Fanblogs.com: Who Embellishes Their National Championship Claims and Who Does Not
methomps
· 1 year ago
It would help if you didn't misuse the term "backdated."
From dictionary.com:
backdate - to date earlier than the actual date; predate; antedate: Backdate the letter so he'll think I wrote it last week.
Examples of titles that are backdated are those awarded solely by a selector that didn't exist at the time. For example, National Championship Foundation originated in 1980, but it awards NCs all the way back into 1886. Those NCs weren't awarded at the time. Dickinson actually existed in the late 20s and 30s, so those titles aren't backdated.
As for discounting Dickinson because you think the fact that it folded in 1940 makes less credible, that is a whole other debate from what you present. If we move to a playoff ten years from now and the AP folds up, will all those AP titles become 'backdated'? Here is what the 2007 Divison I Football Records Book, published by the NCAA, says about Dickinson:
Dickinson System (1926-40), a mathematical point system devised by Frank Dickinson, a professor of economics at Illinois. The annual Dickinson ratings were emblematic of the national championship and the basis for awarding the Rissman National Trophy and the Knute K. Rockne Intercollegiate Memorial Trophy. Notre Dame gained permanent possession of the Rissman Trophy (named for Jack F. Rissman, a Chicago clothing manufacturer) after its third victory in 1930. Minnesota retired the Rockne Trophy (named in honor of the famous Notre Dame coach) after winning it for a third time in 1940.
TampaGator
· 1 year ago
WEA:
I have a reservation about the premises your analysis is based on--aside from the question of which NC's are legit, which are not: what do you base the assertion that those universities "claim" those NC's on?
Illustration: "Joe" above referenced a couple of media guides--that's a fair basis to conclude that a school is "claiming" an NC (though even that's debateable, depending on how its worded, disclosures, disclaimers, etc.). If CFB warehouse is simply identifying which schools were named NC's, based on some publications (regardless how dubious)--does that really qualify as "claiming" a NC?
...and if a U refers to one of these publications--simply acknowledging (even boasting) that said presumably neutral publication recognized their school as a NC--does that really count as "claiming" a NC?
...not saying you're off your rocker...just pointing out that "claiming" and "acknowleging" can be quite different.
FWIW: I don't really have a dog in this "fight"--UF claims 2, both "legit", since both were in BCS era; we never claimed '84, though we'd be justified in doing so upon some of the grounds used by some schools in your analyiss (NYT voted UF #1 at end of that season, but BYU won the NC by most counts). But, I don't really have a problem with any university staking their claim to a NC, as long as it's made in good faith, and reasonably grounded. Why shouldn't they? Why should they accept some other school as champion, if they have equal grounds to stake their own claim?
My $.02
GO GATORS!!
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 1 year ago
Good questions, TG. Answers are a bit hard to come by. Certainly, there's a difference in what each school may claim as opposed to what a data site like CFBDW may claim for them. I suspect that if a school openly claims a title long enough, it more or less becomes fact after a few decades. You would have had to been around at the time to know how a school handled it. I was only 5 in 1973, so I don't know if Alabama celebrated their MNC immediately, or waited a few years after their loss to ND before they started hoisting any banners at Legion Field.
Since the NCAA has never sanctioned a title for major college football, it's basically become a free for all--especially with back-dated titles, which were awarded decades after the fact. All I suggest, to clean this mess up, is to adopt some standard and stick to it. Yes, it sucks for GA Tech that 15 selectors voted for them in 1952 but I still leave them out. It sucks for Auburn in 1983 when 19 selectors chose them, but by the standard I've adopted, that's the way it is.
With so many varied selectors out there handing out titles, some are more credible than the others, so for simplicity, I decided to go with the ones that have been there since the start. Were there NC selectors before the AP poll debuted in 1934? Yes. The Dickinson system and the Helms Foundation come to mind, but they didn't last, so I cast them into the scrap heap of history.
The NCAA will never delve into this fracus, so we will probably always have these debates. At least now, with the BCS and all the attention it commands, it makes it harder for a team that received minor selectors to openly claim a title, too. Look at 2004. Auburn had 3 selectors and Utah had 1. Do you see either claiming a title? No, because they would be laughed at. But what about in 30 years? What if they start claiming it then? Who's going to know or care by then?
This is a great article. I've been looking for a place that lists claimed national championships by schools. Just wanted to point out that, according to a media guide, University of Pittsburgh claims 9 national championships. 1915,1916,1918,1929,1931,1934,1936,1937,1976
Your original list is really what college football data warehouse considers to be recognized national championships. The actual schools may claim they've won more or less. Notre Dame claims they've won '11 consensus national championships.' USC claims 11 national championships in their 2007 media guide.
I still like the idea of the topic though, keep em coming.
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 1 year ago
No it's not. CFBDW regognizes back-dated titles and sometimes awards titles based on a mere preponderance of selectors, as opposed to using the two heavyweights in each season, the AP and UPI. For example, in 1960, six different teams were awarded national titles by 42 different selectors. Minnesota had both the AP and UPI crowns, but Ole Miss had the most selectors choose them--18, as opposed to Minnesota's 8 and Iowa's 12.
Yet CFBDW recognizes Minnesota AND Ole Miss as champions. Minnesota got the only two that count in my book. If you're going to give one to Ole Miss for having the most insignificant selectors, why are you not awarding Iowa a title, too. They also had more selctors than Minnesota.
See how inconsistent it is? What about the other 3 teams that year that someone recognized, Mizzou, Penn State, and Washington? We can't give them all titles, right? If you're going to bend the rules and award a title for having the most selectors choose you, then I want to be in Jordan-Hare next week when they raise the banner for the MNC in 1983, because Auburn had 19 selectors as opposed to Miami's 13. And Nebraska might want a piece, too, because they also had 13 selectors that year.
You have to draw the line somewhere, and I did!
husker dennis
· 1 year ago
agree Nebr. had its shot and Dr. Tom went for 2 Thus Miami was born into big time football.
