Talk:College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS/Archive 2019

Factual accuracy dispute of section with "National championships in the official NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision records" heading
The first sentence of the section uses the 2017 version of the NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision Records as the referenced document but the statement is inaccurate.

''The NCAA maintains an official records book of historical statistics and records for football. In the records book, with consultation from various college football historians, it has created and maintains a list of "major selectors" of national championships throughout the history of college football along with their championship picks for each season.''

The record book, nor the selecting entity for most, does not use the phrase "national champions" for this exhaustive list. That, alone, is problematic and must be resolved along with the rest of the section. I'm encouraging real discussion on these differences before I dive in with extensive edits. Or we can move to impartial dispute resolution involving other Wikipedia editors.

For example, the Congrove Computer Rankings do not describe their final top-ranked team of any season as a national champion. Similar for Dunkel System, even though the Wikipedia article incorrectly says "to determine a national champion" and cites the About Us page of that site - which doesn't even have the word champion on it.. Colley Matrix is also another example along with [Jeff Sgarin} Sagarin Ratings]]. (From 2009, 2013 , 2018 ,) Neither use the phrase "national champion" in their final ratings. Also, take a look at the Billingsley Report article. It uses the 2016 version of the NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision Records but is OR with the insertion of the term "national champion" into the actual text of the records.

I'm sure there are more and will be happy to review them all once we get into the edits to the section. WestWorld42018 (talk) 17:54, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Within your callout citation (pg 107–116), the 2017 Record Book, pg 108 clearly states NATIONAL CHAMPION MAJOR SELECTIONS (1896 TO PRESENT). UW Dawgs (talk) 19:32, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I dispute any OR that it implies everything in that section is a "national championship" listing per the supporting information stated above and in the content of the document itself. It simply states those methods (polls, math, research, hybrid, etc.) were used as part of the process. WestWorld42018 (talk) 22:23, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The section introduction you quote above (partial of "In the records book, with consultation from various college football historians, it has created and maintains a list of "major selectors" of national championships") is clearly framed as the view of the NCAA, not the individual selectors. The 2017 NCAA Record Book directly supports it as written, as already demonstrated. UW Dawgs (talk) 22:34, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The content reads: 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. The list includes both former selectors, who were instrumental in the sport of college football, and selectors who were among the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) selectors. WestWorld42018 (talk) 23:21, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You have stated, "The record book, nor the selecting entity for most, does not use the phrase "national champions" for this exhaustive list." The Record Book clearly, directly, and unambiguously states on pg 108 via the section header, NATIONAL CHAMPION MAJOR SELECTIONS (1896 TO PRESENT). This exact header text in the NCAA's document scopes the prose you are now quoting immediately above.  This article's relevant section, both header and introduction, is clearly and directly supported by this section of the 2017 NCAA Record Book. Please restate your argument as necessary. UW Dawgs (talk) 00:18, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I must agree with UW Dawgs — The Record Book is clear, direct and unambiguous. Jeff in CA (talk) 01:29, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Which is part of my point here. You (potentially correctly) presume that this title is the accurate listing for that entire section. Yet, when I attempted to correct this section recently to more closely resemble the wording or section headers of other subsections to that of the record book, you all balk. WestWorld42018 (talk) 02:37, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * WestWorld42018, you are referring to your edit where you changed the heading "Yearly national championship selections from major selectors" to "Final National Poll Leaders"? Jweiss11 (talk) 01:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, as the current Record Book has it listed. But, that's just one among several other issues. WestWorld42018 (talk) 17:16, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

