Talk:List of NCAA schools with the most Division I national championships

Information about football-related content in this article
Here is some information on the football-related content of this article for new editors who may not be familiar with what is a reasonably controversial topic.

A primary point is that there is not now, nor has there ever been, an "official" NCAA national champion in FBS/D1A football. Therefore, there is no "official" source 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 come to a true championship was the modern BCS Championship game, which began with the 1998 football season. However, the BCS Championship Game was a BCS Championship, not an NCAA one, and the winner of the BCS was contractually awarded the title of National Champion only for the Coaches' Poll and the National Football Foundation.

Throughout college football history, each national championship selection in actuality has represented only individual opinions (or the tabulation of opinions). Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that depends on the major tenets of No Original Research and Neutral Point of View, it is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article to include comments on the validity of one selection over another.

Wikipedia relies on expert reliable sources. The column of "Recognized National Titles" in the first table has information reproduced 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 CFDW is in part contributed by well-respected college football historian Tex Noel. The column included in the table reproduces College Football Data Warehouse's singular opinion on the most legitimate national championship selections for each season and provides a more selective all-time opinion/list than other more expansive lists.

Whether you or your school's official count agrees with the listings, the totals in this table are duplicated from reliable sourced material. The numbers do not in any way reflect the opinions of the editors of this article, but rather of the college football historians that have compiled this information.

It is recognized that the football titles column in this table represents only one opinion on this topic. The CFDW information was included because it is a widely cited "selection of yearly selections" with a seemingly neutral "expert" opinion. It is also beneficial that it is available on-line, which permits the easy verification of edits to this article.

Again, the information on football in this Wikipedia article represents no statement as to the legitimacy or authoritativeness of the CFDW list. As opinions will differ with this resource, the reader is directed to the articles on individual football teams for alternative national championship claims and counts. This article rightfully contains no comment as to which totals are more legitimate. Any such respectful discussion or comments may, however, be appropriate for this "Talk" page. (Adapted from a contribution by CrazyPaco (talk) )

Jeff in CA (talk) 02:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well-stated. Thanks for laying this out so nicely.  -Kgwo1972 (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The CFDW website's table was updated only until 2015, and the website is now dead.
 * A cited source has been added for CFP winners in the years since. But none of the post-2015 CFP national championships are recognized by CFDW. To avoid WP:SYNTHESIS the table heading should be updated to make this clear.
 * Alternately, the football column could be changed to instead count the Football national championships claimed by each individual school. Well cited sources for each school's individual claims can be found at College football national championships and have been majorly improved since this article's table's construction.
 * Using each school's notable, published claim would remove the reliance on a single expert source for this table, and said expert's noted inconsistencies outlined elsewhere on this talk page. PK-WIKI (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The football column heading in the table was updated on December 15, 2022, to make clear that none of the post-2015 CFP national championships are recognized by CFDW. Although the CFDW website is archived, citing it is no different from Wikipedia's reliance on many thousands of archived websites for reliable sourced information. Jeff in CA (talk) 04:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Number of recognized Princeton football titles
College Football Data Warehouse included Princeton's teams of 1874, 1875, 1881, 1898, 1899, 1920, 1933 and 1935 on its "recognized" list of national champions in football (http://cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/national_championships/nchamps_team.php). This is troubling. According to the pre-1935 criterion established by CFDW (http://cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/national_championships/national_champs_assessment.php), the selection of a team by just one of three major selectors (HAF, NCF, CFRA – all retroactive) is needed for recognition. However, for these 8 years, none of the major selectors, upon which CFDW based its list, selected Princeton. Yet Princeton appears on CFDW's "recognized" list for those 8 seasons.

In addition, the retroactive selections by HAF, NCF and CFRA also did not include Princeton for 1877, 1884 and 1886. Thus, under the CFDW criteria, those three Princeton teams should also not be recognized, and yet they are on its list. However, I do not begrudge the CDFW listing for those years, because a contemporary source circa 1894 (http://www.secsportsfan.com/support-files/special_edition.pdf, IFRA, "The College Football Historian," Special Edition, November 2008, p. 14.) lists Princeton as national champion or co-champion in those years. It should be without controversy for us in the present time to concur with such a decision made by the pioneers of football regarding the champions of their day. Despite the CFDW criteria, those 1877, 1884 and 1886 Princeton teams belong on a list of national champions. (For the sake of completeness, note also that CFDW properly excluded the titles claimed by Princeton for 1894 and 1950, under its own criteria.)

Therefore, according to its own criteria, a more appropriate number for CFDW's "recognized" Princeton national champions in football would be no more than 18. Note: Only when and if CFDW revises its reported number on its website should the number in this article be changed (see discussion above).

