Talk:College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS/Archive 2013

Semi-protect
This may be a good time to semi-protect the article with the BCS title game coming up. Any thoughts? CrazyPaco (talk) 07:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Congrove Computer Rankings as a Major Selector
The 2011 and older NCAA records books all had the Congrove Computer Rankings (CCR) as a major selector up until present day. See page 70, here: http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_records/2011/FBS.pdf

However, in the 2012 edition, it completely omits CCR. There's not a reference of it ever having been a major selector (page 69): http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_records/2012/FBS.pdf

My guess is, since they reorganized the table, they accidentally deleted the CCR line. What should we do? It doesn't seem right to delete it, since it is a well known selector, but the FBS Record Book is our guiding source... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolenath (talk • contribs) 18:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

As the source of these rankings, I must ask why an accidental omission from the 2012 records book would be cause for such discussion and alarm? Prior omissions were due to lack of awareness and that is all. Their stated basis for inclusion is clear that "The criteria for being included in this historical list of poll selectors is that the poll be national in scope,either through distribution in newspaper, television, radio and/or computer online...." This is, indeed, the case with the CCR. Whether or not the NCAA ever publishes it in another record book is irrelevant to its status as a major selector. McDave01 (talk) 06:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

As of today, the NCAA has confirmed it was an accidental omission and is adding it back into the record book.McDave01 (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * There are multiple changes to the current Records Book. Here is my take:
 * 1) CCR was eliminated from both the table of "Major Selectors" and the descriptions of "Major Selectors" that follow the table. CCR was never listed among the yearly individual selectors for individual teams. The removal therefore does not seem to be an error in oversight, but a correction. This is also consistent with the NCAA's apparent use of the "BCS" as a collective selector (see below) and designation of BCS incorporated polls as major selectors in the Record Book's table and description of "major selectors". Since the CCR is not a component of the the BCS formula, it is likely not thought to be a "major selector". Therefore, CCR should be removed as a "major selector" in this article, which is consistent with Wikipedia policies on have the most updated sourced information, particularly since the table in this article directly refers to the Records Book as the source. This effects the 2010 TCU selection in the national championship list.


 * 2) The NCAA removed listings for the Harris Poll under the yearly selectors (2005-2007). The Harris titles were never included in the national championship table of this article because they were an obvious oversight of the NCAA Records Book that has now been corrected.


 * In the Records Book, notes were added to the NCAA's table of major selectors that says "#Does not compile final ranking after the bowl games so it is not included on the year-by-year listing" as well as to the individual description of the Harris poll that states that it "does not make a final selection after the bowls" (page 70). These statements, along with the retention of the Harris poll of a major selector in the Record Book's listings despite it not being listed as an annual selector, and the use of "BCS" (but not individual computer polls) in the year-by-year annual championship listing from 2007 forward are consistent with the idea that the NCAA now considers the components of the BCS to be a collective selection, which also fits with the common "real world" understanding of the BCS. This could (and should) help rectify the discrepancies between this article's table listing multiple selections during these recent years and the NCAA Records book.


 * Thus the Harris poll could therefore be thought to be included in the collective selection of the BCS and thus is a "major selector" but not as an individual major selector. Notes about the Harris Poll should be updated in this article's text to reflect its corrected status in the NCAA records book and that it is considered a major selector due to its use as a component of the BCS formula but that it is not as an annual individual selector of national championships.


 * 3) The 2007 Dunkel selection of USC has been changed to LSU. This is a new error on the NCAA's part [see here http://www.dunkelindex.com/NCAA_Football_2007_Div1A_Rankings.asp]. Dunkel is the only non-"consensus" and non-BCS selector that they list from 2007 forward, suggesting they may intend to eliminate Dunkel as a current "major selector". However, currently it is still listed as "major selector" and a citation sourcing Dunkel's own selections should be added to the article's table due to this new discrepancy.