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 1 year ago
I totally forgot to say that I got my information from college football data warehouse, which I think is as close to being the authority than I think you can come. Certain schools are going to claim more titles than what CFBDW allows for them. My criteria is even more strict than theirs. CFBDW is very vague about how they arrive at recognizing MNCs.
psichipsu
· 1 year ago
I'm really disappointed that you didn't consider the New York Times as a championship designator....they said Penn State was #1 for 1994. It seems pretty obvious that Penn State would have knocked the socks off Nebraska (do they wear socks in Nebraska?) then.
But, otherwise, what a great post....thank you
BB
· 1 year ago
Why isn't LSU listed? They have three MNC's.
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 1 year ago
There are a lot of teams with multiple titles, but I think the intent was to fact-check some of them. Did you read the post?? ;-)
BB
· 1 year ago
Yep, read it. :) Saw that the criteria was at least 3 MNC's. LSU has 3 (but could claim as many as 7 or 8 by many of these guys' standards. lol
Bevo_Boy
· 1 year ago
What does BB stand for here?
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 1 year ago
Believe it or not, I wrote the body of that last year before LSU won their third--all of them legit. Good catch. Auburn will spot you a touchdown this fall to make up for the slight...
BB
· 1 year ago
How is GA Tech's 1952 title backdated?
GTJT622
· 1 year ago
How is Army's 1940's NC's legit as well as Oklahoma's 1950, but GT's 1952 is not? This list is a joke. For once, I agree with a Georgia Bulldog in this thread when he questioned the selective criteria. From a GT fan's perspective, you can make a very strong case that southern teams (YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS WAR EAGLE) in general were not given their due in the early portions of the 20th century. Pitt, Mich, Mich St, Notre Dame, Minnesota, and all of the other industrialized states tended to win out with pollsters over southern teams back then.
And you are telling me Heisman's 1917 Ga Tech team that traveled 2 weeks by train to beat California in the Rose Bowl isn't worthy of national title recognition? I don't think it affects today's world one bit, but that is BS.
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 1 year ago
Yes. Because in 1917 when John Heisman's Tech squad was riding in boxcars back to Georgia, no one had ever heard of a national championship in football. There was no such thing. It didn't exist until almost 20 years later, that's why.
Besides, Heisman was still wishing he was coaching at Auburn and trying to dream up a way to play Cumberland again...
Read the history of the polls I gave in the link next to Alabama's titles and check back...
1Tomcat
· 1 year ago
Didnt Heisman also coach at Rice ?
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
You still haven't answered how 1952 is backdated when you define backdated to be before 1934.
Looks like GT had 2 titles by your criterion, not 1.
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 1 year ago
Should have read that Tech's 1952 was illegitimate, not back-dated. They did have 15 selectors choose them that year, but Michigan State had the AP and UP titles.
GoDawgs
· 1 year ago
Why am I not surprised that Auburn's "People's National Championship" doesn't get a mention here? It was good enough for their rings, but not worth mentioning here, I guess.
What I'm more interested to see is the rationale for metrics you used... if there are any. Why no back-dated titles? Why those selectors, but not others?
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 1 year ago
Sure, Auburn inscribed that on some rings for a couple of poor disapointed kids. At least none of those kids sold their rings on Ebay, though, unlike Georgia's SEC champs did, en mass, I might add...
The important thing is that the University DOES NOT claim a MNC for that year. If we wanted to stretch it like Alabama does, Auburn could claim 7. Thankfully, we do not.
J Bone
· 1 year ago
Accoording to http://www.ncaa.org/champadmin/ia_football_past..., Alabama was named NC 17 times compared to Auburns 4 times. Both numbers are complete BS, but that is what happens when people talk out of their a$$.
GoDawgs
· 1 year ago
Let me see if I understand what you're suggesting here: Auburn had "NATIONAL CHAMPION" rings made for "a couple" of players, but that doesn't constitute "claiming" a national title.
First of all, the idea that the whole team didn't get rings that said "NATIONAL CHAMPION" on them is ridiculous. Second, I'm not sure how giving yourself a self-congratulatory token wouldn't constitute "claiming." Third, the reason we all found out about this little gem from API was because one of the rings showed up on eBay.
I guess the difference between Auburn and Alabama is that at least the bammers have the balls to put their claims in their media guide rather than just handing out rings and hoping nobody finds out.
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 1 year ago
I gotta side with GoDawgs here. Auburn had rings made, had a flag made, and even a custom logo for the "people's champion" moniker. I wish someone at Fanblogs had blogged it back then. OH WAIT! I did.
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 1 year ago
I stand by my assertions below. While the university may tell these selectors, "thank you for your championship. Hey everybody, we're their champ", the bottom line is that it is not officially claimed by the school for the record book. That would be ridiculous. All they were doing was essentially being gracious to acknowledge someone's accolades.
The only thing to be seen is if they try to sneak it in through the back door 30 years down the road. I hope they don't, but that's what many teams have done with their championships.
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 1 year ago
The University doesn't claim it as an official title, period. Sure, two minor selectors chose Auburn as MNC, so they were someone's champions, but you will find no banner in the stadium or any official claim. So they got rings and maybe a trophy? Kinda like the trophy you got for participating in soccer? Yay!!!!
That ring on eBay was a 'sample'. The people who originally did those stories (like Pete Holiday) failed to disclose that. It didn't belong to a player, unlike the 20 SEC rings that belonged to Georgia's players.
40AcresOfBurntOrange
· 1 year ago
Very Interesting article Didn't realize that teams embellished their titles as much as they did. The Gophers have 6 titles? Craziness........ You think their athletic department would take advantage of the fact, but i guess they aren't arrogant pricks! Unlike some schools who seem to always want to throw their titles in your face no matter how horrible their team has been performing.
WEA Ole Fred Akers had his shot at a couple of titles, but unfortunately he couldn't get the Horns to play when it counted which it seems has haunted the horns for quite some time.
HookEmHorns!
Lennie Collins
· 1 year ago
Having a shot doesn't count. Either they won 'em or lost 'em. Teams don't get credit for thinking they have a shot at 'em! Unlike some schools/fans who seem to always want to throw their titles in your face...Sounds like Texas Longhorns (fans) ALL THE WAY!
