April 26, 2007
Huskies claim National Championship title
The Washington Huskies are staking their claim to the 1960 National Championship. The Huskies - who beat #1 Minnesota in the Orange Bowl - were not declared champions by most polls after the bowl games, as most polls were finalized before bowl season. The 1960 champion of record is Minnesota.
“We never sat around and said ‘Hey we’re national champs,’ but we did feel very strongly that we beat the No. 1 team in the nation,” said George Fleming, a running back on the 1960 team.“Based upon that, and our performance beforehand, we should’ve been crowned as No. 1 team.”
To celebrate their... ahem... championship, the Huskies will raise a championship flag and don throwback jerseys for the September 29th game with USC, according to the Seattle Times.
Mythical national championship are just that. If Washington wants to claim the 1960 title, more power to them, I suppose. Heck, USF could claim it they wanted - they went undefeated, after all. Nevermind that they didn't have a football team.....
Next thing you know, Auburn will be claiming the 2004 championship... oh wait, they did.
Comments:
Bryan said:
posted on April 26, 2007 9:37 AM — 152.50.3.3 — link — abuse?
Well, I wasn't alive in 1960, but judging by what I read, it certainly appears that Washington has a valid argument. They finished the season undefeated and beat the #1 team in a bowl game. I guess the real question is, Why were the polls closed before the bowl games? If it "was always that way", when did bowl games start playing a factor in the MNC?
OU-Ron said:
posted on April 26, 2007 10:09 AM — 216.201.209.146 — link — abuse?
To celebrate their... ahem... championship, the Huskies will raise a championship flag and don throwback jerseys for the September 29th game with USC, according to the Seattle Times
Picked a game with USC ?????????????
they will get by 40 pointsGO SOONERS
SEMINOLE_NATION said:
posted on April 26, 2007 10:09 AM — 71.14.108.232 — link — abuse?
hahaha... well apparently teams can just take credit for a NC if they feel like it and hang banners and whatever they want so... figured Boise State should give themselves more credit lol.
TWO NC's in 2006. University of Florida and Boise State.
Congrats to BOTH National Champions.
Excellent years!
posted on April 26, 2007 1:29 PM — 64.12.116.77 — link — abuse?War Eagle Atlanta said:
What a load of crap. Nothing like 47 years to pass and try something like this, hoping no one will notice. Minnesota got the NC for both the AP and the UPI that year, when both polls awarded NCs PRIOR to the bowl games. Unfair by today's standards, but that was the deal back then. Besides, Ole Miss had the preponderence of selectors choose them that year, so they would have a better claim than Washington.
Kevin: Your little snipes at Auburn notwithstanding, the school does not offically recognize 2004 as a national championship year. Yea, they bought rings for a bunch of disapointed kids who got screwed out of a chance of a lifetime, but so what? Auburn claims one NC, the 1957 AP title. We could commit resume embellishment like almost every other school, Notre Dame, Alabama, and GA Tech especially, and claim SEVEN other years as NCs, but we choose not to utilize back-dated titles and non-legitimate selectors. Response?
M GO BLUE said:
posted on April 26, 2007 2:28 PM — 216.46.212.38 — link — abuse?
#14 gatorhippy, There are not loser's any more.
There are champions.......and co-champions.......and co-co-champions........and co-co-co-champions........you get the idea!
So illinois is the Big Ten co-co-co-co-co-co-co-co-co-co-co-champions!
Or I guess we could just call em LOSER'S!!!
T-Mac said:
posted on April 26, 2007 4:09 PM — 66.78.139.117 — link — abuse?
Oh GEEZ, Now we have the rest of the day and the future of So Cal breaking down and denying each and every single National Champion in History. Damn. Guys, get the shovels out. It's gonna get deep in here!
Shout out to Pookie!
*T-Mac approved this message.
posted on April 26, 2007 5:01 PM — 205.188.116.201 — link — abuse?
Here is the list of teams who embellish their claimed national championships and who does not. The information I use to compile this ranking is from the college football data warehouse.com and I use the following assumptions:
1) Only current Division 1-A teams who claim 3 or more NCs
2) Only AP championships (1934, 1936-present) UP championships (1935, 1950-1957) UPI championships (1958-1995) USA Today/ESPN championships (1997-present) and BCS championships (1998-present) are counted. However, prior to 1950, when the AP and UP polls ran concurrently, I will accept a preponderance of the other selectors.
3) No back-dated championships (anything before 1934)
SURVEY SAYS:
Notre Dame, 12 NCs claimed, 1924, 1929, 1930, 1943, 1946, 1947, 1949, 1953, 1966, 1973, 1977, 1988. First three titles back-dated, 1953 illegitimate. Real total, 8 NCs. Real shabby!