Jeff in CA (talk) 03:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Number of recognized Yale football titles
According to a contemporary source circa 1894 (http://www.secsportsfan.com/support-files/special_edition.pdf, IFRA, "The College Football Historian," Special Edition, November 2008, p. 14.), Yale won the 1890 national football championship and was recognized as such in its own time. However, Yale's 1890 title does not appear on the CFDW list. For the same reason as stated above for recognizing Princeton's titles for 1877, 1884 and 1886, Yale should also be recognized for its 1890 national championship. Thus, a more appropriate number for recognized Yale national champions in football would arguably be 19 (one more than the number given by CFDW). Note: Only when and if CFDW revises its reported number on its website should the number in this article be changed (see discussion above).

Jeff in CA (talk) 03:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * What is the source of this table titled "American Intercollegiate Football Association National Champions" in the above newsletter? You say it's a "contemporary source circa 1894" but is that stated in the newsletter? Curious for the selectors/history sections at College football national championships.
 * PK-WIKI (talk) 05:35, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Number of recognized University of Pennsylvania football titles
The inclusion of the 1907 Penn team in the CFDW list of recognized national champions is questionable. There were no major selectors who chose Penn (http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/national_championships/yearly_results.php?year=1907). Penn erroneously claims Billingsley for 1907 in its media guide, but Billingsley selected Harvard in 1907. Furthermore, CFDW did not utilize Billingsley's selections in its criteria. This is at odds with CFDW’s stated recognition criteria.

The inclusion of the 1894 Penn team as co-champion with Yale in the CFDW list of recognized national champions does not satisfy the CFDW criteria (http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/national_championships/yearly_results.php?year=1894). Although Penn had an excellent undefeated record, Yale also was undefeated with more wins, and was selected by HAF and NCF. Yale alone met the CFDW retroactive criteria. (Personally I am in favor of co-champions for 1894.)

Thus, a more appropriate number for CFDW's "recognized" University of Pennsylvania national champions in football would be 4 (two less than the number given by CFDW). Note: Only when and if CFDW revises its reported number on its website should the number in this article be changed (see discussion above).

Jeff in CA (talk) 03:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Men's rowing
I am uneasy about the listing of the Ten Ecyk winners (overall points trophy) in the IRA regatta from 1952 on as national champions in men's rowing.

Rowing is unlike most sports in that the winner of just one of the contested series of races, rather than an overall winner, is considered to be the national champion team. Typical of statements that one sees around the web is this one at http://www.gwsports.com/m/sports/m-rowing/spec-rel/052913aab.html :
 * "The IRA National Championship features the top crews in the country and crowns the winner of the Varsity 8 Grand Final as the National Champion."

For example, the California Golden Bears athletic article shows Cal as having won 16 national championships (not seven), corresponding to its varsity 8s wins at the IRA regatta. In fact, I don't think I've seen a rowing-related website state or imply that the Ten Ecyk winners were anything other than the Ten Ecyk winners.

In addition, the article at College rowing says the following with regard to the National Collegiate Rowing Championships that were held from 1982 to 1996:
 * "Given Washington's return to the IRA in 1995 and the demise of the National Collegiate Rowing Championship, the IRA again was considered to be the national championship."

That the NCRC was "quasi-official" was actually an upgrade from all the men's racing up until that time, as nothing was considered to be an "official" national championship event; rather, the IRA Grand 8s winner was considered the de facto champion. That the IRA race was not "official" I think stemmed largely from the fact that the Harvard and Yale varsity 8s, two of the perennially best crews in the nation, did not participate in the IRAs from 1898 through 2002. In fact some historians point to the Henley Regatta in England in certain years when Harvard, Yale and Washington were all present as being a more important US college race.

The fact that the Harvard/Yale winner and the Pac 10 winner (usually Washington) and whichever team won the IRA (often another Ivy) raced head-to-head made the NCRC important as a championship event.

I would favor listing the IRA heavyweight 8s winner as the national champion for each year, except for 1982-96, for which I would list the NCRC winners. What do others think?

Jeff in CA (talk) 16:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC) -

Effect of this on the number of men's rowing titles as currently listed: minus gain net-change Cornell     1     2     1 Navy        9     1    -8 Penn        5     1    -4 Princeton   1     1     0 Washington  4     2    -2 Wisconsin  12     4    -8 Brown       0     4     4 California  0     9     9 Harvard     0     6     6 Syracuse    0     1     1 Yale        0     1     1

Jeff in CA (talk) 02:45, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Cheer
Why is cheer not included in this list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryantheravensfan1 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think including it would be somewhat questionable. Is it frequently sponsored for competition by athletic departments? How many schools participate? Embowaf (talk) 04:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Why is Rifle not included?
West Virginia University has 15 national titles for that sport alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.123.223.156 (talk) 14:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Rifle is included, from 1905 onward. I speculate that even with those titles, the total is still below 20, which is where the cut-off seems to be for this list. Jeff in CA (talk) 08:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on List of NCAA schools with the most Division I national championships. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/wash/sports/c-crew/auto_pdf/weekly-release.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Checked good new link.Jeff in CA (talk) 19:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

NCAA team titles should be consistent with the NCAA's own numbers
The NCAA team championships on this list are not consistent with the NCAA's own published numbers. The NCAA's published championship count includes pre-1939 men's golf titles. This list, on the other hand, puts those pre-1939 golf titles in the "other team titles" column, and excludes those titles from the NCAA titles column. This results in the number of NCAA titles on this list being inconsistent with the NCAA's own numbers. This is a needless source of confusion. The NCAA titles numbers on this list should be consistent with the numbers that the rest of the world is using. I would move the pre-1939 golf titles into the NCAA team titles column.

