Talk:College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS/Archive 2011

Confrence shift of 2011
Because of the confrence shifts upcomming in the 2011 (Nebraska) and 2012 (Colorado) some of the charts will need editing such as "National poll championships by conference membership at the time (1936–present)." However considering the title in the section includes 'present' I belive these graphs should not be updated until the season of the moves, or at least include footnotes as to why the change in the artical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peacekeeper 1234 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no need to move them until the moves are officially completed. Everyone is still a member of their original conference. CrazyPaco (talk) 00:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Nebraska is now listed as part of the B10 per NCAA website. Time to make the change?
 * The official date for Nebraska's move is July 1, 2011. CrazyPaco (talk) 20:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

1947
The fact that Notre Dame is included on this list of winning the poll championship for that year is laughable. Michigan beat all their opponents by a wider margin; won the Rose Bowl handily; and was declared the National Champion by a post-bowl poll vote. Apparently, the Irish still "memorialize" their "National Championship" with a statue on campus. We all know who the true National Champions were that season.VictorsValiant09 (talk) 18:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That year's national championship is sourced like every other season's. — X96lee15 (talk) 01:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * In addition to X96lee15's response, like or not, before the system that is now the BCS, the most prominent designator of the national championship was the Associated Press poll of sportswriters. And in 1947, the AP voters voted Notre Dame #1. At that time, most if not all of the major polls did not conduct a final poll after the bowl games, so the regular season determined the national champion. Given your handle, you appear to be a Michigan fan, i.e., biased. And putting aside the issue of original research, how many 1947 Notre Dame games did you see? How many 1947 Michgan games? As for margin of victory, some teams run up the score more than others. So your basis for what you claim "[w]e all know" would appear to be limited. More importantly, it is irrelevant to the information presented, which appears to have a well-established neutral format. N'Awlins Contrarian 19:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by N'Awlins Contrarian (talk • contribs)


 * Upon further review: According to the entry AP Poll: "The AP national championship was awarded before bowl games were played. At the end of the 1947 season when [sic] the AP released an unofficial post-bowl poll which differed from the regular season final poll.[4] The AP conducted its first full post bowl game poll in 1965." The associated footnote says, "The official final AP poll, taken before the bowls, had Notre Dame #1 (107 first place votes) and Michigan #2 (25 first place votes). Michigan won the Rose Bowl 49-0 over USC while Notre Dame did not play in a bowl game. Detroit Free Press sports editor Lyall Smith arranged a post-bowl AP poll with only Michigan or Notre Dame as choices. Michigan won that poll 266-119. Kyrk, John. Natural Enemies. pp. 142–7. ISBN 1589790901." Now how a poll that was (1) unofficial, (2) arranged by a Michigan (i.e., presumably biased for one of the two teams) sportswriter, and (3) not conducted in the normal voting manner (at that time, for twenty teams--so the voters not have the option to put one of the teams #3, #4, or whatever) could be regarded as neutral, or indeed of any moment, is beyond me, but there you have it. N'Awlins Contrarian 19:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by N'Awlins Contrarian (talk • contribs)