Zac
· 1 year ago
Great article, WarEagle; thow never ceaseth to amaze me. I know there are many others which have earned titles, and I thought a few more which thought they did. Are these strictly the teams which had back-dated or illegit titles, or just some of the examples? No doubt this took a lot of work; I imagine considerably more, if you were to list them all.
What surprised the heck out of me was learning WVU is the team with the most wins and no NC. (They don't even claim one that I know of.) For your next assignment: Who are the Top-10 in that category? Thanks again for the great article. (I'm expecting at least a 15% discount on that Volvo for some superior a$$ ki$$ing. Oh, do you suppose the Bamma jammers will ever forgive you?)
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 1 year ago
Good eye, Zac. I had to check and see if Syracuse's lone title was legit, and it is. Don't worry. WVU will get their chance. Wait until last year... :-)
Of course the Bammers will forgive me. They know I'm fair and not a total homer. Besides, they can't refute anything I said in that link...
JBone
· 1 year ago
WEA, I agree that you are not a TOTAL homer, but this sure just seems like an excuse for you to mention Alabama's NC tally as much as possible. I'm more suprised by some schools that I thought would have more NC's, Michigan for example. I remember watching a special on dynasties a few years back and I remember the show claimig that Michigan had 13 NC's! Man they were way off! i guess that just goes to show you why the BCS isn't such a horrible system.
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 1 year ago
Your average Alabama fan has no idea of the illegitimacy of a lot of their proclaimed titles and it's the first thing they want to rub in an Auburn fan's face, so yeah, I like to bring it up when the circumstances permit.
But I'm the first one to admit that they really got hosed in 1966, after they had won titles in '64 and '65 and went undefeated in '66. I think it was poll voters punishing the state of Alabama for civil rights abuses...
JBone
· 1 year ago
I understand, I even get annoyed with the Billys that walk around with "Got 12" t-shirts. I posted my take on Alabama's NC claims at the bottom. Let me know what you think.
Husker_Chris
· 1 year ago
Obvious exactly how? Nebraska would have annihilated PSU at any point in the 90s.
Regarding Alabama, one example of their misuse of the term national champion is their claim to the '73 title despite a Sugar Bowl loss to Notre Dame.
TampaGator
· 1 year ago
Yeah, like the NCAA is any kind of authority on national championships...
War Eagle Atlanta on the other hand, is our resident expert on this blog--our caped crusader fighting to keep the CFB world safe from illegitimate NC claims!
(...which also conveniently provides opp'y to pound 'Bama gratuitously).
GO GATORS!!
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 1 year ago
THE NCAA DOES NOT SANCTION A NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP IN DIVISION 1-A. Repeat that as long as necessary...
Unfortunately, in 1973, the UPI was still picking their champ BEFORE the bowl games. The AP had started to do so every year in 1969. So Alabama got the UPI poll and Notre Dame the AP poll. They met in the Sugar Bowl, and Notre Dame won. But based on that technicality, Alabama still claims a MNC over Notre Dame in 1973. Complete BS? Yes, but you'll have to take it up with Tuscaloosa...
Football Picks
· 1 year ago
Great post....gotta love marketing. Would this be an issue at all if we simply had a playoff???
SpikerSponge
· 1 year ago
TampaGator,
I like your post, but I must answer the question in the last paragraph.
Research Alabama's 1941 "Championship" team. That's enough to make you raise the eyebrows. But there it is on all those stadium cups, one of the "12". I say it is neither "reasonably grounded" nor "made in good faith."
BadTime
· 1 year ago
Actually the NC in 1957 was split between Alabama Poly and Ohio State. The nod would have to go to OSU. I think it's kind of bogus to claim another schools NC. How about a judgment call from WEA.
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 1 year ago
Split titles have been a fact of life since the UP poll debuted in 1950, complementing the AP poll, so that's pretty heavy precedent.
Under today's scrutiny, there's no way a team on probation would get the nod, but it wasn't like that in 1957. Auburn's 1993 team, which was also undefeated and on probation, had 5 selectors choose them as MNC, even more than they got in 2004, but they don't claim it as a MNC. I imagine Alabama's banner would have been gathering 15 years' worth of dust by now...
How's that for a judgement call?
JBone
· 1 year ago
I would like to clear a few things up about Alabama's claimed NC's. Apparently Alabama is the poster child for claiming false NC's, but I figured I would break it down for everyone to see more clearly.
Since NOONE is "allowed" to claim anything prior to 1934 that throws out 1925 (10-0), 1926 (9-0-1), 1930 (10-0) and 1934 (10-0). Well there goes four NC's right there. Alabama should know better than to try to claim NC's for those 3 undefeated seasons and I guess they were stretching when they claimed 1926.
Next is 1941, which should never be claimed, seriously. Alabama finished 8-2 and #20 in the AP poll yet they still claim it. This is the year everybody points to in order to make accusations that Alabama claims undeserved titles. Let me just say that this year gives those people a strong argument.
Then there are these:
1961 (11-0), both AP and UPI 1964 (10-1), both AP and UPI 1965 (9-1-1), AP only 1973 (11-1), UPI only 1978 (11-1), AP only 1979 (12-0), both AP and UPI 1992 (13-0), both AP and UPI
So, if noone is allow to count before 1934, then you can't count those as false claims. Then you are left with 1935 to present day. That leaves Alabama with 4 outright NC's and 3 split NC's and 1941 which is not claimable whatsoever. So the real arguement is whether or not a team is allowed to claim a NC if UPI and AP were split? The obvious answer is yes, but if not then I suppose Alabama may be claiming those falsely as well. My arguement is that Alabama is only claiming 1illegitimate NC (1941). That makes 8 claimed NC's and 7 actual NC's. Not so bad.
Hokies1
· 1 year ago
what about FSU,UF, PSU, and LSU?
JBone
· 1 year ago
What about them?
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 1 year ago
If you were allowed to discount MNCs awarded BEFORE the bowl games to teams who then went and lost their bowl game, you could really throw a monkey wrench into the whole picture.
You could also strip away two more titles from Bama, 1964 and 1973, bringing their total to five.
But since that was the policy of both the major polls then, I have to respect it, even though it looks incredibly stupid by today's standards...