Elmo McGee (talk) 23:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Considering the following table, it begs the question of why the NCAA does not count the 13 "unofficial" NCAA swimming team titles in the totals for Michigan, Northwester and Navy, while for other sports, all such tabulations of a school's totals do include the unofficial team titles.
 * What I find incredulous is that, while the NCAA seemingly arbitrarily excludes from its count 13 titles for events that it did sponsor (reported in the popular press at the time without any qualification, I might add), it also includes 41 team titles for events that it did not sponsor, some of which happened before the NCAA was even founded. I'm referring to men's golf — no other NCAA sport is treated this way.  The NCAA did not sponsor the golf championship until 1939, when it took over for the long-established National Intercollegiate Golf Association. If the NCAA really wanted to do justice by including titles won before it started sponsoring its own championships, it should start with all the AIAW championships won by its women's teams. But as it does count pre-NCAA golf, then what about men's track and field, fencing and rifle? There were annual collegiate championships conducted in these sports from 1876 to 1920, 1894 to 1943, and 1924 to 1979, respectively, right up until when the NCAA started sponsoring its own championships in each of these sports.  The NCAA is anything but consistent.
 * In any case, in the first table in the article, golf is treated in a manner consistent with every other sport's pre-NCAA titles. This reflects the same treatment of the same titles across all schools. Plus, the golf situation affects only six of the schools in the list and is clearly footnoted for each.
 * {| class="wikitable"
 * In any case, in the first table in the article, golf is treated in a manner consistent with every other sport's pre-NCAA titles. This reflects the same treatment of the same titles across all schools. Plus, the golf situation affects only six of the schools in the list and is clearly footnoted for each.
 * {| class="wikitable"
 * {| class="wikitable"


 * colspan=4|Unofficial NCAA Championship Years
 * colspan=3|NCAA Division I Team Titles (as of May 29, 2015)
 * School
 * align="center" |Swimming
 * align="center" |Boxing
 * align="center" |Wrestling
 * align="center" |Track &amp; Field
 * align="center" |# Unofficial
 * align="center" |# Official
 * align="center" |Total titles credited
 * Catholic
 * align="center" |1938
 * align="center" |1
 * align="center" |0
 * align="center" |1
 * Idaho
 * align="center" |1940, 1941
 * align="center" |2
 * align="center" |1
 * align="center" |3
 * Illinois
 * align="center" |1927
 * align="center" |1
 * align="center" |17
 * align="center" |18
 * Indiana
 * align="center" |1932
 * align="center" |1
 * align="center" |23
 * align="center" |24
 * Iowa State
 * align="center" |1933
 * align="center" |1
 * align="center" |12
 * align="center" |13
 * Michigan
 * align="center" |1927, 1928, 1931, 1932, 1934, 1935, 1936
 * align="center" |7
 * align="center" |36
 * align="center" |36
 * Navy
 * align="center" |1925, 1926
 * align="center" |2
 * align="center" |5
 * align="center" |5
 * Northwestern
 * align="center" |1924, 1929, 1930, 1933
 * align="center" |4
 * align="center" |8
 * align="center" |8
 * Oklahoma State
 * align="center" |1928, 1931, 1933
 * align="center" |3
 * align="center" |48
 * align="center" |51
 * Penn State
 * align="center" |1932
 * align="center" |1
 * align="center" |45
 * align="center" |46
 * Stanford
 * align="center" |1925
 * align="center" |1
 * align="center" |106
 * align="center" |107
 * Syracuse
 * align="center" |1936
 * align="center" |1
 * align="center" |12
 * align="center" |13
 * USC
 * align="center" |1926
 * align="center" |1
 * align="center" |99
 * align="center" |100
 * Virginia
 * align="center" |1938
 * align="center" |1
 * align="center" |21
 * align="center" |22
 * Washington State
 * align="center" |1937
 * align="center" |1
 * align="center" |1
 * align="center" |2
 * West Virginia
 * align="center" |1938
 * align="center" |1
 * align="center" |17
 * align="center" |18
 * Wisconsin
 * align="center" |1939, 1942, 1943, 1947
 * align="center" |4
 * align="center" |24
 * align="center" |28
 * align="right" |Number
 * align="center" |13
 * align="center" |12
 * align="center" |5
 * align="center" |3
 * align="center" |33
 * align="center" |46
 * Stanford
 * align="center" |1925
 * align="center" |1
 * align="center" |106
 * align="center" |107
 * Syracuse
 * align="center" |1936
 * align="center" |1
 * align="center" |12
 * align="center" |13
 * USC
 * align="center" |1926
 * align="center" |1
 * align="center" |99
 * align="center" |100
 * Virginia
 * align="center" |1938
 * align="center" |1
 * align="center" |21
 * align="center" |22
 * Washington State
 * align="center" |1937
 * align="center" |1
 * align="center" |1
 * align="center" |2
 * West Virginia
 * align="center" |1938
 * align="center" |1
 * align="center" |17
 * align="center" |18
 * Wisconsin
 * align="center" |1939, 1942, 1943, 1947
 * align="center" |4
 * align="center" |24
 * align="center" |28
 * align="right" |Number
 * align="center" |13
 * align="center" |12
 * align="center" |5
 * align="center" |3
 * align="center" |33
 * align="center" |1
 * align="center" |1
 * align="center" |2
 * West Virginia
 * align="center" |1938
 * align="center" |1
 * align="center" |17
 * align="center" |18
 * Wisconsin
 * align="center" |1939, 1942, 1943, 1947
 * align="center" |4
 * align="center" |24
 * align="center" |28
 * align="right" |Number
 * align="center" |13
 * align="center" |12
 * align="center" |5
 * align="center" |3
 * align="center" |33
 * align="center" |4
 * align="center" |24
 * align="center" |28
 * align="right" |Number
 * align="center" |13
 * align="center" |12
 * align="center" |5
 * align="center" |3
 * align="center" |33
 * align="center" |33


