinions (or the tabulation of opinions). Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that depends on the major tenants of No Original Research and Neutral Point of View, it is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article to comment on the validity of one selector or selection over another.

Thus, Wikipedia relies on expert Reliable Sources to provide an overview of the topic, and the prevailing consensus is that one of the most reliable and neutral of these is the Offical NCAA College Football Records Book (see page 76-81). The NCAA, with consultation from contemporary college football historians, has listed in its official records book a subset of national championship selectors deemed to be "major" for which the criteria is being "national in scope either through distribution in newspaper, television, radio and/or computer online". Therefore, the first table of National Championships in the article reproduces the list of all-time champions from "major" selectors exactly as it is found in the Official NCAA Records Book. This source is the basis for all other lists that may appear on the NCAA's website and therefore the Records Book list is seen as the "more official" or "more primary" source. Whether you or your school's official count agrees with the listings, the totals from that table are duplicated from reliable sourced material and do not in any way reflect the opinions of the editors of this article, but rather reflect the opinions of the college football historians that have worked with the NCAA to compile its list.

The second table of National Champions reproduces selections from College Football Data Warehouse, which is arguably the most heavily trafficked, popularly utilized, and widely cited historical college football resource on the internet. The content of this website is in part contributed by well-respected contemporary college football historian Tex Noel. The included table reproduces College Football Data Warehouse's singular opinion on the most legitimate national championship selections for each season and provides the article with a more selective all-time opinion/list than the inclusive NCAA one in the first table. This table provides an alternative opinion on the subject, as it is not derivative of the NCAA list, although it is consistent with it since the CFBDW selection for any particular season is always listed among those in the NCAA Official Records Book. It is recognized that this table represents only one opinion on this topic. A consensus for the inclusion of the CFBDW table was obtained because it is an alternative viewpoint and is a widely cited "selection of yearly selections" by a seemingly neutral "expert" opinion. It is also beneficial that it is available on-line which also permits the easy verification of edits to this article. Again, this Wikipedia article makes no statement as to the legitimacy or authoritativeness of the CFBDW list. As opinions will differ with those of this resource, the reader is directed to the articles on individual football teams for alternative national championship claims and counts.

The third table lists only the Poll Era National Champions, which is strictly a factual list of the compilation of opinions represented in those individual selectors, which post 1950, has generally been the most popularly accepted selectors.

In conclusion, this National Championship article attempts to provide the reader with three different interpretations of national champions 1) the more inclusive NCAA Championship list found in the Official NCAA College Football Records Book 2) an alternative viewpoint represented by the intermediately selective CFBDW selections, and 3) the major poll selections which started in 1936 with the AP and 1950 with the Coaches Poll. The goal of the article, in an attempt to maintain the WIkipedia policies of No Original Research and Neutral Point of View, is to present the reader with more variety, more comprehensive data, and more references than most other websites and publications that list yearly college football national champions. In attempting to do so, the article rightfully makes no comment as to which lists or totals are more legitimate, instead leaving it to the reader to decide, and suggesting additional resources by which the reader can explore the topic. CrazyPaco (talk) 18:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)