JBone
· 1 year ago
Well, if you want to change the way the National Champion was decided, then you could discount any NC that has ever been awarded. I agree that they were not using the best system, but that is why they changed it. But to make a claim like you just did is silly. You are discrediting your own system for counting proper NC's. You can't have it both ways, either you consider Alabama's 1964 and 1973 NC's valid or you don't.
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 1 year ago
Bone, did you not read the third paragraph in my post?
JBone
· 1 year ago
Of course I did, that is the paragraph where it sounds like you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. You respect it but think that it is incredibly stupid? And you have consistently brought into question numerous NC's claimed by Alabama, including 1964 & 1973 which you accept and question them for claiming at the same time.
I'm sorry for questioning you, but it just isn't very clear to me where you stand on the subject.
GoDawgs
· 1 year ago
His stance is this: OMG I HATE ALABAMA SOOOOOOOO MUCH!!!!!
I'm waiting for him to find something about Georgia to latch on to. That's the best thing about the barners: they are defined by their hatred for other schools because they have so little of their own accomplishments to cheer for.
AUtigerman
· 1 year ago
I Dont
rolltide
· 1 year ago
i could be a dick here and say bama really has 17 but 12 is fine
roll tide
JBone
· 1 year ago
Do you mean you could look like a dick, because you have no argument here.
JBone
· 1 year ago
I know where you came up with 17, but I wouldn't go around arguing that number very much because then you would have to rightfully give Auburn a few more NC's. The last one being 2004 because they would have just as much a claim to that one as some of the ones you were counting when you said 17.
Oh and don't worry too much about being a d!ck or not, it's looking like one that you should concerned with.
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 1 year ago
Or you could just be a dick...
17? List them out...
Hokies
· 1 year ago
What about FSU and Florida?
Hokies1
· 1 year ago
Was curious to see the same analysis for them. How many are legit and how many are not according to his criteria.
JBone
· 1 year ago
Well, I don't believe that they are nearly as controversial, but here is the same break down of the requested teams:
FSU
1993 (12-1), both AP & UPI 1999 (12-0), BCS & AP
UF
1996 (12-1), AP and everyone else 2006 (13-1), BCS & AP
PSU
1982 (11-1), AP & UPI 1986 (12-0), AP & UPI
LSU
1958 (11-0), both AP & UPI 2003 (13-1). BCS, but not AP which went to USC 2007 (12-2), BCS & AP
There you go.
Let me add that both PSU and LSU could make claims to NC's prior to 1934, but I don't believe that they do.
JB
· 1 year ago
LSU does not claim a NC prior to 1958
JBone
· 1 year ago
I didn't think that they did.
GeauxTigers0107
· 1 year ago
LSU only claims 3 titles: '58, 03 and 07. Great read WEA. I pulled one straw out of the hay bail of hate I have for Auburn now....lol. J/K with ya man, relax. I hate Tuscalooser way more than you guys.
Geaux Tigers Geaux SEC
JBone
· 1 year ago
As I posted, LSU claims those 3 years and I didn't believe they claimed anything earlier, but probably has just as much right to claim 1908 (10-0) as anyone would. C'mon man, you don't want to acknowledge that glorious 1908 season!
JB
· 1 year ago
Yea it was really one to remember :) haha
GeauxTigers0107
· 1 year ago
I think Moses was the quarterback that year. He ran the veer offense and handed the rock off to Mathew from Apostle High. No one could stop that offense. Moses would just part the defensive line and ole Matt would take care of the rest.
Geaux Tigers Geaux SEC
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 1 year ago
Auburn and LSU haven't had enough history to develop a hateful rivalry yet, despite playing in the same conferences for 102 years. I think it'll always remain respectful though. We only have the bitterness with Alabama. Every other team in the SEC respects us because they've always had trouble beating us, even when they wouldn't come to our house to play...
Ramblin' Gator
· 1 year ago
I've written this before, but it deserves repeating...
Personally, I respect Auburn because I have always been treated with respect when visiting the school as a fan of GT or UF. I can't say the same for a number of other schools, including UGA, LSU, Tennessee, FSU, Miami and Baylor. My hat's off to Auburn, Clemson, and Texas A&M as their fans are better behaved than most, including GT and UF.
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 1 year ago
It's strange, but having been to Gainsville for games with Auburn in 1986 and 1988, I'd say that they're better behaved at home than on the road, at least outside the stadium, that is. (thinking of a certain cup-pelting emboldened by a Kerwin Bell comeback)
I give Florida this, though. They bring more fans to Jordan Hare than any other team I've seen, JMHO...
GeauxTigers0107
· 1 year ago
Hmmmm....smoking cigars comes to mind
LOL
Geaux Tigers Geaux SEC
Jason
· 1 year ago
War Eagle: I understand that you want to limit the number of MNC claims teams make. However, I do not think you provide strong enough evidence for your system.
1) You do not make a strong case for discounting the Dickenson system. He was the first person to pick a champion and he was around to watch the teams so I really don't see a problem with including his picks in your platform.
2) Even you have to admit that the UPI and AP were not always sound in their choices (For example : Bama or ND in 73). Your only arguement for favoring them is that they have been picking the champion the longest.
3) You start this whole thing sighting Washingtons claim in 1960. Yet, they did beat Minnesota, who you picked for the title even though they had 2 loses including the Washington game. Also Ole Miss was undefeated that year. If anything this shows the bias in these polling systems.
Personally, I will honor any reasonable claim of a MNC whether it is backdated or not. If this results in more than 1 champion for certain years then I am OK with that. I place reason higher than the AP or UPI; BYU in 1984???.
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 1 year ago
1) The Dickinson system, although one of the first selectors and one that pre-dated the AP, folded after 1940, so I discount them. There were maybe about two dozen selectors that came before the AP, but none of them survived for long. You don't see many dodos gracing the cover of Audubon Society Monthly, do you?
2) Who among us HASN'T thought that poll results don't always give the best results??
3) Pity for Washington--not the first team to get hosed, right? Maybe the Pac was really weak in 1960, and the Huskies just happened to be top dog out of a bunch of poodles. But by way of their alignment with the Rose Bowl, they got to play the big bad Big 10(10) champ that year, got lucky, and beat them. I don't know--probably the case. Obviously, Minnesota got very lucky because both polls chose champs before the bowl game back then. Those were the rules, and no matter how pathetic they seem by modern standards, I'm sticking to them.