 * align="center"|475
 * align="center" |495
 * }
 * Jeff in CA (talk) 08:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Elmo McGee that pre-1939 men's golf titles should be considered to be NCAA titles. The NCAA lists them as NCAA titles (http://www.ncaa.com/history/golf-men/d1). Most other Wikipedia pages where this issue comes up consider them to be NCAA titles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NCAA_schools_with_the_most_NCAA_Division_I_championships, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_Cardinal, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princeton_Tigers, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yale_Bulldogs, but not https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Wolverines). Similarly, most university with pre-1939 men's golf titles consider these to be NCAA titles (http://princeton.sidearmsports.com/sports/2016/6/16/mens-golf-team-records-ivy-team-awards.aspx, http://www.gostanford.com/news/2016/8/31/national-championships.aspx). I have not considered other sports.
 * Thiesen (talk) 03:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thiesen (talk) 03:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Team Handball
My question is if we can add the Team Handball titles to the other Sports column like Rowing or Equestrian. Handball was once a NCAA sanctioned sport it had his own conference (Southeast Team Handball Conference).--Malo95 (talk) 14:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for compiling the history of intercollegiate team handball. It's much appreciated. The criteria stated in this article allow for the sports that are already listed. Generally speaking, unless it can be definitively shown that another sport has been bestowing college championships from a time pre-dating the NCAA, it is only for sports that are or were NCAA or AIAW sports. You mentioned that at one time, team handball was recognized by the NCAA (i.e., designated as an emerging sport).  That is intriguing. Do you have sources for that that you can share?  Jeff in CA (talk) 23:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey . There was only this conferece from the NCAA the National Championship was/is organized by the USA Team Handball. Unfortunately my page about Southeast Team Handball Conference the was deleted. But here is a link to the archived Webpage.
 * There is written at the bottom: "First in NCAA History The establishment of the Southeast Team Handball Conference (SETHC) was established in 1997 through a grant from the United States Olympic Committee and the NCAA. The USOC/NCAA grant program was created to assist endangered and emerging Olympic sports at the college level, increase the number of athletes, intercollegiate programs and conference championships, as well as assist NCAA member institutions reach gender-equity goals."
 * --Malo95 (talk) 07:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey . I found two sources  that Team Handball was a sanction sport. They say that the women's teams had at Divison I 10 scholarships and at D2 12. I also found a statisics from the NCAA  So the women's team handball is clearly sponsored.--Malo95 (talk) 11:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Very interesting. I see there were seven women's sports classified as emerging sports: archery, badminton, equestrian, rugby, squash, synchronized swimming, and team handball.  In the tables of participation by sport by division by year, there were zero team handball teams over the years that played as varsity teams under NCAA auspices (which disqualifies  club teams), even during the existence of the SETHC, despite the sport being sanctioned by the NCAA as an emerging sport.  None of these sports has as yet moved up in the NCAA hierarchy from emerging to full championship status. The only one that has come close to joining the NCAA umbrella with competition under the auspices of the NCAA (rather than the NGB of a sport) is varsity equestrian. Jeff in CA (talk) 08:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey . I found two articles were the handball championship is called a NCAA competition.
 * Ohio State Lantern: "Two titles will be awarded. Both the National Team Handball Champion and the NCAA champion will be crowned."
 * The daily Tar Heel:
 * "Junior goalie Rik Walls and the three-year-old UNC team handball club finished fourth in the country in the team's first year of NCAA competition."
 * "In the meantime, North Carolina participates in the NCAA Division II, a divison for clubs less than five years old."
 * I'm not sure if the newspapers made a mistake or if the competition were really sponsored by the NCAA. My additional question is do you want to implement the emerging sports in your list or what do you to with this sports?--Malo95 (talk) 12:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I asked a guy who has more knowledge in the championships at this years and he told me that the college newspapers had made this mistake often. So the college nationals were never sponsored by the NCAA.--Malo95 (talk) 14:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, not only college newspapers, but many sportswriters have just assumed (and still do) that if a sport is played at a college that the NCAA runs it. Jeff in CA (talk) 20:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Women's lightweight rowing
Why is women's lightweight rowing not included in this list? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercollegiate_sports_team_champions#Varsity_Lightweight_Eights.