With this edit in September, WestWorld42018 added a dispute tag to the National championships in the official NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision records section. The above discussion seems to confirm there is no issue. Is there consensus to remove the dispute tag from the section? UW Dawgs (talk) 20:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No, there isn't. I think we should invite an Administrator into this discussion. WestWorld42018 (talk) 20:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:CONSENSUS: Decisions on Wikipedia are primarily made by consensus, which is accepted as the best method to achieve Wikipedia's goals, i.e., the five pillars. Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), neither is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UW Dawgs (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I am for removal. No one who has commented here during this period has done so in support of the changes, and no secondary RS nor any explicit declaration by NCAA has been offered in support. Any change would by SYNTH and OR. Sensei48 (talk) 03:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Here's my main concern. Have you all read the asterisk-like markings for Colley Matrix that were added to the 2018 version of the Record book (pg. 115)? 2018.pdf It never states the Colley Matrix names a national champion (neither does anything on his site). They read as follows:

"^From 1998-2013, the BCS was used to determine national champions in FBS. All “major selectors” not otherwise listed also selected the BCS champion as its higest ranked team in those seasons. In years where a “major selector” had a team other than the BCS champion as highest ranked team in its final poll that team is listed below the BCS Champion.

+Beginning in 2014, the College Football Playoff was used to determine national champions in FBS. All “major selectors” not otherwise listed also selected the CFP champion as its higest ranked team in those seasons. In years where a “major selector” had a team other than the CFP champion as highest ranked team in its final poll that team is listed below the CFP Champion."

This, coupled with the change in nomenclature, are obvious and should be updated per the newest version of the document (which has been used to update this pages for years). WestWorld42018 (talk) 05:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I see nothing incongruous between the article and the quoted sections from the 2018 record book. The quote you originally cited as being inaccurate is still completely accurate: "In the records book, with consultation from various college football historians, it has created and maintains a list of "major selectors" of national championships throughout the history of college football along with their championship picks for each season." That is an accurate statement. Given the fact that the section heading on pg. 108 reads NATIONAL CHAMPION MAJOR SELECTIONS (1896 TO PRESENT), all references to major selectors can be understood to be national championship selections. Any references to "poll leaders", or "highest ranked teams" are functionally equivalent. What do you think these entities are selecting, if not a national champion? They are selectors of national champions, according to the NCAA, end of story. Even if the selectors themselves don't use the phrase "national champions". Ostealthy (talk) 14:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The are "selecting" their top-ranked team. That's it. To deem them "national champions" is OR. The change in nomenclature from the NCAA between the 2017 and 2018 Rulebooks is obvious they are making distinctions. If you all can't see that, then this page will forever be flawed. WestWorld42018 (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Again, "national champion" is not OR because it says right there in both 2017 and 2018 versions "National Champion Major Selections". Ostealthy (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * We seem to be at WP:IDHT. Editors have quoted the NCAA's unambiguous section header text "NATIONAL CHAMPION MAJOR SELECTIONS (1896 TO PRESENT)". Editor has not directly disputed this quoted text in the PDF(s) and has shown a level of understanding and agreement "You (potentially correctly) presume that this title is the accurate listing for that entire section". No other editor has appeared in 3+ months to support these or related concerns. I'm sympathetic to the terminology issue on the articles of individual selectors, but less so on this article's section which contains the NCAA's viewpoint and definitions. The dispute tag has been removed per clear, current WP:CONSENSUS. This does not preclude further discussion, it simply removes the tag based on consensus at this time. UW Dawgs (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The above comments by Ostealthy are my thoughts exactly. I am in complete agreement with them. Jeff in CA (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

FWAA-NFF national champion and the "Super 16 Poll"
I find the treatment of the FWAA-NFF selector confusing. The entry in the table of "Poll" selectors, and the NCAA record book, mentions the FWAA-NFF Grantland Rice Super 16. The archives of this poll can be found here. Every year, the "final" poll of the Super 16 is released before bowl season. And every year, the MacArthur Bowl is awarded to someone entirely different. Last year, Clemson finished number 1 in the poll, but Alabama was awarded the MacArthur Bowl after winning the CFP. Alabama is also listed as the FWAA-NFF's pick in the NCAA record book. This year, Alabama finished number 1, but the MacArthur Trophy hasn't been handed out yet, and I assume it will go to Clemson. Correction: the MacArthur Bowl has been awarded to Clemson. I assume this means that Clemson is FWAA-NFF's champion? The article only mentions the NFF.

