Talk:NCAA Division I-A National Football Championship
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archives |
2005 • 2006 • 2007 • 2008 |
[edit] 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)