Alabama, 12 NCs claimed, 1925, 1926, 1930, 1934, 1941, 1961, 1964, 1965, 1973, 1978, 1979, 1992. First 3 titles back-dated, 1934 and 1941 titles illigetimate. Real total, 7 NCs. Shabby, too.
USC, 10 NCs claimed, 1928, 1931, 1932, 1962, 1967, 1972, 1974, 1978, 2003, 2004. First 3 titles back-dated, all the rest legitimate. Real total, 7 NCs. Other than back-dated, not bad.
Michigan, 7 NCs claimed, 1901, 1902, 1923, 1933, 1947, 1948, 1997. First 4 titles back-dated, the rest legitimate. Talk about peaking in the first half of the last century...
Oklahoma, 6 NCs claimed, 1950, 1955, 1956, 1974, 1975, 1985. All legitimate! Solid!
Minnesota, 6 NCs claimed, 1934, 1935, 1936, 1940, 1941, 1960 All legit! What have you done for us lately, though?
Pittsburgh, 6 NCs claimed, 1910, 1916, 1918, 1936, 1937, 1976. First 3 titles back-dated, 1936 illigitimate, other 2 fine. 66% of your titles imagined? Say it ain't so, Tony D!
Miami, 5 NCs claimed, 1983, 1987, 1989, 1991, 2001. All legit. You lucked out in 1983, getting picked over a more deserving Auburn team!
Nebraska, 5 NCs claimed, 1970, 1971, 1994, 1995, 1997. All legit. Solid!
Ohio State, 5 NCs claimed, 1942, 1954, 1957, 1968, 2002. All legit. Solid!
Army, 4 NCs claimed, 1914, 1944, 1945, 1946. First is back-dated, the rest legit. Boy, the cadets need another world war to dominate again...
GA Tech, 4 NCs claimed, 1917, 1928, 1952, 1990. First 3 titles back-dated, 1990 legit. "I'm a ramblin' wreck from Georgia Tech and a helluva embellisher..."
Illinois, 4 NCs claimed, 1914, 1919, 1923, 1927. All back-dated! Get the f*** outta here, losers. However, the Ron Zook era has arrived...
Tennessee, 4 NCs claimed, 1938, 1950, 1951, 1998. 1938 and 1950 illigitimate, the rest legit. Whatta think your Alabama???
Texas, 4 NCs claimed, 1963, 1969, 1970, 2005, all legit! Somebody go thank Darryl Royal in his nursing home!
California, 3 NCs claimed, 1920, 1921, 1922. All back-dated! WTF? See Illinois...
Michigan State, 3 NCs claimed, 1952, 1965, 1966. 1966 is illigitimate, although you probably got hosed!
There you have it! I'm sure some of you are going to be real upset that I've disrupted the gospel you've been preaching for so long. Put down the cup of Kool-Aid and let me have it. I'm ready to debate.
And just so you know, my school, Auburn, claims 1 NC. However, if we took a page out of some of your's book, we could claim 8, but thankfully do not.
If you do not understand the concept of a back-dated championship, let me know and I will fill you in!
posted on April 26, 2007 5:50 PM — 205.188.116.201 — link — abuse?
BRYAN: The AP poll debuted in 1934, took 1935 off, then has run every year since 1936. The UP poll debuted in 1935, then didn't poll again until 1950. In 1958 it became the UPI poll, which most of us remember, and it ran until 1995. By 1997, it had been supplanted by the new USA Today/ESPN poll, which still runs today.
The AP poll took it's final vote prior to the bowl game every year until 1968; however, in 1965, they picked after, and then did for every year since then. The UP/UPI poll choose before the bowls all the way up to I think 1978 or 1979.
The reason they did this initially was that bowl games didn't have the same importance that they do today. It was more of a meaningless 'reward' for a team for a good season, a chance to perhaps play a non-regional team in an 'exhibition'-style game. Only later did bowl games become a de-facto one game playoff to see if anyone could be left standing and claim a supposed 'national championship'. Before that, bowls were just gravy, a bonus. The regular season, however, was what mattered. If you had a good record and defeated your rivals, it was a successful season.
Actually, prior to the AP and UPI poll debuts, there was no such thing as a national championship. By the early 1930s, sufficient interest in college football was building that people started wondering who the best team in the nation might be. Thus, the polls were born. Once they hatched, some folks wondered out loud about who might have been the best teams in the seasons prior--going all the way back to the 1860s. A multitude of 'selectors' then arose, using mathmatical models in an attempt to statistically calculate who the strongest team of a given year might be. These many selectors then chose who they thought might have been the 'national champion' for a given year, not always agreeing, since there were upwards of 30 or more selctors in the business after a few years.