 * 4) An important subtle change was also made to the NCAA's explanation of the BCS in the annual national championship selections on page 74. It previously read "^BCS includes all national champion major selectors on page 68 not mentioned above" and has been changed to "^BCS includes all national champion major selectors not mentioned above".  This is consistent with the suggestion above that the polls that make up the BCS collectively pick the national champion as opposed to individual national champions being awarded by individual polls. Further, the wording change suggests the BCS now includes all other major selectors not otherwise listed (eliminating any contradictions with the selector table), and thus that only polls which it incorporates are major selectors (Sagarain, A&H, Billingsley, Colley, Massey, and Wolfe, along with Harris) outside of the other one's specifically listed. Therefore, CCR has been eliminated and the major selectors that remain are the AP, Coaches, FW, NFF, Dunkel, and the collective selection of the BCS.


 * This means, IMO, that the individual selections of the BCS component polls from 2007 forward should be removed from this article's yearly table because they are now considered as a collective selection under the BCS. This also brings things in-line with a common understanding of the BCS. This effects years 2007 forward which will now match championship listings in the NCAA Records Book (preferable) with the exception of the NCAA's obvious incorrect listing of Dunkel's 2007 pick. In this article, the BCS polls listed during these years should also be condensed into "BCS" to match the Record Book.


 * Of additional note, this article's table lists Boise as A&H's #1 team of 2006. This is incorrect [see here http://www.andersonsports.com/football/ACF_0607.html]. (now fixed) Also in 2006, R(FACT) lists Florida and OSU as co-champions. The OSU co-championship is not reflected in the NCAA record book. The FACT website describes this co-championship as being listed at the discretion of Peter Wolfe (pretty shaky, IMO). I'm not sure what to do with that one, but it should at least be sourced since it contradicts the NCAA records book..
 * CrazyPaco (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed on #1 - I went back to the older versions of the record book, like 2005-2006, and they didn't have Congrove either. On #2/#4, I'm going to have to think about this - I do see what you're saying, but on the other hand, they do clearly still list them as "national champion major selectors". See my comment on #3 below.


 * Another issue you're forgetting is that NCAA still considers CFRA a major selector, but it's not part of BCS and it doesn't list it in the annual championship selections. I feel like it would be inconsistent if we got rid of the individual BCS computer selections, but left the CFRA selections. Dolenath (talk) 17:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The major issue here is that the NCAA Records Book section "National Champion Major Selectors (1869 to Present)" on pages 69 & 70 has does not exactly correspond with the section that follows, "National Poll Champions" on pages 71-74. In the section of the Wiki article, we make the assumption that it should exactly correspond, but it actually never states that in the Records Book "National Poll Champions" section. So, in this regard, the NCAA Records Book could be, in some ways, thought of as contradicting itself, and thus, IMO, the exact listings of the NCAA need to be shown with footnotes regarding the discrepancies. The section is intended to be an exact reflection of the NCAA Records Book first and foremost, and how the Record Book interprets championships, not a Wikipedia interpretation of the records book. In other words, "what does the NCAA say about it". It is similar to the discussions about how to handle vacated wins or titles, which boils down to showing the official records (ie Records Book) with notations. Records are official even if wrong or open to other interpretation. That is why I am now leaning toward exactly mirroring the Records Book. For instance, Colley Matrix has Oklahoma St as last year's national champion but there is no indication that is something the Records Book agrees with. In addition, this would mean removing 2012 until the next version of the records book is released. CrazyPaco (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

"NCAA-recognized" National Champions
Up through sometime in the 1990s (I am not sure when, but it was definitely there in 1993 and removed by 2001), the NCAA Bylaws said that the NCAA recognized as "unofficial Division I-A National Champions" any team that was named national champion by the national college football coaches' association at the time (I assume it's the AFCA) or "a national wire-service poll" (e.g. the AP poll). Today, the only reference to an FBS national championship is the restriction on teams meeting the above condition to be eligible to give its players "national championship awards" (i.e. rings).