Elsewhere on this page, I find: "Generally speaking, unless it can be definitively shown that another sport has been bestowing college championships from a time pre-dating the NCAA, it is only for sports that are or were NCAA or AIAW sports." But men's rowing championships, women's equestrian championships, and women's rugby championships are included, even though these never were NCAA or AIAW sports. Thiesen (talk) 16:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I wrote those words on this Talk page. That was an interpretation (for the guy who wanted to include team handball) of the inclusion criteria stated in the article: "... the "Other Team Titles" column also includes championships won in three other sports: men's rowing (1871–present), which has voluntarily remained outside NCAA sponsorship, and two NCAA "emerging sports" that organize championships, women's equestrian (2002–present) and women's rugby (1991–present)." For men's rowing, the forerunner of the IRA was the first collegiate athletic organization in the United States, pre-dating the first NCAA championship awarded in any sport by 50 years. The same cannot be said of women's rowing prior to the AIAW/NCAA championships. Women's equestrian and women's rugby are included because they are among the "NCAA Emerging Sports" that both conduct established national championships and have a significant number of teams with varsity status. There are other NCAA sports designated as emerging for women, such as team handball, for which the same cannot be said.Jeff in CA (talk) 01:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Remove CFDW from football column; switch to university claims
I think everyone reading this discussion should be knowledgable about the difficulty/intricacy of defining and enumerating college football national championships. If not, please read the linked article as well as the "Information about football-related content in this article" section of this page.

One of the defining features of this list (vs. the similar list at List of NCAA schools with the most NCAA Division I championships) is the addition of football national championships to the total. The way this article has filled the football column is by including only the football championships "recognized" by College Football Data Warehouse (CFDW), a football statistics website published/updated between roughly 2000–2015.

I see two major problems with the CFDW approach as it relates to Wikipedia policies:

1. The first relates to WP:NPOV. The usage of the CFDW table gives major WP:UNDUE weight to the opinions of a single person/website. "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." The particular views of the person/people behind CFDW are clearly a "minority view" held only by the website who published the table and are not particularly prominent. No evidence is given that their exclusive "recognized" national championships are an accepted view by anyone else. "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views."

This issue is raised without prejudice to the relative merits of the CFDW selections or to the credentials or WP:RELIABILITY of the website or its authors.

As one example, CFDW does not recognize the 1939 USC national championship. Thus USC is not credited with that national championship on Wikipedia. This is despite the fact that USC was awarded the Knute Rockne Memorial Trophy in December 1939, the single major contemporary trophy emblematic of the national championship. CFDW recognizes only Texas A&M for 1939, No. 1 in the AP Poll, which did not award a trophy. (The AP Poll was only in its 4th year; it eventually did become one of the most important selectors, but I'd argue it's WP:RECENTISM to suggest that the AP Poll was the only top-tier selector in 1939). USC themselves claim the 1939 title. The words "1939 University of Southern California" are even engraved on the AP Trophies used in 1941–1947 and 1948–1956, as the AP Trophy inherited the legacy of the Rissman and Rockne trophies and not the 1936-1940 AP Poll winners. It's clearly a "significant view" published by many reliable sources that USC was a national champion in 1939.

I'm of course not comparing the relative merits of either team's season, win-loss record, or national championship claim, just recognizing that USC won the single major national championship trophy for 1939 while Texas A&M was No. 1 in the AP Poll. Yet USC's national championship is not included in this general Wikipedia list of national champions due to the exclusive WP:WEIGHT given to the opinions of a single self-published college football stats website that has been offline since 2017. This exclusive deferment to CFDW's opinion is WP:UNDUE.

2. An issue of WP:SYNTHESIS. As mentioned, CFDW has been offline since 2017. Their recognized national championship table was last updated to award Alabama for 2015.