User:Dolenath touched on this here. Do you have an update on how the Macarthur Bowl is actually awarded? I also think it's worth revisiting whether the Super 16 should be mentioned at all in this article, since it doesn't seem to have any impact on who the FWAA/NFF champion is. Ostealthy (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The MacArthur Bowl is awarded after the postseason & has been since about 1970 I think. For the 2018 season, Clemson was awarded the MacArthur Bowl trophy but it hasn't been added to the table yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.144.119.93 (talk) 01:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, I posted that link in my update. I think it's safe to add Clemson as the FWAA-NFF champion by way of them winning the MacArthur Bowl. But I'm still not clear on what basis it's awarded and how the Super 16 Poll comes into play, if at all. Ostealthy (talk) 01:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Yeah I never heard anything else back from them. To me it sounds like the FWAA & NFF team up for the in-season weekly picks, but that the FWAA doesn't participate in the final champion pick. However, I have no source to actually back that up. Dolenath (talk) 14:07, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Iowa and 2017 UCF
There are two new MNC content disputes in which you might be interested. Two new editors are reverting long-standing, cited content which directly aligns with this article's content.


 * Iowa Hawkeyes football
 * 2017 UCF Knights football team

Cheers, UW Dawgs (talk) 02:07, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

unsourced 1922 West Virginia claims
There is some LT DE occuring with an unsourced 1922 WVU (10–0–1) MNC claim. That claim is not found in this article or the typical citation sources. You're welcome to add to these articles your Watchlist, or rvt/cite if I have missed something. Cheers, UW Dawgs (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 1922 college football season
 * 1922 West Virginia Mountaineers football team

1922 Iowa claimed/unclaimed re Billingsley
A recent one-off IP edit removed prose and citation about 1922 being unclaimed on Iowa Hawkeyes football with an edit summary linking to the 2019 Media Guide. The edit did not similarly update the infobox.

The status quo is Iowa has 5 MNCs from major selectors (1921, 1922, 1956, 1958, 1960), but 1922 (via Billingsley Report) is unclaimed. Specifically, Billingsley gave the MOV (Margin of Victory) title to Cal and the "regular" (non-MOV) title to Iowa.(2019 NCAA, pg 113)

College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS currently states "4b -1921, 1956, 1958, 1960" as supported by the 2014 Iowa Media Guide, pg 104 where each of those four years attribute the selection to specific seletor(s), while the 1922 record makes no claim or mention at all. Note, "Quick Facts" on pg 2 of the same PDF has no "National Championship" content or claims.

Fast forward, the 2019 Iowa Media Guide, pg 128 section is unchanged from 2014. However, pg 4 of this PDF has a new "National Championship" item with all 5 years listed: 1921, 1922, 1956, 1958, 1960. The 2019 Media Guide change seems to align with defintion found in this article's section re "claimed." A Google search on "site:hawkeyesports.com 1922" (and variations) doesn't seem to reveal any overt 1922 content or claims, and (older) 1922 content on that site omits mentions just like the 2014 Media Guide omits. Thoughts? UW Dawgs (talk) 02:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Changed per above. UW Dawgs (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