Despite all of your points, isn't it interesting that all of my indicators of Michigan's dominance that season still stand out? The most prominent of which, is that Michigan destroyed their opponent in a bowl game, and Notre Dame didn't even play in a bowl game. Of course, no one could "watch" any of those games, but of the limited footage I have seen, and the research I've read, Michigan looked pretty unstoppable to me. Finally, it's not your place to say who and what is biased; this issue is between Michigan and Notre Dame, and if they had settled it on the field that season, but we'll never know.VictorsValiant09 (talk) 02:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protect request
I have put in a request for temporary semi-protect for this article because of the large number of bad, unsourced, and vandalistic IP edits following the BCS national championship game. CrazyPaco (talk) 06:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Total championship selections from major selectors by school
What are the sources for this table? There are no sources for the totals given, and the list does not cite how the numbers were reached. I was able to find a justification for Michigan being listed with 22, but the same logic would not then apply to Ohio State, which is listed with 13.98.239.7.135 (talk) 19:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Sporting News as a Major Selector
I know the NCAA Records book lists Sporting News as a major selector, but I have not been able to find any polls or rankings published by them since 2006. Does anyone know if they are actually still producing end-of-year rankings? I can't seem to find anything on their website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolenath (talk • contribs) 20:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I even emailed Sporting News and they had no idea what I was talking about... Dolenath (talk) 19:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The editors of the NCAA Records Book have gotten very sloppy with national championship and major selectors in the last five or six years. That has made the more recent updates inconsistent with how the original table listed national championships, which I believe was done very well. I think the BCS incorporating many of the polls made it messy and confusing for them, or simply too much work for them to bother with. And lets be honest, the BCS unified the selection for many polls so now those individual selections are meaningless since they are all incorporated into the BCS. This era is very different than even 20 years ago when things like the NYTimes Computer Poll, while minor, at least had a little of its own publicity/clout. I've even emailed them with some corrections and concerns (for instance, Harris has never, ever picked a national champion, as their poll is only used up until the BCS selections are made and even their website says, or at least used to say as much, although the NCAA Records book lists them as a NC selector). However, the Record Book editors, at least previously, have been non-responsive. In contrast, I've had responsiveness and conversation from some of the historical "experts" that the the NCAA consulted to construct the table. In any case, if the Sporting News no longer has a final poll, then it is of my opinion that it should be indicated on the table when that ended and removed from the selectors list in the yearly champions sections. That may be difficult to cite appropriately other than by adding a footnote as was done for the Harris poll issue. CrazyPaco (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Texas voted 1918 champ by unrecognized poll
I was going through the list of champions today when I noticed Texas voted champion in 1918 by the CM poll. CM is Colley Matrix and did not select a 1918 champion. A little research showed that this vote was by the Cliff Morgan Ratings, who I do not see listed as an official major selector. Therefore, I would venture to suggest that this title should be removed from the list and Texas's total should be reduced to 13. Sorry if that offends anyone but it seems fair.

Wittichen (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Good catch Wittichen! The NCAA Records Book confirms that. Thanks for the edits. CrazyPaco (talk) 04:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like Texas's 1945 MCSR title should also be removed. The MCFR poll is Massey College Football Ratings, but did not select a 1945 champion.  The Texas Wikipedia page I referenced before mentions that some polls voted for Texas but does not name them.Wittichen (talk) 20:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Several bad entries for Texas have been snuck into the table. I took care of the rest, and verified all the other entries. The table should be correct now. CrazyPaco (talk) 02:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protect request
I'm going to request temp semi-protect status due to anonymous IPs making disruptive and incorrect edits in the wake of today's news of USC being stripped of its BCS championship. Any qualms? CrazyPaco (talk) 04:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Intro
A recent edit changed the number of National Championships claimed by the Washington from 2 to 4, and removed the following footnote: "'Washington's media guide depicts official recognition for only the 1960 and 1991 National Championships, as depicted on a stadium flag, although it lists championships for 1984 and 1990.'"

The reference supporting this change to four claims cites the 2011 Washington Husky Media Guide (more accurately, only the portion of the 2010 media guide that has been updated with 2010 season statistics: the full 2010 media guide is not actually available on-line). The list of championships is identical copy to the previous reference citing the same portion of the 2009 media guide (no longer available on-line).

It is my intention to start a discussion to arrive at the most accurate current official claims of the University of Washington. Although I have the impression that a claim of two (1960 and 1991) is more accurate, I do not have access to the latest media guide to verify this. I wish to build a consensus as to the most accurate or most official claim.

Before laying out the evidence for both number of claims, please keep in mind that this discussion is only about what the University of Washington itself officially claims. The legitimacy of those claims, or the individual national championship selectors naming or not naming Washington as a national champion, has no bearing on the claims of the school itself. The "National championship claims by school" table is only concerned with the opinion and claims of the schools themselves, not anyone else. If you aren't already familiar with the College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS article, it may be a good idea to read it over.