Editors continued to update the CFDW football column post-2015, adding the College Football Playoff champions, despite those champions not being recognized by CFDW (or indeed CFDW ever even writing that the CFP would be a recognized selector). I mentioned this problem in a reply above as a "synthesis" concern, but I should have said simple misappropriation. In light of my concerns the table heading was changed in December 2022 to read "Recognized Football Titles / CFP". It's this combined column that is now WP:SYNTHESIS. It's WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH for editors here to decide that CFDW should be used for 1869–2015, and for the CFP champion to be used for 2016–present. This original research and determination would become extremely obvious if UFC were to win enough other team championships to make this list's cutoff, as they claim the 2017 national championship. Who are we to say that their well-documented claim to the national championship (as the nation's only undefeated team, who additionally beat the team that beat both participants in the CFP's title game), awarded by an an NCAA-designated "major selector", is invalid? Why should only the CFP winner be included post-2015? This determination is original research, as is the synthesis of the CFDW and CFP selections in the single column.

In light of the two above issues, the CFDW "recognized" football national championships should be removed from this list. As should the exclusive CFP selector for 2016–present.

A replacement for the football column is not easy to determine, as the many various tables at college football national championships make clear. Sums of national championship selections by of all selectors, "major" selectors, or top-tier selectors all have the issue of either undercounting or overcounting national championships. The best solution I see is changing the football column to represent the national championships CLAIMED by each school. University "claims" are a very well-established facet of the football national championship conversation and represent the notable, cited position of each major institution. (Point of reference: 2012 AP story titled "National titles: Who decides? Mostly, the schools" )

Please see this article's recent edit history for the differences between the current CFDW-sourced column and the proposed claims-by-school column. Discussion appreciated.

PK-WIKI (talk) 07:37, 4 May 2023 (UTC)


 * All material from the CFDW has reliable published sources, all of which are directly related and supporting. The material does not reach or imply any conclusion not stated by the sources. All material before 2015 is the product of the Intercollegiate Football Research Association, published at CFDW by the historian proprietors of the site. All information after 2015 is sourced to the NCAA. (That the 2015 and later data appears in the same column below the end of the CFDW data is a specious point.) Therefore, there has been no synthesis whatever.
 * The reasons for using the CFDW data in this list are stated succinctly in the comment here (section called "status of the CFBDW section") by CrazyPaco:
 * "The reasons College Football Data Warehouse was originally added were several, but the first was that it was an independent site published by a college football historian with contributions from a second who has published books on the subject. Foremost, what it attempted to do was gather as much raw data on college football as possible, minus interpretation and bias that shows up nearly everywhere else." (emphasis added)
 * Football historian Kent Stephens, as quoted here, states, "There is no official standard because there is no official national champion. It all depends on the standard the school wishes to utilize." It is for this reason that the use of each school's football claims presents an enormous problem for this list; the use of CFDW remedies that problem. Pointedly, the CFDW does NOT depend on the standard the school wishes to utilize. This is both desired and preferred because such a standard utilized by a school is always biased and partial.
 * It should be obvious that historians are far more unbiased and impartial than athletic departments. They’re also better at history.
 * Finally, the criterion for inclusion of results of every sport in this list is to include the most objective, unbiased results available (to the extent possible, these results are defined as being decided on the field of play). For football, the same criterion has applied from inception of this list until the present. The CFDW data was the best unchanging set of data for meeting this criterion. It is a sad occasion indeed that we would choose to depart from this criterion.
 * It should be obvious that historians are far more unbiased and impartial than athletic departments. They’re also better at history.
 * Finally, the criterion for inclusion of results of every sport in this list is to include the most objective, unbiased results available (to the extent possible, these results are defined as being decided on the field of play). For football, the same criterion has applied from inception of this list until the present. The CFDW data was the best unchanging set of data for meeting this criterion. It is a sad occasion indeed that we would choose to depart from this criterion.
 * Finally, the criterion for inclusion of results of every sport in this list is to include the most objective, unbiased results available (to the extent possible, these results are defined as being decided on the field of play). For football, the same criterion has applied from inception of this list until the present. The CFDW data was the best unchanging set of data for meeting this criterion. It is a sad occasion indeed that we would choose to depart from this criterion.
 * Finally, the criterion for inclusion of results of every sport in this list is to include the most objective, unbiased results available (to the extent possible, these results are defined as being decided on the field of play). For football, the same criterion has applied from inception of this list until the present. The CFDW data was the best unchanging set of data for meeting this criterion. It is a sad occasion indeed that we would choose to depart from this criterion.