NCAA list of champions
The NCAA promulgates a list related to what it calls the “College Football Championship History”. Given that the subject of this Wiki article is NCAA national champions, it seems that the NCAA’s list is relevant information and should be prominently included. While it is accurate to say the NCAA record book mentions “selectors” and their role in history, it is inaccurate to imply that the NCAA does not recognize football champions when it does so quite clearly on its website titled: “The Official Website of NCAA Championships”. If this information is not included, then this Wiki article should be renamed because it is more about the history of selectors and claimed championships rather than NCAA national championships, which again are listed quite clearly on the NCAA’s own website. This matter should be addressed or the validity of the entire article can be called into question.
 * NCAA.com is distinctly different from the official NCAA website, which is NCAA.org. The NCAA sold the rights to this website to BleacherReport and Turner Broadcasting. Scroll down to the bottom of the page to see this information. Despite your claim of this being an "official" list, the page does use that phrase, because this list is not official. It is an editorial product of BleacherReport. This wiki page will base its treatment of selectors on what is found in the official NCAA publication. Ostealthy (talk) 18:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I have read through this issue and agree with Ostealthy. NCAA.com is not an official list and the cited list is incomplete abbreviated list as best.  The NCAA stays clear of any endorsement of championships it does not itself award. It appears the editor is also attempting to change this on individual football team articles. See Pitt football.  Pennaltoid (talk) 20:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The NCAA.org website home contains a link directly to the NCAA.com website. The link is titled “The Official Website for NCAA Championships.” This NCAA.org site is for administrative/regulatory and member-related material, while the NCAA.com site deals with championships. It is simply factually inaccurate to portray this Wikipedia page as a complete repository of championship information when you ignore the NCAA.com list. Seems like this page is more interested in promoting an agenda and limiting available information than provide complete facts. MoorePhin (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see the phrase "official website for NCAA championships" on NCAA.org. I do see it on NCAA.com, but I also see this: "NCAA.com is a part of Bleacher Report - Turner Sports Network, part of the Turner Sports and Entertainment Network." And in the terms of service: "The Services, including but not limited to NCAA.com, are operated by Turner Sports Interactive, Inc. (“Turner”) pursuant to an agreement with the NCAA". Given this fact, I think it makes sense to interpret the "official website for NCAA championships" phrase to be puffery. NCAA.org has a section on championships, too: http://www.ncaa.org/championships. And if you click through to football, you'll notice that no mention is made of FBS championships. Only FCS. Because the NCAA only gives out one official football championship in Division I, and that's in the Football Championship Subdivision.


 * I'm not against including the NCAA.com list in some capacity in the article. But I am against pretending that the list is any sort of official endorsement of championship claims by the NCAA. The weight of the evidence suggests that the list is an editorial product of BleacherReport and Turner. Ostealthy (talk) 21:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * In addition, there was an extensive discussion of this point almost a year ago. No consensus emerged in support of changes such as these. The most relevant section is here: especially sections 8, 9, and 11,
 * Sensei48 (talk) 23:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The Official NCAA Records Books are the definitive source of all NCAA records for all collegiate sports governed by the NCAA. The NCAA has never awarded, endorsed, or officially recognized a college football national championship at the highest level of play (University, D1A, or FBS level). Throughout the entire history of college football, such things have been the exclusive domain of independent third party selectors such as media polls or private organizations such as the FWAA or BCS. The NCAA has never commented on any selector's validity. To suggest otherwise of the NCAA is factually incorrect. What the NCAA has actually done is incorporate the research of published collegiate football historians into the history section of their football records book which provides a historical curation of these third party national championship selectors that were deemed by the historians to be "national" in scope (i.e. nationally distributed or regarded, not local publications). The NCAA Records Book list is largely considered to be the most authoritative curation of national titles since it has appeared in the sport's governing body's official annual records publication for well over a decade, and some schools base, and have even altered, their national title claims due to the listings in the NCAA Official Records Book.  No other "NCAA" list is official, definitive, or complete, but rather, at best, derivative of the Official Records Book listing, which when it occurs, is usually done so for the sake of conciseness of a press release. It should in now way be incorporated into any article because it does not represent any actually interpretation, thinking, or stance by the NCAA, and any definitive sourcing of the NCAA must first come from its own official records books. This interpretation of the NCAA's handling of championships has held long standing consensus from the beginning of this article which strives to incorporate the most authoritative and complete information per WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:Tertiary. CrazyPaco (talk) 02:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