Claim of 4
The citation supporting a claim of 4 National Championships is here. It is from the updated Record Book portion of the 2010 Washington Huskies football media guide and is only available on-line, as the 2011 full edition of the media guide has not yet been published. On page 67 it lists four championships and their selectors. It does not seem to comment on the school's actual claims. Its appearance is similar to some other schools' media guides where a school's claims number less than the total selections (some schools will list all of the more obscure, but typically unrecognized selectors since the two-poll era began, but not necessarily claim them). In fact, Washington mentions the 1984 National Championship in its 2008 Media Guide without claiming it. (see page 47)

The four National Championships listed in Washington's 2010 media guide are 1960 (Helms); 1984 (Football News, Berryman, and the National Championship Foundation*); 1990 (FACT*); and 1991 (Coaches' Poll, NFF, FWA, NCF, etc.) * is a split selection.

Claim of 2
What is absolutely known is that until 2007, Washington only claimed the relatively universally recognized Coaches' Poll title in 1991 as its only National Championship. In 2007, Washington retroactively claimed the 1960 National Championship, elevating the status of that team to "National Champions" in all school references. This action was accompanied by an official press release and a special ceremony that included a banner raising. Here is part of the announcement made by the school: The university has decided to elevate the 1960 team's status to match that of the 1991 national champions in official UW publications. The 1960 team also will be recognized alongside the 1991 team with a national championship flag that will fly at Husky Stadium.

Washington's forgotten champions will be recognized Sept. 29 when the new Legends Center, which honors UW athletics history, opens on campus just north of the stadium. The current team also will mark the occasion by wearing 1960 throwback uniforms in its game that day against Southern California.

"Most of the players probably feel very strong about it because that's a hell of an honor to be named the No. 1 team in the nation and to be given some recognition of our team and what was accomplished by the University of Washington," said George Fleming, a halfback on the 1960 team. "... I'm not sure if we really thought about if it was the University of Washington that had forgotten us or if it was the national media or those boards that make those decisions." ref here

This elevation of the 1960 team to National Champion status by the school received regional and national media attention, somewhat due to its controversial nature, but any controversy of that claim is superfluous to this discussion.

In the 2008 Washington Husky football Media Guide, the most recent guide available in its entirety on-line, the school specifically highlights two national championships: 1960 and 1991. see 2008 Media Guide pages 205 & 206.

As of June 2009, Washington seemingly only recognized two football national championships as listed on the athletic department's official blog. see here.

As far as I am aware, to this day, the flag displaying the national championships in Husky Stadium only commemorates 1960 and 1991. I believe this is also true of a sign displaying only those two national titles on the closed endzone scoreboard. There has been no public announcement of any claim for 1990 or 1984.

Conclusion
There appears to be no change in the status of Washington's claims from 2009, where the school also listed the 4 National Championship selections without claiming 1984 and 1990. The 2008 Media Guide, the 2009 list of championships in the athletic department's official blog, current signage in Husky Stadium, and lack of official public acknowledgment of claiming additional titles as was done in 2007 would seem indicate that it would be appropriate to return the table's count of Washington's claims from 4 to 2 (1960 and 1991), while re-adding the footnote to designate that the other two championships (1984 and 1990) are listed in the media guide, if not officially claimed by the university.

Please add your comments, corrections, and thoughts to this discussion. CrazyPaco (talk) 06:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Response

Respectfully, I believe some of the above is misstated with respect to chronology and invents new criteria.

Here is the relevant article section: College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS

Here is the section's criteria to be met:

This table below includes only national championship claims originating from each particular school and therefore represents the point-of-view of each individual institution. Each total number of championships, and the years for which they are claimed, are documented by the particular school on its official website, in its football media guide, or in other official publications or literature (see Source). If a championship is not mentioned by a school for any particular season, regardless of whether it was awarded by a selector or listed in a third-party publication such as the Official NCAA Records Book, it is not considered to be claimed by that institution.

