Talk:NCAA Division I-A National Football Championship/Archive 2008

Archive 2005

Archive 2006

Archive 2007

Archive 2008

Rename or Delete

Also: While I am not very good at editing, Washington should be recognized as co-champions if not more in 1960. Helms went back and named Washington national champions. They went 10-1 and beat #1 Minnesota in the Rose Bowl, and the AP polls were conducted before the bowl games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.86.194 (talk) 11:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an NCAA Division I-A national football championship; therefore this page should either be renamed or deleted. It should become something like "Recognized national champions of NCAA Division I-A football." As worded, it is claiming that these are NCAA championships, and they are not. This page is misnamed. Bsd987 (talk) 23:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

There are also no such thing as "Recognized national champions of NCAA Division I-A football". Recognized by whom? This article explains the fact that the NCAA has never named an official national champion in Division I FBS football. Speaking of which, I agree that a name change will soon be in order. This article will eventually need to be moved to NCAA Division I FBS national football championship, and NCAA Division I-AA national football championship will eventually need to be moved to NCAA Division I FCS national football championship. The public has grown familiar with the new subdivision terms during the 2007 season, and within the next year it will become necessary to update the article names. Iowa13 (talk) 15:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

This entire article reeks of POV and needs a rewrite very, very badly. It's clearly been hijacked by the we-hate-the-BCS crowd to the point that every single paragraph reads like a propaganda statement favoring a playoff. Maybe that's to be expected in Wikipedia, but if anybody around here happens to actually want to make it read like an informational article about the history of college football's national championships instead of something that a bored sportswriter wrote in any one of the last twenty Decembers when he had nothing better to do while he's waiting for the bowl season to start, it needs a lot of work, starting with clipping away matter-of-fact references to "mythical national championships" and the intro paragraph reading like a criticism rather than a statement of what it is. I'm sure people will rant that it's somehow "relevant" and quickly point to the mythical crud rating a mid importance, but move that stuff to a criticism or controversy section instead of treating it like an academically verified fact. StiltMonster (talk) 21:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Glad you brought this up. I am currently collaborating with Gvharrier in the creation of a new By Year table that will be the most authoratative list on the Internet. It is in its final stages and can be seen on my user page. When the table is completed, I plan on overhauling the whole article. No truer words have ever been spoken than your first sentence, StiltMonster. Along with the new By Year table, there will be a new Most National Championships table and rewrites and reorginization of every section of the article. We may even move the page to NCAA Division I FBS national football championship, if I am able to convert the opponents of such a change. This article full of anti-BCS references, but it is also packed with frustration concerning the current By Year table, all of which will be put to rest by the new table. If all goes well in the coming months, this article will go from being one of Wikipedia's poorest to one of its best. Iowa13 (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

For a long time the D I A page was listed as NCAA Division I-A national football champions while D 1 AA and D 2 and D3 who have an actually championship game was listed NCAA Division xxx national football championship. It a small difference but one that I think at least points out that D1 A does not actually have championship game. Smith03 (talk) 22:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Strong support of the move. Considering the name changes became official with the last year, I am surprised that this article (and its info) have not been merged. I may, in the future, put a notice on the top of the main page to merge. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The change being discussed here does not concern the suggested switch from I-A to FBS, but I would support such a move. I'm expecting it will be done soon. Iowa13 (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Point of View

I agree with comments above about the subjectivity and POV in the current table. I looked at the new table on Iowa13's page, and it does a better job of avoiding subjective choices between polls in the pre-1936 era. In particular, the subjective decision to use National Championship Foundation ("NCF") for the period from 1869-1882 and from 1924-1953, but to exclude the same NCF determinations for the period from 1883-1923 makes absolutely no sense. NCF is one of the most established sources for determining retroactive championships in the pre-1936 time period, and there is no rational basis for the subjective decision to include their findings for some years but not others. I'm sure it slights many schools, but as one example, it deprives Michigan of its National Championships in 1903 (11-0-1, outscored opponents 565-6), 1904 (10-0, outscored opponents 567-22), 1918 (5-0, outscored opponents 96-6) and 1923 (8-0, outscored opponents 150-12). The year 1918 (a year shortened due to the 1918 flu epidemic and wartime travel restrictions) demonstrates the point. The current chart credits a 4-1 Pitt team as the National Champion, while both the NCF and Billingsley recognize undefeated Michigan as the champion. Michigan that year was 5-0 and shut out Western powers Chicago and Ohio State and Eastern power Syracuse. The chart be updated now to, at a minimum, include the missing NCF national championships for the years 1883-1923? That task would not take more than a couple hours, and I'd be willing to do it. Is there any reason not to add the NCF championships from 1883-1923 at this time? Cbl62 (talk) 00:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

We're planning on implementing the new table very soon, so it would be a waste of your time — however, if you're willing to do it, go ahead. Iowa13 (talk) 06:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I put the POV on this page, and I've been working with Iowa13 to address this issue. We'll remove it and correct the issues (such as the Michigan championships which brought me to this page in the first place). So don't bother to work on a revision, and instead focus on the table now on Iowa13's user page. Gvharrier (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

My previous comment wasn't even directed at the table in particular. The table could go any which way and still not be nearly as egregious as the matter-of-fact reference to this as a mythical championship. This is, by definition, the POV of BCS critics and has absolutely no place in an encyclopedia article. Starting from the very first paragraph, the article reads like a criticism of the process. That should be moved to a controversies section instead of having the BCS hate pervading the entire article. StiltMonster (talk) 08:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again, we are planning what will basically be a rewrite for the near future. There has been a brief hiatus in the process over the holidays, but we're starting up again soon. I disagree, however, with your accusation of "mythical national championship" as POV. The term has existed for decades and is common jargon in the college football world. It has its own article, that should be enough. Yes, the article is full of anti-BCS sentiment, but the "mythical" reference is not part of it. Iowa13 (talk) 21:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

"Mythical national champ" has been used by the national press ever since I followed college football starting in 1966, e.g., after the Michigan Notre Dame 10-10 tie that I saw on TV. It's part of the vernacular and will be until there's a true playoff system that's open to all of the Div IA teams. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gvharrier (talk • contribs) 22:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)