As this citation will show, you are mischaracterizing the relationship of NCAA.com. Bleacher Report is a subsidiary of Turner Sports. Turner acquired video, media, and TV rights from the NCAA in a mega-deal that includes leading the marketing efforts for NCAA and management of NCAA.com, which remains “The Official Website of NCAA Championships.” Turner also has similar marketing and website management contracts with other sports, including management of nascar.com, nba.com, pga.com among others. These are not independent websites with independent editorial opinions. They are operated as a management contract through larger media and marketing contracts with those organizations. This is how the sports media business works. Turner bid for and won the rights to manage the site in coordination with the NCAA. This is why the site is able to be billed as the “official” site of NCAA Championships, and why the .org and .com sites link to each other on their NCAA homepages. Again, one site does business and the other does rules and regs. It is completely inaccurate to say NCAA.com is an editorially independent site any more than NBA.com is independent of the NBA. Refusing to list the football champions recognized on “The Official Website of NCAA Championships” is inconsistent with the title and the expressed intent of the Wiki page. If you’re not going to include the NCAA’s own champions list, change the title of the page.
 * Except Bleacher Report clearly does use NCAA.com to publish editorial content. What other way is there to interpret this preseason ranking? Should that be considered the official stance of the NCAA with regards which football teams are the best? Or this ranking of uniforms? Is that an official NCAA position? None of the other media partnerships you mention have this unique setup of having two different websites, one with editorial content and one with official business.
 * This championship history page only makes sense if you interpret it to be an unofficial and unsystematic summary of the official source, which is the NCAA record book. The NCAA has said consistently, for decades, that it does not officially name a Division I FBS champion. It would make no sense for them to break that precedent via a clandestinely released web page that ambiguously grants more legitimacy to certain third-party selectors. Ostealthy (talk) 22:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That list of champions at NCAA.com is already included in the article. It consists simply of all the consensus selections from 1950 onward (shown in bold in the article's table of annual selections), the AP selections for 1936-1949, and the selections of the only three "poll selectors" that list champions for years before 1936. Aside from the careful reasoning detailed by others above, to list all these in an additional separate table would be duplicative. Jeff in CA (talk) 07:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Here is a source where ESPN references the NCAA.com site, calling the list the NCAA’s “official list of major-college champions.”. Again, it is simply incorrect and inaccurate — and more important for Wikipedia, purposely misleading - to pretend that this list is somehow not affiliated with the NCAA or not significant enough to allow to be listed in an article specifically about NCAA football championships. But rather than debate it here, why not turn it over to WikiPedia’s team to rule on it? See if they agree with the inexplicable contention that the NCAA.com site is not an official source of the NCAA, and whether an article purporting to be about NCAA football championships can ignore the existence of the NCAA’s own “official site of NCAA champions.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoorePhin (talk • contribs) 20:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * These edits to Pittsburgh Panthers football (incl. "The NCAA's official list of major FBS champions...") are a misrepresentation of the NCAA's position (the ESPN article terms it "official," while the linked NCAA page makes no such representation). As I have reverted you elsewhere, I will defer to others to revert these new edits on that article.
 * It appears you are repeatedly asserting a specific POV into multiple articles which is being rejected by multiple editors. These edits appear to be WP:Disruptive editing. This NCAA page has been previously discussed with agreement that is it merely reporting selections made by some selectors, rather than "official" in any sense. (see here). So perhaps WP:SYNTHESIS applies to these edits. I encourage you to further discuss the topic. UW Dawgs (talk) 22:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

This matter should be addressed or the validity of the entire article can be called into question. If you'll check the archive of this Talk Page, linked above, you'll see I said almost this exact same sentence last year. However, you see the response you and I both got. This page isn't accurate but the gate-keepers will not allow for the update. I stopped trying. Kudos to you for trying to make the page more accurate as per the NCAA's latest publications of their official record book. WestWorld42018 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:10, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You raised a completely different matter of dispute last year. The fact that no one else has come along to advocate for either of your positions lends credence to WP:Consensus being followed in good faith, not any "gatekeepers" ignoring consensus. Ostealthy (talk) 04:31, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I also raised this exact issue. See my edit here from September 3rd of last year where I added a table of the NCAA.com listing. I advocated for both issues at length (see archived discussions) with no real consensus reached. WestWorld42018 (talk) 05:27, 25 December 2019 (UTC)