Before anyone says, "Auburn 2004," those were actually rings Auburn was authorized to give out for something else (its SEC title, I think), with "National Champions" engraved on them (if I remember correctly, the reasoning was that one of the computer rankings had Auburn #1); technically, that's not an NCAA violation, since the rings belonged to the athletes and not the school. -- That Don Guy (talk) 02:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that I quite understand the reference to Auburn 2004. In the article here as it exists now, only USC is listed for 2004, as consensus NC, with every major selector naming the Trojans. - . Further, the NCAA still maintains its "Championship history" records, current through the last complete season of 2012 - the page is here . The NCAA, of course, does not award the NC but does approve of one or more teams as national champions in FBS/Div I going back to 1869, the first year that U.S. colleges fielded recognized varsity football teams. Sensei48 (talk) 16:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Merge
There appear to be two articles about this subject now, NCAA Division I FBS playoffs and this article, College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS. It is pretty early to pick a title, but a possible choice could be College Football Playoff (NCAA). Following is a discussion copied from WP:RM. Apteva (talk) 03:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * NCAA Division I FBS playoffs‎ → College Football Playoff (NCAA) ([ move]) –   Dcheagle   &bull; talk &bull; contribs 01:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to endorse this move and explain the rationale, since that parameter wasn't filled in. These playoffs were a theoretical proposal for years, but today it was announced they'll start in 2014 under the official name College Football Playoff. There's every reason to believe this will be the most likely search term for the event. --BDD (talk) 01:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to add that parameter is filled in I don't know why its not showing up.-- Dcheagle   &bull; talk &bull; contribs 01:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Object to speedy There are other college football playoffs in the world, and even in the US. the entire world is not just the US. The entirety of college football in the US is not Division I NCAA. -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 03:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The playoff would not involve the division II teams, or whatever they are called. NCAA, I suspect, pins this down to the US. Apteva (talk) 03:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose. There is absolutely no way this should even be considered as the two articles ( NCAA Division I FBS playoffs and College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS) are completely different topics. This article is not specifically about the College Football Playoff any more than it is for the Bowl Championship Series. This is not the appropriate venue to discuss the movement of NCAA Division I FBS playoffs‎ → College Football Playoff, which should be done at Talk:NCAA Division I FBS playoffs or WP:CFB. CrazyPaco (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose. Agree with User:Crazypaco here. At best, the fallaciously named "NCAA Division I FBS Playoff" would be at the very best a small subsection in this far more comprehensive and detailed article. The scope of College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS is far wider than this upcoming bogus "playoff", and the sourcing is far better. If any merging is done, it would be in moving the playoff article into this one at the end. Sensei48 (talk) 18:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The "College Football Playoff" will absolutely have a section within this article, much as the BCS does, but separate articles will exist much as they do for BCS, Bowl Alliance, Bowl Coalition, AP Poll, MacArthur Bowl, Grantland Rice Trophy, etc. Merger in either direction makes no sense. CrazyPaco (talk) 18:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Strongly Oppose. Agree with everything Sensei48 and CrazyPaco said Dolenath (talk) 03:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Apparently Notre Dame won the BCS Championship in 2012
Check out this year's Record Book, page 79: http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_records/2013/FBS.pdf

Obviously a mistake of some kind - maybe they meant it to be Colley instead of BCS? Really strange... Dolenath (talk) 19:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

They fixed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enpnjndn (talk • contribs) 15:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

NCAA Records Book Table
This follows up on the Congrove ranking discussion [in 2013 archive].