So you want to honor titles on a case by case basis, huh? Like approving medicare claims?
Tell me what you want to do about back-dated titles?
Zac
· 1 year ago
So, what ever happened to your idea of Fanblogs going back and selecting Legitimate NC's? I mean, we were gonna come up with a trophy and everything, right? Kevin was gonna pay for it…
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 1 year ago
It's still out there, Zac. All except the part about Kevin paying for everything.
Remember that the Fanblogs National Championship was going to be voted on NOT by popular vote on the site, but by a constituency of fanblogs' posters. Think about how many trolls we'd attract if we turned it into one big popularity contest.
And now that Disqus easily tracks who camps out on here the most, we can have our staff easily assembled. (Look to the right under 'Community' and see the avatars of the biggest whores, I mean commentators, on here...)
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
Maybe we can determine how many votes a person gets in the FNC by the points determined by the up and down votes each individual is given. Apparently I am unpopular, as I think you start with 1, and I have 0, an thus no vote.
OU_Ron
· 1 year ago
Ben, not true, I think your're a fairly popular guy, just because we don't agree on some things, I value your input........
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 1 year ago
Yea, even BYU fans score one point, Ben...
Must have been from inundating us with all those uniform threads--mid-major uniform threads at that... :-)
I just looked. Charlie Manson at the bottom shares your goose egg
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
Maybe it is because I occasionally get determined to argue with SEC and Big 12 fans.
It couldn't be the uniform threads, I only did one Kevin is to blame for the rest. Maybe thats why he's got 2 less points than you do.
1Tomcat
· 1 year ago
Hey Ben My stepbrother and his family just came down from Utah, they said that the Oil feilds are booming up there. The kids also said that there is no Big Red soda water. I've enjoyed reading your threads and post and like to hear from MWC fans. I really dont understand this point thing that WEA is refering too.
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
If you mouse over a name an annoying window appears blocking the entire comment that was made (unless Zac, WEA or I went on a diatribe).
Under the avatar in the window is a number in an orange box related to the number of up and down arrows (next to your name) people have hit you with.
I have never heard of Big Red Soda until now. Apparently it is a local product of Waco Texas. They might have a good untapped market in Nebraska and Utah.
The only red colored soda I ever had in Utah was birch beer from the Red Rock Brewing Company.
1Tomcat
· 1 year ago
Thanks for the Info Ben Big Red & Dr Pepper both started in Waco Big Red goes good with BBQ brisket Can you get Shiner beer up there, if so try 99 The kids said they also miss Blue Bell ice cream I'll try to look for Red Rock beer next time I'm in the Capitol or Alamo city.
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
My Utah days are all fond memories. Red Rock I believe you will only find in Salt Lake, where it is made.
I have not seen Big Red here in Panama City FL, but then I have not looked very hard.
1Tomcat
· 1 year ago
My mistake Ben your in Panama City. Big Red is a kids soft drink, real sweet with caffine, taste like bubble gum or something you probably wouldn't like it. Panama city looks like my kind of place, probably a bit touristy kinda like Port Aransas Texas Great Seafood & fishing, right. Probably a stark contrast from Utah. Adios Tomcat P.S. Bluebell homemade vanilla goes good ontop of dewberry cobbler
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 1 year ago
It's not a 'clout' rating as much as it's a 'virtual age' for this site. Looks like you're just born. I'm just hoping to get mine above barely legal...
SECFan
· 1 year ago
I like how the link to the explination of Alabama's NC's go directly to an Auburn blog site. Nice. I'm glad they are tracking those for Tide fans. Just make them more concrete.
Also, let me speak for Alabama, USC and Notre Dame when I say, "We can't help it if nobody else wanted to win prior to 1934."
Have a Great Day.
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 1 year ago
It is surprising, considering that I write for both sites...
Jeff
· 1 year ago
YOU feel qualified to make the call? In your very first one you say Notre Dame claims 12 titles. Good grief, you didn't even bother to look that up, even though it's easy to find. You used a piece of crap source like cfbdatawarehouse and didn't even bother to see what's credible and what's not. Time to get over yourself.
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 1 year ago
Is five days long enough? Okay. I'm over myself.
ALCOA presents: YOU MAKE THE CALL! Why don't you write your own piece and submit it for publication? Must be double -spaced, 500 word minimum, with footnotes. Send to: suggestionbox@fanblogs.trolls.com
JB
· 1 year ago
yea 5 days is plenty on this one
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 1 year ago
It's also the minimum-mandated time for you to NOT feed trolls--so they don't come back...
See? No more trolls...
JB
· 1 year ago
what is a troll?
Marko
· 1 year ago
I'm wondering if this article is written by someone that has never one a national championship? Those schools won in the time when it was legitimate. Whats to say that the BCS in 20 years will be called a sham also? Honestly, I think its a sham now so there you go.... all BCS national championships are void.
Zac
· 1 year ago
I'm not at all surprised with this article being criticized; it's the unsubstantiated, non-constructive, negative criticism that bothers me. It's all well and good to refute an individual's research, but do so with irrefutable facts or at least recognized contradictory facts. Lets also not forget; this is one man's opinion. It's won thing to criticize facts with other facts; it's entirely something else to criticize opinion with opinion, given yours is no better, except that far less effort was spent. You really want to criticize? Lets apply that article "Don't talk smack until your team has won a NC." theory. Write an article; see how well you stand up. Then, criticize to your heart's content. Just a thought.
No I don't speak of everyone here. Those of whom I speak, know it is they of whom I speak.
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 1 year ago
Thanks, Zac. Look, MNCs are one big free-for-all. All I have attempted to do is to implement some guidelines that would be fair in accordance with the history of the game and within the circumstances of the times.
If someone diagrees with my point of view, I'd really like him to suggest alternative plans and then lay out their case...
Rick Dew
· 1 year ago
Tennessee just claims 2, but we deserve 14. Phil Fulmer will win 2 or 3 more.