Therefore, since a national polling system wasn't created until 1934, any claims of a national championship prior to that is most likely because some statistical selector awarded the team a 'back-dated' championship well after the fact. Some even bypassed using statistics and simply voted for teams years later. Suffice it to say that since these selectors chose sometimes decades after the fact, that their results are simply not credible. Any team that claims a back-dated title is just practicing plain and simple resume embellishment. Period!
Most of these early selectors have faded into history, although some still survive, and new ones are born every year. As long as there is subjective ambiguity in Division 1-A's football champion, these selectors will attempt to carve out their little piece of significance. Today we basically only recognize the AP and BCS polls as being legitimate. All the others run by the wayside. However, when you look at what polls were saying say 47 years ago, like Washington is trying to do, it's legitimacy is more dubious.
TampaGator said:
posted on April 26, 2007 5:51 PM — 64.12.116.77 — link — abuse?
UWDAWG: Where ya'at bra???
This is your cause man--that great UW tradition you were talkin' about in other thread; pick up the flag, and run with it!
(...maybe he's off somewhere already celebrating the championship with one of them granola babes).
GO GATORS!!
posted on April 26, 2007 5:55 PM — 205.188.116.201 — link — abuse?
So Cal USMC: ref post 11; I think he's making two different statements: 1-that Arkansas claims the 1964 NC, and 2-that Arkansas lost last year's SEC title game to Florida. We was stating that in reference to another poster who claimed that Arkansas was the 2006 SEC Co-champion. He didn't mean for it to sound like Arkansas was in the SEC back in 1964.
Also, you nailed it. It's Thursday and Alabama has added another title for 2007 with the savior Nick Saban coming in. We shouldn't even worry about playing it out...
Zac said:
posted on April 26, 2007 6:27 PM — 65.31.230.72 — link — abuse?
Let's see now. If I have the logic straight, in 1993, WV took their regular season undefeated after beating BC, who beat ND, who beat FL St, who eventually beat NE for the NC. So, I guess that means WV could claim the 1993 NC, except FL beat them...badly (Yeah, I remember.). Hey, Gators! I found you guys another one!!! But, only if you let me second the motion on Boise St.
posted on April 26, 2007 6:35 PM — 205.188.116.201 — link — abuse?
You guys go to the Washington blog where this story is linked from and implore the students to lobby their athletic department not to take a page out of the University of Alabama Method of Title Determination (UAMTD)* playbook. Any self-respecting Husky fan should know better.
*UAMTD states that even if only one national championship selector out of dozens chooses your school, no matter how illegitimate they are, including but not limited to the Cooter's Bait and Tackle National Championship, you may claim that as a national title and all other schools must respect it, especially when it comes down to determining who historically the best program in college football is.
Since one of the 42 selectors, the Helms foundation, chose Washington that year, under UAMTD, they are allowed to throw 1960 on the resume. Nice!
So Cal USMC said:
posted on April 26, 2007 8:17 PM — 204.62.68.23 — link — abuse?
... Ah HA Ha...
BTW, Im laughing at the dissension among the crowd here...
Where are all of the "defenders" of the Loosie-goosie, Alabama-esk reasoning for National Championship selection orgs?
Rebel Chuck
Hotty Toddy
Clemson81
Zac
Tomcat
... who esle... ?Where you at ???
So Cal USMC said:
posted on April 26, 2007 8:34 PM — 204.62.68.23 — link — abuse?
War Eagle ATL,
The Helms Foundation is as "credible" as any of the other selection orgs.
Like the Dickinson System (football) that was widely used across the country (in the old days) by different States in High School Football as their ranking/seeding system, the Helms Foundation was one of the nation's premiere system in Basketball. Well... it also had a system for College Football.
So why not recognize that Championship, right?
AU03 said:
posted on April 26, 2007 8:43 PM — 208.63.203.124 — link — abuse?
Let's see now. If I have the logic straight, in 1993, WV took their regular season undefeated after beating BC, who beat ND, who beat FL St, who eventually beat NE for the NC. So, I guess that means WV could claim the 1993 NC, except FL beat them...badly (Yeah, I remember.). Hey, Gators! I found you guys another one!!! But, only if you let me second the motion on Boise St.
Yet another national title for Florida from a year in which Auburn beat them (I know Kev,so did FSU, which makes their claim pretty weak), but who was the only undefeated team in the nation when it was all done that year?