The article section on "National championships in the official NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision Records", particularly the tables, need to be brought in line with the current actual NCAA Official Records Book (pg 69-73). In the most recent versions of the Official Records Book, for national championship selections for the 2007 season onward, the Records Book does not list individual selections of the BCS component polls, but lists "BCS" as a "major selector" (along with Coaches, AP, Dunkel, FW, and NFF) in their year-by-year list of national champions. This suggests a collective selection of the BCS components as ultimately determined by the results of the BCS Championship Game. While these BCS component polls, such as Harris, are still listed elsewhere as "major", likely due to their use as components in the BCS formula to create the #1 vs #2 matchup, they are not individual recognized for independently naming national champions on their own in the year-by-year lists, which is actually more in-line with the common understanding of how the BCS is used to determine a champion. However, the most important reasoning for bringing this article section and its tables in line with the Records Book is that doing so avoids WP:OR, which is particularly needed because the table aims to exactly replicate the information provided in the NCAA Records Book and thus convey the official, published records of the governing body of intercollegiate athletics to the reader. There is one obvious error in the Records Book which is the 2007 Dunkel selection (as noted above Dunkel is listed separately with the other major selectors including the BCS), and this discrepancy between the 2007 selection by Dunkel and what is listed in the Official Records Book should be noted as appropriate. Any comments on this? CrazyPaco (talk) 03:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I apologize for having a bit of a difficult time following this and the Congrove section above. If I understand you correctly, there are clear errors at points in the NCAA's own FBS Records site regarding exactly which selectors they have employed to arrive at their "poll champions" section, even in the BCS era.Again if I get your point above - you want to avoid OR by replicating the NCAA's website despite its clear error regarding Dunkel? Is that it? regards, Sensei48 (talk) 05:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually I apologize as it is admittedly convoluted because there are multiple issues here. As the section and table were created to provide the NCAA's Official Records Book data on national championship selections 1) Congrove should be removed from the article's list of major selectors as per the above reasoning as well as to match the Record Book. 2) National Championship selections from 2007 forward should be changed to match the NCAA Records Book. That means removing multiple selections from the article's table in those years and only listing the selectors as BCS, Coaches, AP, FW, NFF and Dunkel in order match the Records Book and avoid OR. 3) Either include the 2007 Dunkel selection of USC with appropriate descriptive notations about the discrepancy or not include the 2007 Dunkel selection of USC (to keeping consistent with the Records Book despite the error) with appropriate notations about the discrepancy. In order to avoid OR, and because of the issue with the 2006 R(FACT) OSU co-champ (which should also at least have a notation and possibly be removed), I lean toward the later. CrazyPaco (talk) 07:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * According to These_are_not_original_research, "At times, sources provide conflicting facts and opinions. Comparing and contrasting these conflicts is not generally classed as original research," thus, I lean towards the former - include the 2007 Dunkel, and 2006 R(FACT) co-champions, but give appropriate notation.Dolenath (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is that this section is not a Wikipedia compilation of national championships in the way that the section on individual schools' claimed titles are a compilation of each schools' particular claim. The section is intended to answer, essentially, "what does the NCAA's Official Record Book say about the topic?" It was supposed to exactly duplicate the "National Poll Champions" section in order to exactly convey the information provided by the Official Records Book in the same way the CFBDW section exactly duplicates what CFBDW says about the topic. As I noted in the answer in the previous section, the issue boils down to the fact that the NCAA Records' Book section on "Major Selectors" does not completely mesh with the section on "National Poll Champions". What we are left with, if we are intending to convey the NCAA's "thoughts" on the subject is to provide both as is, with notations pointing out the discrepancies, and allow the reader to decide. Otherwise, filling in missing information (like FACT) does not reflect the Records Book "National Poll Champions" section accurately to the reader.  As it is now, the wiki article table is a compilation of national championship selections from the selectors deemed as major in the first section, but not a reflection of the NCAA's list of National Champions from the second section. We cannot guess which the NCAA would deem as the more accurate list, thus we should provide both the list of major selectors and the national poll selections as published, with appropriate notations and discussion of any discrepancies.  And yes, as I noted above, this would necessitate removing 2012 until the Records Book was updated (which would undoubtedly be a pain to monitor). CrazyPaco (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm going to start another topic about the waiting until 2012 book, so let's just talk about the first part. So you think that we should not post things like the CFRA selections each year (& CM, A&H, etc), but should still list them as a major selector? While this would exactly match up with the Records Book, I think it makes it confusing (just like I think the Records Book is confusing on this topic). All documentation being equal, I think I'd rather err on the side of inclusiveness. I say we include the yearly selections of all major selectors, and then, if you like, we can footnote all of the ones that are not explicitly listed in the NCAA annual list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolenath (talk • contribs) 19:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarifications! Looks good to me.Sensei48 (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Waiting Until Each Year's Official Record Book
CrazyPaco mentioned above that he thinks that since the first portion of the page is all about "What does the NCAA say", that we should wait until each year's official Record Book before we post anything on that year. For example, we shouldn't post about the 2012 champion (in the first section) until August 2013, when the 2012 NCAA Record Book comes out.