Bevo_Boy
· 1 year ago
War Eagle, can you explain why Notre Dame's 1953 champioship was illegitimate?
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 1 year ago
Because Maryland took the AP and UP crowns that year. ND did take a majority of selectors, so based on that fact, they claim it. Under my criteria, if you don't have one of the big two, you don't have a MNC.
Granted, it is less certain about the credibility of MNCs awarded long ago at that time. For example, I don't know at what point ND decided to start claiming 1953 as a title. Was it immediately, or did they wait a few years or decades. I wish I knew...
Regardless, who/when/why teams claim MNCs is very inconsistent. I'm trying to impose some order and sense on what is essentially chaos, so I'm bound to get virtually everybody disagreeing with me.
It would be nice if the NCAA one day set some guidleines, but it might be that they lack any sort of jurisdiction over it. A MNC in 1-A never was their baby, and they probably don't want the flak.
Bevo_Boy
· 1 year ago
Thanks for the clarification. I didn't see anything that said why that one wouldn't be legit at the top of the thread.
JB
· 1 year ago
I dont mean to be stupid but what does back dated mean????
Good post BTW
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 1 year ago
Read under History of the Polls in this link here.
fosterkeats
· 1 year ago
AllBarn has beated Alabama 6 in a row yet you still have a chip on your shoulder...
How many NCs does the Alabama Cow College claim???
One??? 1957??? And you were on probation then too, lol...
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 1 year ago
Hey there, Manson. How's the Family?
fosterkeats
· 1 year ago
They're doing great, man...
AUtigerman
· 1 year ago
Turn sideways so i can see your mullet
BallDogs1
· 1 year ago
Yo Tampa Gator guy, how you doin'? Jr. safety Dorian Munroe,outn knee mussed up Sr. John Curtis, out, something. Yea I know Curtis Jerimy Finch, out, transferred. wants nothing to do with FSU Jamar Hornsby, credit card fraud, Ashley Slonina desecrated Good Luck Buddy, you're gonna need it!
All Comments
From dictionary.com:
backdate - to date earlier than the actual date; predate; antedate: Backdate the letter so he'll think I wrote it last week.
Examples of titles that are backdated are those awarded solely by a selector that didn't exist at the time. For example, National Championship Foundation originated in 1980, but it awards NCs all the way back into 1886. Those NCs weren't awarded at the time. Dickinson actually existed in the late 20s and 30s, so those titles aren't backdated.
As for discounting Dickinson because you think the fact that it folded in 1940 makes less credible, that is a whole other debate from what you present. If we move to a playoff ten years from now and the AP folds up, will all those AP titles become 'backdated'? Here is what the 2007 Divison I Football Records Book, published by the NCAA, says about Dickinson:
Dickinson System (1926-40), a mathematical point system devised by Frank Dickinson, a professor of economics at Illinois. The annual Dickinson ratings were emblematic of the national championship and the basis for awarding the Rissman National Trophy and the Knute K. Rockne Intercollegiate Memorial Trophy. Notre Dame gained permanent possession of the Rissman Trophy (named for Jack F. Rissman, a Chicago clothing manufacturer) after its third victory in 1930. Minnesota retired the
Rockne Trophy (named in honor of the famous Notre Dame coach) after winning it for a third time in 1940.
I have a reservation about the premises your analysis is based on--aside from the question of which NC's are legit, which are not: what do you base the assertion that those universities "claim" those NC's on?
Illustration: "Joe" above referenced a couple of media guides--that's a fair basis to conclude that a school is "claiming" an NC (though even that's debateable, depending on how its worded, disclosures, disclaimers, etc.). If CFB warehouse is simply identifying which schools were named NC's, based on some publications (regardless how dubious)--does that really qualify as "claiming" a NC?
...and if a U refers to one of these publications--simply acknowledging (even boasting) that said presumably neutral publication recognized their school as a NC--does that really count as "claiming" a NC?
...not saying you're off your rocker...just pointing out that "claiming" and "acknowleging" can be quite different.
FWIW: I don't really have a dog in this "fight"--UF claims 2, both "legit", since both were in BCS era; we never claimed '84, though we'd be justified in doing so upon some of the grounds used by some schools in your analyiss (NYT voted UF #1 at end of that season, but BYU won the NC by most counts). But, I don't really have a problem with any university staking their claim to a NC, as long as it's made in good faith, and reasonably grounded. Why shouldn't they? Why should they accept some other school as champion, if they have equal grounds to stake their own claim?
My $.02
GO GATORS!!
Since the NCAA has never sanctioned a title for major college football, it's basically become a free for all--especially with back-dated titles, which were awarded decades after the fact. All I suggest, to clean this mess up, is to adopt some standard and stick to it. Yes, it sucks for GA Tech that 15 selectors voted for them in 1952 but I still leave them out. It sucks for Auburn in 1983 when 19 selectors chose them, but by the standard I've adopted, that's the way it is.
With so many varied selectors out there handing out titles, some are more credible than the others, so for simplicity, I decided to go with the ones that have been there since the start. Were there NC selectors before the AP poll debuted in 1934? Yes. The Dickinson system and the Helms Foundation come to mind, but they didn't last, so I cast them into the scrap heap of history.
The NCAA will never delve into this fracus, so we will probably always have these debates. At least now, with the BCS and all the attention it commands, it makes it harder for a team that received minor selectors to openly claim a title, too. Look at 2004. Auburn had 3 selectors and Utah had 1. Do you see either claiming a title? No, because they would be laughed at. But what about in 30 years? What if they start claiming it then? Who's going to know or care by then?
http://www.utsports.com/football/page.aspx?id=3...
Just wanted to point out that, according to a media guide, University of Pittsburgh claims 9 national championships.
1915,1916,1918,1929,1931,1934,1936,1937,1976
http://graphics.fansonly.com/photos/schools/pit...
I still like the idea of the topic though, keep em coming.
Yet CFBDW recognizes Minnesota AND Ole Miss as champions. Minnesota got the only two that count in my book. If you're going to give one to Ole Miss for having the most insignificant selectors, why are you not awarding Iowa a title, too. They also had more selctors than Minnesota.