 * Jeff in CA (talk) 22:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Jeff in CA, I understand your argument, but what do you say to the fact that it hasn't been updated since 2015? Dolenath (talk) 14:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Nothing changes the validity or reliability of the body of work before 2015. Unlike scientific data, the historical information is not dynamic. The CFDW doesn’t become less reliable. The data doesn’t change or become superseded. That the data is available via the Internet Archive doesn’t affect anything. Compilers and providers of data move on with their lives or retire, yet the body of work stands on its own. For data after 2015, there is another follow-on resource. Jeff in CA (talk) 15:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources are very clear and in agreement that national championships in college football are "mythical".
 * Our solution as wikipedians can't be to disregard what the major view of the reliable sources says and instead settle on using a self-published stats website that purports to offer an "unbiased and impartial" list of national champions, when reliable sources say such a list does not and can not exist.
 * College football national championships are intrinsically and explicitly opinionated awards by selectors and claims by school. I agree that it is somewhat uncomfortable slotting them into an otherwise "objective" table of national champions, but this table must accomodate claims because that's what college football national championships are. Using claims is not a "problem" for this list but rather what the table must contain according to the majority view published by reliable sources.
 * PK-WIKI (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It is understood and agreed by all concerned, including editors of Wikipedia football championship articles and lists, publishers of college football data, major selectors, etc., that college football national championships are mythical. No one is disregarding this universal view. Therefore, this universal view is immaterial to this discussion.
 * All material in this list that is/was sourced to the CFDW is the product of the Intercollegiate Football Researchers Association, a group of expert football historians. (And it is obvious that someone from that group, who also edited the group’s monthly newsletter, had to run the website while it operated.)
 * It makes no sense to disregard the inclusion criteria of this list, disregard the reliable information published by an expert organization of football historians who are the most minimally biased source in this subject, and in its place substitute the most biased and partial sources imaginable. Jeff in CA (talk) 05:35, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Going back to CrazyPaco's comment that you quoted, the "minus interpretation and bias that shows up nearly everywhere else" referred to the complete compilation of all historic selectors, not to CFDW's opinionated list of "recognized national championships":
 * Foremost, what it attempted to do was gather as much raw data on college football as possible, minus interpretation and bias that shows up nearly everywhere else. What that meant for this article in the truest sense of WP:NOTFORUM/WP:NOT, is that it presented the most comprehensive collection of national championship selections anywhere. Even the NCAA Records Book is in some way biased by the opinions of the historians that deemed certain selectors to be "major", which obviously means the opinions of some historical selectors did not make the cut based on the opinion of these historians. CFDW listed everything it could find, including some selections from scarce historic primary source material that would otherwise be difficult to duplicate. In that sense, the loss of that material being available to the public is very unfortunate. At one point I believe that list may have been present in the article. (emphasis added)
 * I agree that CFDW was *the* best source for national championship selections/selectors. Many of the historic selectors compiled on the site's previous national championship selectors page were clearly notable and important yet practically unknown.
 * I've attempted to bring many of these selectors over to Wikipedia, especially in cases of where trophies were awarded or the selection does not otherwise appear in the NCAA book. This is somewhat difficult, as CFDW actually does a pretty poor job of explaining who or what the selector was, or which primary source was used, beyond a name and short description. But the work continues.
 * But as it relates to this article and discussion, it's only the second part of CrazyPaco's comment that matters:
 * The second thing it did was to provide its own opinion on which of those national championships were most legitimate. In this second listing of championships, which was perhaps less important for the article here, but it did provided an alternative comprehensive viewpoint (and most alternative lists aren't comprehensive) to the historians that contributed to the NCAA Records Book. (emphasis added)
 * The opinions of a single self-published website aren't particularly relevant for Wikipedia, per WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE.
 * PK-WIKI (talk) 17:46, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Men's rowing discrepancies vs. reliable sources
Today the Seattle Times ran the headline:


 * Huskies claim their 20th men’s rowing national title
 * 1923, 1924, 1926, 1936, 1937, 1940, 1941, 1948, 1950, 1970, 1997, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2021, 2024 — via print layout
 * Champions. For the 20th time. [...] The Huskies’ 20th national title — 101 years after their first one — moved them past California into second place by themselves all time behind Cornell, which has won 26.
 * Champions. For the 20th time. [...] The Huskies’ 20th national title — 101 years after their first one — moved them past California into second place by themselves all time behind Cornell, which has won 26.
 * Champions. For the 20th time. [...] The Huskies’ 20th national title — 101 years after their first one — moved them past California into second place by themselves all time behind Cornell, which has won 26.

the university's own Washington Huskies rowing post about the win repeats this claim of 20:


 * Bow Down! Huskies Sweep IRA National Championships
 * One hundred and one years after having won its first-ever Intercollegiate Rowing Association national championship, the Washington men's rowing team won its 20th national title Sunday at Mercer Lake. [...] Additionally, UW won the James Ten Eyck Memorial Trophy, for overall points champion, for the 18th time. [...] Michael Callahan, who won his eight national title as UW head coach.
 * One hundred and one years after having won its first-ever Intercollegiate Rowing Association national championship, the Washington men's rowing team won its 20th national title Sunday at Mercer Lake. [...] Additionally, UW won the James Ten Eyck Memorial Trophy, for overall points champion, for the 18th time. [...] Michael Callahan, who won his eight national title as UW head coach.