This does make a lot of sense, and would seem the best way to fit in with WP:NOR & WP:V. How can we really say this is what the NCAA says until they say it, after all. However, it seems a shame that we can't have our page be an up-to-date list of champions until 8-9 months later, not to mention the amount of vigilance required to keep the masses from constantly adding it until then.

Is there a way we can uphold WP:NOR & WP:V while still providing timely information? Granted, the School Claims, CFDW, Poll Era, and BCS sections will be up-to-date, but the NCAA Records section is the first thing people see when they come to the page.Dolenath (talk) 19:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not perfect, but we could perhaps note it as pending while referencing the championship list posted on NCAA.com . That list is not perfect, nor official, nor does it represent the Official Records Book, but if 2012 were removed, we'd be reverting it every day. It's not perfect but it could be a compromise. CrazyPaco (talk) 23:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Like you said, not perfect, but I think this is probably the best way to handle it and meet the WP standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolenath (talk • contribs) 03:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm going to take a crack at rennovating the NCAA section to bring it in line with the Records Book in a day or two. Let me know what you think. CrazyPaco (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

USC notations for 2004 Poll Championships
The information that is presented is what is the current championships held by each school. For 2004, USC has only one poll championship (the AP). The Coaches Poll was stripped from USC and the trophy returned, and thus officially the AFCA has no champion for 2004. The final and current status for the 2004 polls is that the AP differed from the Coaches' Poll in their selections since the AP selected and continues to recognize USC and the Coaches' Poll officially has no selection. Therefore the (AP) notation next to 2004 for USC must remain in order to indicate that USC is in possession of only the AP National Championship and does not possess nor is officially recognized to have won the Coaches Poll championship. An asterisk is in place to explain the situation for the Coaches Poll. The key phrase is the first sentence of the section for the table: "The following table contains the National Championships that have been recognized by the final AP or Coaches' Poll." The Coaches' Poll title is not recognized and therefore can not appear in the list on the table. IMO, there is no viable alternative than to notate the AP to ensure the reader understands this is the only poll championship USC has for 2004 and thus maintain the accuracy and consistency of this table with the rest of entries in the article. CrazyPaco (talk) 11:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed Dolenath (talk) 05:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Also agree.Sensei48 (talk) 05:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

"consensus" championships vs "Consensus National Champions"
The College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS section has a key atop the table with two notes:

"As designated by the official NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision Records, the table below shows:
 * Teams listed in italics indicate retroactive-applied championships.
 * Teams listed in bold indicate according to official NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision Records designation, 1950 to present."

re the second bullet, the creates a term of  and then defines the meaning as the post-1950 selection by any one of these seven selectors:
 * AP — Associated Press
 * UPI — United Press International (1950-95)
 * FWAA — Football Writers Association of America
 * NFF — National Football Foundation/College Football Hall of Fame
 * USA/CNN — USA Today/CNN
 * USA/ESPN — USA Today/ESPN
 * USA — USA Today

By placing the word in lowercase and in quotes within the key, we have implied the common meaning of word "consensus", rather than conveying the specific meaning of the complete designation of "Consensus National Champions" as created by the NCAA.

To wit, the 1964 and 1970 seasons have examples of multiple "Consensus National Champions" and not "consensus" champions in the common meaning of the word:

1964

Alabama (AP, UPI)

Arkansas (FWAA)

Notre Dame (NFF)

1970

Nebraska (AP, FWAA)

Texas (NFF, UPI)

Ohio St. (NFF)

So I propose a rewrite of the second bullet, to utilize the exact label as created by the NCAA, to better convey their intent, ala:


 * Teams listed in bold reflect the NCAA's designation as "Consensus National Champions" by virtue of their selection from 1950 onward by one or more selectors from Associated Press, UPI, Football Writers Association of America, NFF/College Football Hall of Fame, and USA Today.

Putting this onto the talk page rather than being bold, in order to reach consensus, trim my verbose wording/links as possible, and archive the discussion re this language. UW Dawgs (talk) 07:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Fine by me - would seem to fit the record book wording better. Dolenath (talk) 16:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)