See how inconsistent it is? What about the other 3 teams that year that someone recognized, Mizzou, Penn State, and Washington? We can't give them all titles, right? If you're going to bend the rules and award a title for having the most selectors choose you, then I want to be in Jordan-Hare next week when they raise the banner for the MNC in 1983, because Auburn had 19 selectors as opposed to Miami's 13. And Nebraska might want a piece, too, because they also had 13 selectors that year.
You have to draw the line somewhere, and I did!
But, otherwise, what a great post....thank you
And you are telling me Heisman's 1917 Ga Tech team that traveled 2 weeks by train to beat California in the Rose Bowl isn't worthy of national title recognition? I don't think it affects today's world one bit, but that is BS.
Besides, Heisman was still wishing he was coaching at Auburn and trying to dream up a way to play Cumberland again...
Read the history of the polls I gave in the link next to Alabama's titles and check back...
Looks like GT had 2 titles by your criterion, not 1.
What I'm more interested to see is the rationale for metrics you used... if there are any. Why no back-dated titles? Why those selectors, but not others?
The important thing is that the University DOES NOT claim a MNC for that year. If we wanted to stretch it like Alabama does, Auburn could claim 7. Thankfully, we do not.
was named NC 17 times compared to Auburns 4 times. Both numbers are complete BS,
but that is what happens when people talk out of their a$$.
First of all, the idea that the whole team didn't get rings that said "NATIONAL CHAMPION" on them is ridiculous. Second, I'm not sure how giving yourself a self-congratulatory token wouldn't constitute "claiming." Third, the reason we all found out about this little gem from API was because one of the rings showed up on eBay.
I guess the difference between Auburn and Alabama is that at least the bammers have the balls to put their claims in their media guide rather than just handing out rings and hoping nobody finds out.
The only thing to be seen is if they try to sneak it in through the back door 30 years down the road. I hope they don't, but that's what many teams have done with their championships.
That ring on eBay was a 'sample'. The people who originally did those stories (like Pete Holiday) failed to disclose that. It didn't belong to a player, unlike the 20 SEC rings that belonged to Georgia's players.
WEA Ole Fred Akers had his shot at a couple of titles, but unfortunately he couldn't get the Horns to play when it counted which it seems has haunted the horns for quite some time.
HookEmHorns!
What surprised the heck out of me was learning WVU is the team with the most wins and no NC. (They don't even claim one that I know of.) For your next assignment: Who are the Top-10 in that category? Thanks again for the great article. (I'm expecting at least a 15% discount on that Volvo for some superior a$$ ki$$ing. Oh, do you suppose the Bamma jammers will ever forgive you?)
Of course the Bammers will forgive me. They know I'm fair and not a total homer. Besides, they can't refute anything I said in that link...
But I'm the first one to admit that they really got hosed in 1966, after they had won titles in '64 and '65 and went undefeated in '66. I think it was poll voters punishing the state of Alabama for civil rights abuses...
I posted my take on Alabama's NC claims at the bottom. Let me know what you think.
http://www.ncaa.org/champadmin/ia_football_past...
Regarding Alabama, one example of their misuse of the term national champion is their claim to the '73 title despite a Sugar Bowl loss to Notre Dame.
War Eagle Atlanta on the other hand, is our resident expert on this blog--our caped crusader fighting to keep the CFB world safe from illegitimate NC claims!
(...which also conveniently provides opp'y to pound 'Bama gratuitously).
GO GATORS!!
Unfortunately, in 1973, the UPI was still picking their champ BEFORE the bowl games. The AP had started to do so every year in 1969. So Alabama got the UPI poll and Notre Dame the AP poll. They met in the Sugar Bowl, and Notre Dame won. But based on that technicality, Alabama still claims a MNC over Notre Dame in 1973. Complete BS? Yes, but you'll have to take it up with Tuscaloosa...
I like your post, but I must answer the question in the last paragraph.
Research Alabama's 1941 "Championship" team. That's enough to make you raise the eyebrows.
But there it is on all those stadium cups, one of the "12".
I say it is neither "reasonably grounded" nor "made in good faith."
Under today's scrutiny, there's no way a team on probation would get the nod, but it wasn't like that in 1957. Auburn's 1993 team, which was also undefeated and on probation, had 5 selectors choose them as MNC, even more than they got in 2004, but they don't claim it as a MNC. I imagine Alabama's banner would have been gathering 15 years' worth of dust by now...
How's that for a judgement call?
Since NOONE is "allowed" to claim anything prior to 1934 that throws out 1925 (10-0), 1926 (9-0-1), 1930 (10-0) and 1934 (10-0). Well there goes four NC's right there. Alabama should know better than to try to claim NC's for those 3 undefeated seasons and I guess they were stretching when they claimed 1926.
Next is 1941, which should never be claimed, seriously. Alabama finished 8-2 and #20 in the AP poll yet they still claim it. This is the year everybody points to in order to make accusations that Alabama claims undeserved titles. Let me just say that this year gives those people a strong argument.
Then there are these:
1961 (11-0), both AP and UPI
1964 (10-1), both AP and UPI
1965 (9-1-1), AP only
1973 (11-1), UPI only
1978 (11-1), AP only
1979 (12-0), both AP and UPI
1992 (13-0), both AP and UPI
So, if noone is allow to count before 1934, then you can't count those as false claims. Then you are left with 1935 to present day. That leaves Alabama with 4 outright NC's and 3 split NC's and 1941 which is not claimable whatsoever. So the real arguement is whether or not a team is allowed to claim a NC if UPI and AP were split? The obvious answer is yes, but if not then I suppose Alabama may be claiming those falsely as well.
My arguement is that Alabama is only claiming 1illegitimate NC (1941). That makes 8 claimed NC's and 7 actual NC's. Not so bad.
You could also strip away two more titles from Bama, 1964 and 1973, bringing their total to five.
But since that was the policy of both the major polls then, I have to respect it, even though it looks incredibly stupid by today's standards...
I'm sorry for questioning you, but it just isn't very clear to me where you stand on the subject.
I'm waiting for him to find something about Georgia to latch on to. That's the best thing about the barners: they are defined by their hatred for other schools because they have so little of their own accomplishments to cheer for.
roll tide
Oh and don't worry too much about being a d!ck or not, it's looking like one that you should concerned with.