Here is a current inline citation from the official University of Washington 2011 Husky Football Record Book & Spring Guide, pg67 http://www.gohuskies.com/photos/schools/wash/sports/m-footbl/auto_pdf/post10recordbook.pdf

National Championships 1960 Helms Foundation 1984 Football News; Berryman; National Championship Foundation*; 1990 FACT* 1991 USA Today/CNN; UPI/National Football Foundation; Football Writers; Sports Illustrated; Berryman; Billingsley; DeVold, Dunkel; FACT*; FB News; Matthews; National Championship Foundation*; Sagarin
 * Selected multiple national champions

and identical references in other current official documents from the school including: http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/wash/sports/m-footbl/auto_pdf/post10recordbook.pdf

So in total, there are:
 * Four distinct championship seasons identified by major selectors.
 * Each is noted in the Official NCAA Division I Football Records Book.
 * The school has published multiple, current documents on the school's official athletics website which explicitly identify and categorize these four seasons as National Championships.
 * The school explicitly identifies the relevant selector(s) for each championship year/team claimed.
 * The article section states inclusion criteria of "documented by the particular school on its official website" which is sufficed by the above. Pasadena91 (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello Pasadenia91. Respectfully, would you care to explain how the chronology is not misstated (it is backed up by links and references and the dates were given for precise chronology)? In addition, there is nothing here that is changing the criteria of the "Claims by School" table. I am very familiar with it. I wrote, researched, and created the table. We are after factual accuracy about what UW itself claims, and only the titles claimed by the school, not lists of every championship selection by every known selector that appears in any one section of the media guide. This is what separates it from the NCAA Table of Major Selectors, as most schools do not claim the myriad of non-poll selectors in the "dual-poll era" (ie. post-1950; UW being one of the rare exceptions). It could be true that UW has changed their claims in the past year or two to include 1984 and 1990, however, there is doubt about whether this is so considering UW's prior modes of operation which have taken a very officialized and public stands on what they claim (unlike, for instance, Iowa and Georgia that are more ambiguous), as well as the content of their previous publications (which has previously listed unclaimed national championship selections). This is not an attempt to diminish UW's accomplishments (as these titles will still be listed in the NCAA Major Selectors Table), but it is simply an attempt to be as accurate as possible about each schools' actual claims because this compilation of information is singularly unique to Wikipedia.


 * None of the information you supplied above is new, nor does it address the issue of ambiguity of what the University of Washington, itself, claims for its national championships. Although the list of UW may very well be the current claim, precedent at UW would seem to suggest otherwise. Answers to the following questions, I believe, could definitively settle this issue (and perhaps someone can answer these).
 * Is is true that the University of Washington only displays banners and signage in Husky Stadium (or elsewhere) for 1960 and 1991 National Championships?
 * Does the 2010 Washington Football Media Guide specifically highlight only the 1960 and 1991 National Championships despite listing other selections similar to the way that the 2008 Media Guide did?


 * If the answers to both those questions is yes, UW's number of championship claims is undoubtedly equal to 2, and the relevant sections of the 2010 media guide (off-line though they are) should be cited to reflect that. If only the stadium signage is true, and the media guide is otherwise ambiguous, it would seem that erring on the side of caution by reverting the claim to 2 and reintroduce the footnote would be the appropriate course of action. If the previously displayed signage has been removed, and the commentary in the media guide on the championships is what is linked to the on-line record book, then I would agree that it would be a claim of 4. CrazyPaco (talk) 01:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I contacted someone at the University of Washington Athletics department who indicated that there are two permanent plaques at the west end of the stadium above the inside of the gate, and that to his knowledge only one flag (for the 1991 national championship) is flown at games. &mdash; Myasuda (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So the two plaques would be for 1960 and 1991 as seen below the scoreboard in this photo. That would certainly indicate at least it is true that the stadium signage provides for only two claims, and at worst the media guide is otherwise ambiguous, although the 2008 edition clearly highlights only 1960 and 1991. I will therefore revert to the original stated claim of two, that is backed up by the 2008 media guide and the precedent of the 1960 retro claim, and err on the side of caution by reintroduce the footnote. If anyone has a 2011 Media Guide for Washington, please indicate if the national championships are highlighted any differently than in the 2008 media guide (as Pasadena91 never addressed these questions). CrazyPaco (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is the stated inline criteria:
 * "Each total number of championships, and the years for which they are claimed, are documented by the particular school on its official website, in its football media guide, or in other official publications or literature (see Source). If a championship is not mentioned by a school for any particular season, regardless of whether it was awarded by a selector or listed in a third-party publication such as the Official NCAA Records Book, it is not considered to be claimed by that institution."