These totals differ from those listed at this article, which currently overcounts Cornell and Washington and undercounts Cal:


 * Cornell's 70 other titles are: 34x men's rowing (1875, 76, 80, 83, 85, 87, 89–94, 96–97, 1901–03, 05–07, 09–12, 15, 30, 55–58, 61, 62, 71, 81)
 * Washington's 42 other titles are: 26x men's rowing (1923, 24, 26, 33, 36, 37, 40, 41, 48, 50, 53, 59, 64, 70, 2007–15, 17-19, 21)
 * Cal's 15 other titles are: 9x men's rowing (1928, 32, 34, 35, 39, 49, 2006, 16, 23)

This article's  currently states:


 * 1871–present (overall points since 1952)

With no citation or note about why "overall points since 1952" has been chosen on Wikipedia.

Unclear where these differences are coming from; the men's rowing titles should be audited and their differences here vs. their treatment in reliable sources corrected and/or explained.

PK-WIKI (talk) 22:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)


 * For the explanation, see the section above titled "Men's rowing," where I stated, "I am uneasy about the listing of the Ten Ecyk winners (overall points trophy) in the IRA regatta from 1952 on as national champions in men's rowing." As you can see, I've been contemplating for ten years making the change described there. Nearly everyone considers the varsity eights champion to be the national champion of men's rowing, no matter how all the other boats perform. It seems like you are the first to respond to this topic on this Talk page. Jeff in CA (talk) 04:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see now that you made basically the same topic 10 years ago. I do think a change should be made, especially given the Seattle Times and UW sources above.
 * Is there any reason 1952 was chosen, or was that just the first year of the Ten Eyck Trophy? Has the Varsity Challenge Cup trophy always been given to the winner of the IRA National Championship? Details about that trophy are mostly missing from Wikipedia but it appears to be the "national championship trophy" for the IRA and would be easy to cite.
 * Would like to see some research on what the other schools are claiming. Is anyone claiming the Total Points or other titles as a "national championship"? Do we have multiple schools claiming the national championship for the same year? If they do, given that all of these titles are "unofficial" and that the most important title seems to vary from year to year, I think that I would most support a "claim" system similar to college football.
 * Article could describe all of the Ten Eyck Trophy, Varsity Challenge Cup, 1933 Long Beach Regatta (S.W. Schweppe Trophy or Richard J. Schweppe Trophy), NCRC Cincinnati Regatta, Henley Royal Regatta(???), etc. and then tabulate which of those each individual team is claiming as a national championship. Perhaps we will get lucky and things will pencil out better than they do for football.
 * PK-WIKI (talk) 06:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm sure 1952 was chosen because it was the first year of the Ten Eyck trophy. I don't know anything about the history of the actual Varsity Challenge Cup, other than it has been around a long time.
 * Yale, Harvard, Washington, Penn, or Wisconsin were the only teams to win the NCRC without winning the IRA in the same year (impossible for the big three, of course). One or more of them could perhaps claim NCRC as a national championship in those instances.
 * I think Washington rightly claims a national title for 1933. I see that the Huskies' current website does contain that claim.
 * I doubt that any school claims the Total Points (Ten Eyck Trophy) as being a national championship. The culture always seems to have been that the heavyweight eights winner is crowned national champion. Henley? That's interesting, as a race for true international honors, but I would not count it as a U.S. national title, the same as I would not count the college teams that won Olympic gold medals on that basis alone.
 * The proposed article you mentioned also would be interesting. There are certainly a lot fewer schools to research than for football. I think such an investigation would pencil out better. Currently, I myself don't have time to do it. Jeff in CA (talk) 01:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I doubt that any school claims the Total Points (Ten Eyck Trophy) as being a national championship. The culture always seems to have been that the heavyweight eights winner is crowned national champion. Henley? That's interesting, as a race for true international honors, but I would not count it as a U.S. national title, the same as I would not count the college teams that won Olympic gold medals on that basis alone.
 * The proposed article you mentioned also would be interesting. There are certainly a lot fewer schools to research than for football. I think such an investigation would pencil out better. Currently, I myself don't have time to do it. Jeff in CA (talk) 01:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The proposed article you mentioned also would be interesting. There are certainly a lot fewer schools to research than for football. I think such an investigation would pencil out better. Currently, I myself don't have time to do it. Jeff in CA (talk) 01:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The proposed article you mentioned also would be interesting. There are certainly a lot fewer schools to research than for football. I think such an investigation would pencil out better. Currently, I myself don't have time to do it. Jeff in CA (talk) 01:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)