17? List them out...
FSU
1993 (12-1), both AP & UPI
1999 (12-0), BCS & AP
UF
1996 (12-1), AP and everyone else
2006 (13-1), BCS & AP
PSU
1982 (11-1), AP & UPI
1986 (12-0), AP & UPI
LSU
1958 (11-0), both AP & UPI
2003 (13-1). BCS, but not AP which went to USC
2007 (12-2), BCS & AP
There you go.
Let me add that both PSU and LSU could make claims to NC's prior to 1934, but I don't believe that they do.
Geaux Tigers
Geaux SEC
Geaux Tigers
Geaux SEC
Personally, I respect Auburn because I have always been treated with respect when visiting the school as a fan of GT or UF. I can't say the same for a number of other schools, including UGA, LSU, Tennessee, FSU, Miami and Baylor. My hat's off to Auburn, Clemson, and Texas A&M as their fans are better behaved than most, including GT and UF.
I give Florida this, though. They bring more fans to Jordan Hare than any other team I've seen, JMHO...
LOL
Geaux Tigers
Geaux SEC
I understand that you want to limit the number of MNC claims teams make. However, I do not think you provide strong enough evidence for your system.
1) You do not make a strong case for discounting the Dickenson system. He was the first person to
pick a champion and he was around to watch the teams so I really don't see a problem with including his picks in your platform.
2) Even you have to admit that the UPI and AP were not always sound in their choices
(For example : Bama or ND in 73). Your only arguement for favoring them is that they have been
picking the champion the longest.
3) You start this whole thing sighting Washingtons claim in 1960. Yet, they did beat Minnesota, who
you picked for the title even though they had 2 loses including the Washington game. Also Ole Miss
was undefeated that year. If anything this shows the bias in these polling systems.
Personally, I will honor any reasonable claim of a MNC whether it is backdated or not. If this results in more than 1 champion for certain years then I am OK with that. I place reason higher than the AP or
UPI; BYU in 1984???.
2) Who among us HASN'T thought that poll results don't always give the best results??
3) Pity for Washington--not the first team to get hosed, right? Maybe the Pac was really weak in 1960, and the Huskies just happened to be top dog out of a bunch of poodles. But by way of their alignment with the Rose Bowl, they got to play the big bad Big 10(10) champ that year, got lucky, and beat them. I don't know--probably the case. Obviously, Minnesota got very lucky because both polls chose champs before the bowl game back then. Those were the rules, and no matter how pathetic they seem by modern standards, I'm sticking to them.
So you want to honor titles on a case by case basis, huh? Like approving medicare claims?
Tell me what you want to do about back-dated titles?
Remember that the Fanblogs National Championship was going to be voted on NOT by popular vote on the site, but by a constituency of fanblogs' posters. Think about how many trolls we'd attract if we turned it into one big popularity contest.
And now that Disqus easily tracks who camps out on here the most, we can have our staff easily assembled. (Look to the right under 'Community' and see the avatars of the biggest whores, I mean commentators, on here...)
Must have been from inundating us with all those uniform threads--mid-major uniform threads at that... :-)
I just looked. Charlie Manson at the bottom shares your goose egg
It couldn't be the uniform threads, I only did one Kevin is to blame for the rest. Maybe thats why he's got 2 less points than you do.
My stepbrother and his family just came down from Utah, they said that the Oil feilds are booming up there.
The kids also said that there is no Big Red soda water.
I've enjoyed reading your threads and post and like to hear from MWC fans. I really dont understand this point thing that WEA is refering too.
Under the avatar in the window is a number in an orange box related to the number of up and down arrows (next to your name) people have hit you with.
I have never heard of Big Red Soda until now. Apparently it is a local product of Waco Texas. They might have a good untapped market in Nebraska and Utah.
The only red colored soda I ever had in Utah was birch beer from the Red Rock Brewing Company.
Big Red & Dr Pepper both started in Waco
Big Red goes good with BBQ brisket
Can you get Shiner beer up there, if so try 99
The kids said they also miss Blue Bell ice cream
I'll try to look for Red Rock beer next time I'm in the Capitol or Alamo city.
I have not seen Big Red here in Panama City FL, but then I have not looked very hard.
Big Red is a kids soft drink, real sweet with caffine, taste like bubble gum or something you probably wouldn't like it.
Panama city looks like my kind of place, probably a bit touristy kinda like Port Aransas Texas Great Seafood & fishing, right.
Probably a stark contrast from Utah.
Adios Tomcat
P.S. Bluebell homemade vanilla goes good ontop of dewberry cobbler
Also, let me speak for Alabama, USC and Notre Dame when I say, "We can't help it if nobody else wanted to win prior to 1934."
Have a Great Day.
ALCOA presents: YOU MAKE THE CALL! Why don't you write your own piece and submit it for publication? Must be double -spaced, 500 word minimum, with footnotes. Send to: suggestionbox@fanblogs.trolls.com
See? No more trolls...
No I don't speak of everyone here. Those of whom I speak, know it is they of whom I speak.
If someone diagrees with my point of view, I'd really like him to suggest alternative plans and then lay out their case...
Granted, it is less certain about the credibility of MNCs awarded long ago at that time. For example, I don't know at what point ND decided to start claiming 1953 as a title. Was it immediately, or did they wait a few years or decades. I wish I knew...
Regardless, who/when/why teams claim MNCs is very inconsistent. I'm trying to impose some order and sense on what is essentially chaos, so I'm bound to get virtually everybody disagreeing with me.
It would be nice if the NCAA one day set some guidleines, but it might be that they lack any sort of jurisdiction over it. A MNC in 1-A never was their baby, and they probably don't want the flak.
Good post BTW
How many NCs does the Alabama Cow College claim???
One??? 1957??? And you were on probation then too, lol...
Jr. safety Dorian Munroe,outn knee mussed up
Sr. John Curtis, out, something. Yea I know Curtis
Jerimy Finch, out, transferred. wants nothing to do with FSU
Jamar Hornsby, credit card fraud, Ashley Slonina desecrated
Good Luck Buddy, you're gonna need it!