 * How specifically do you believe a 2008 document with no clarity is trumped by a 2011 document from the school which makes explicit reference corresponding exactly to the article section's stated inclusion criteria? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.4.157 (talk) 12:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you need to reread the discussion. The truth is, the 2008 Media Guide that is still posted on-line on Washington's Website and is pretty darn clear in how it handles these years. There is even less ambiguity when taken in combination with signage displayed at their stadium, the precedent of the actions taken to formally and retroactively recognize the 1960 team, the precedent that no other teams recognize similar championships in the same eras, and the discussion on the UW football article talk page. Do you have access to a 2011 Washington Huskies Media Guide? My impression is that it is identical to how these are presented compared to the 2008 version (we know for sure that the record book sections are the same). Please let me know if there is any change in how the national championships are presented in the media guides from 2008 to 2011. No one has volunteered this information yet, so we must assume it is the same since the stadium signage has not change and there have been no formal announcements ala the 2007 recognition of 1960. CrazyPaco (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

How much did CFDW pay for the ad?
Plenty of sites claim to list major college football "national champions".

I'd like one good reason why a single site gets promoted by Wikipedia. 208.127.128.193 (talk) 21:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It would probably be more helpful if you were to treat us with respect and pose your question without accusing us of graft. Just a suggestion. ElKevbo (talk) 23:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Most web sites, to put it politely, are sorely lacking, POV, and/or not nearly exhaustive. CFBDW, by far, offers the most comprehensive and complete set of data on college football results and national championships selections, as well as national championship selectors, compared to any site other site, even compared to the NCAA. CFBDW is also contributed to by college football historians that have also contributed to, and are credited by, the NCAA Official Records Book. And further, it is not a commercial site as it is not supported by ad placements or click throughs. CrazyPaco (talk) 06:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced Tables
Removed the following sections / unsourced tables per Talk:List_of_NCAA_Men%27s_Division_I_Basketball_Champions. 79.46.142.91 (talk) 20:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

National poll championships by conference membership at the time (1936–present)
1 The Big Eight ceased to exist in 1996 when all of its members and four teams from the SWC joined to form the Big 12 2 The SWC dissolved in 1996 when all of its teams accepted invitations to join other conferences

National poll championships by current conference membership (1936–present)
1 Four were won when Nebraska was part of the Big Eight Conference and one while part of the Big 12

2 Both were won while Penn State was independent

3 Six were won when Oklahoma was part of the Big Eight Conference

4 Three were won while Texas was part of the Southwest Conference

5 Was won when Texas A&M was part of the Southwest Conference

6 Three were won while Miami was an independent and two while part of the Big East Conference

7 Was won when Colorado was part of the Big Eight Conference

8 Both were won while Pitt was an independent

9 Was won while Syracuse was an independent

10 Was won while TCU was a member of the Southwest Conference

11 Was won while BYU was a member of the Western Athletic Conference (WAC)

Totals Post-Integration
What do you guys think about including a totals table of number of championships post racial integration? I think the game really changed once everyone was allowed to play (~1972). I think it would be interesting to see the total championships since that time.

Thoughts? Dolenath (talk) 04:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely does not belong. This article is about the selection of national championships and the organizations picking those championships, and totals reflect only those from year one (1869) or from a date that represents a major transition in the system of selection, ie. the national poll system. Totaling teams titles based on arbitrary dates violates WP:OR and also WP:POV and has nothing to do with the selection system which was not affected by deep south desegregation. Further, with 1972, you are only talking about integration for specific teams in specific regions, and since integration started much earlier outside of the deep south, it is highly POV. CrazyPaco (talk) 08:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Good point, withdrawn. Dolenath (talk) 23:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)