Talk:College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS/Archive 2008

This is an archive of past discussions about College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 2005

Archive 2006

Archive 2007

→

By year

Several months ago I created a list based on much discussion that nearly matches the national champions list from the official NCAA record book. It is the product of weeks of debate on who should be included in such a list and how. I've been on wikibreak for a few months but would love to bring this back into consideration, as the list is extremely informative and had received praise from many notable editors. The list is still on my user page and I would appreciate if people would take a look at it. The multiple discussions about the list are probably still in the archives, if that helps. Again it's on my user page, thanks! Iowa13 (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't vandalizing Wikipedia. And even if you leave out those two titles, Tenn. still has two more. My source is the CFB Data Warehouse. [1] Also it seems people are very protective of the pages they work on, like they own them. They belong to Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.36.22 (talk) 02:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

CFB Data Warehouse is not a reputable source for consensus championships, and it is not the one used in this article. That is why I reverted the edits, not because I am protective of "my" page. I am only protective of the information which has been sourced to certain places and may not be changed without further discussion. Feel free to open the conversation if you like, although it's already been discussed a number of times. Iowa13 (talk) 17:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious then to what is a reputable source for a "consensus" championship selector? CFDW backs up their "recognized" selections with prodigious research. The NCAA determines Consensus All-American status by a point system. How can the status of "consensus" for a particular selector even be determined prior to the 1940s? Deciding which selectors are "consensus" seems no less arbitrary than any other opinion. I ask this mostly out of pure interest, and think the page is well done. However, "consensus" is neither defined nor is a source cited in the article that indicates which selectors are "consensus".CrazyPaco (talk) 03:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I like the new layout and content of the article (much more informative and less opinion, IMO), but I updated the total of some teams based solely on the tables in the mid-part of the article. So, if theose tables are what we are using, the tallies should be accurate. Additionally, I have reordered tables to put the most recent winner of a NC within each tally, first. I remember us agreeing on this convention as the fairest way to list them. Newguy34 (talk) 18:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Consensus AP/Coaches/BCS National Champions by Conference (Modern Era)

ANON IP 66.98.99.154 made several edits to categorize NCs for several teams in the conferences in which they originally won the NCs, with the exception of SMU, which was inexplicable left categorized with C-USA. I have reverted the edits and added a note that SMU won their 2 NCs while part of the old Southwest Conference. The table make sense and is consitent, IMO. Any disagreements? Newguy34 (talk) 19:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Very last chart

The very last chart in the article (entitled "Total Consensus & Non-Consensus National Champions (All-Time)") supposedly lists all championships to my understanding. (that is how the description reads) So basically, any year that a team is mentioned in the overall big chart (in the "National Champions (Year-by-Year)" section) should count as once instance, correct? In some unrelated edits that I was doing, I noticed that Navy (1926), Detroit (1928), Colgate (1932), W&J (1922), Centre (1919), Rutgers (1869), and Dartmouth (1925) were not listed at all in the chart until I added them, and Lafayette (1896, 1921, 1926) was only listed as one instance. I would recommend someone going through and counting to make sure the numbers are correct, because if I caught that many and wasn't even looking for them, I would bet that there other errors in the chart. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Records listed (confidence of correctness?)

How confident are we about the correctness of the records listed in the big main chart? (Especially for the earlier seasons) For instance; 1874 lists Harvard with a record of 2-1-1, but according to these sources: [2], [3], [4], Harvard is not listed in any of them as having completed any games. Besides my (above section) concern about the numbers listed in the last chart, these team records likely need to be looked at and verified by someone. Not sure who created these charts in the first place and the sources they used, but there seem to be some holes. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 07:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Congrove Computer Rankings

I added the Congrove Computer Rankings as it is widely-known and referenced with an internet presence since 1993. It is included in Massey's comparison rankings page, Prediction Tracker pages, and CFBData Warehouse. It has been published on the creator's own massive website since 1999. The last I checked, the NCAA site does not endorse a list of "accepted" or "official" selectors - it merely presents a sampling. Discounting other well-know entities may not do this page justice. I certainly would argue that not just anyone should be able to appear as there is a proliferation of such rankings systems, but I think independent research would lead you to agree that this one belongs.--McDave01 (talk) 19:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)