UWDAWG said:
posted on April 27, 2007 12:27 AM — 85.74.183.79 — link — abuse?
Hmmm, I would call BS if it was any other school doing this, so I can't do otherwise here...UW got robbed, but the system was as it was at the time, with final polling before the Bowls...Frankly, I'm more bothered by the 1983 team which was far and away tops in the country, but got edged by BYU for some reason...1960...Bollocks
posted on April 27, 2007 11:47 AM — 152.163.100.70 — link — abuse?
Buzzman 5420: You are correct. I left off the 2000 championship for the Sooners. Mea Culpa (Latin for 'My Bad') Seven is their number of titles, all legit!
UWDAWG: BYU won the title in 1984. Miami won the title in 1983, but got the glamorous vote over a blue-collar Auburn squad. Also, you're right about awarding championships prior to the bowl game seeming strange by today's standards. If you read post #26, I give some insight to why that was back then.
So Cal USMC: Yea, I'm not holding my breath. He's been taking some drive-by shots at Auburn here lately, so you never know where he'll pop up. I'm beginning to think that he likes hurting out feelings...
As far as the Helms Foundation goes, you can't really argue that it's on par with the AP and UPI back in 1960. It was the only one out of 42 different national title selectors that year to give it to the Huskies. It looks like Helms folded in 1982, 89 years after they started. An interesting thing about the Dickinson system; he was an Illinois man. Illinois claims 4 NCs, ALL back-dated. Only one was awarded by the Dickinson system, however. Knute Rockne and Notre Dame were the first recipients of the first Dickinson back-dated titles.
Hotty Toddy said:
posted on April 27, 2007 5:57 PM — 216.79.248.48 — link — abuse?
So Cal,
No offense man, but I've come to the point where I have to almost ignore every post you make because my mind can't wrap around such a high degree of ignorance towards the SEC.
I do however enjoy reading the scuffles between you and T-Mac, because that always gives me a laugh. Because that guy actually gets it.
Honestly? I think if the Huskies wanted to claim that.. then go for it. But the whole deal with that the NT was claimed before the bowl games seems kinda iffy to me and a bit unfair, therefore not giving anyone a real chance to step it up to the so-called "best" in the bowl game. Therefore they can't be widely recognized as the champs simply because of that.
So Cal USMC said:
posted on April 27, 2007 6:34 PM — 204.62.68.23 — link — abuse?
UWDAWG
It was the 1984 WASHINGTON Team that youre refering to, not 1983.
But Washington DID win ~a~ Title that year. The National Championship Foundation recognized BYU and Washington as Split Champions for the season ~!~
Count it.So Cal USMC said:
posted on April 27, 2007 7:03 PM — 204.62.68.23 — link — abuse?
War Eagle ATL,
I was playing devils advocate with the Helms Foundation thing... being half-facetious trying to Rouse-up the people who were arguing for Old Miss to count certain Championships (I forgot to insert those squiggle-lines ~ ~ signifing sarcasm)... But anyway, from a historic standpoint, the Helms Foundation is probably one of the more "credible" 2nd-tier Selection Orgs (for lack of a better phrase). Along with The Helms, the Nat Champ Foundation & the CF Research Assn are probably the three more widely recognized Selection Orgs (mostly for back-dated purposes; gap fillers). These others like NY Times Poll, Football News Poll, and those other old-time math-based Selection Orgs are superfluous.
The Dickinson system, yeah I knew about that (Stanford won the 1st one)... I read that he was recruited by the Government/Military for his math skills back in 1940 (WWII was acouple of years away), and thats why the Dickinson System stopped making naming Champions.Zac said:
posted on April 27, 2007 8:30 PM — 65.31.230.72 — link — abuse?
Post 32: So Cal Semper Fi, I've debated this argument before. I found it to be a little tiring. I'd just as soon concede U N C L E on this one. Not meaning to be redundant, what I found is below.
1960
Iowa: Berryman, Boand, Litkenhous, Sagarin
Minnesota: AP, FB News, NFF, UPI
Mississippi: Billingsley, DeVold, Dunkel, Football Research, FW, National Championship Foundation, Williamson
Missouri: Poling
Washington: HelmsGive it to one, ya gotta give it to em all...
posted on April 28, 2007 12:49 PM — 152.163.100.70 — link — abuse?
So Cal USMC: Ok, it was hard to tell if you were serious or not. The truth is, perhaps some of these selectors did have more credibility back in the day. The dificult thing is to decide how much weight you give those selectors today. You have to draw the line somewhere. For me, you simply look at the two that have been around since the beginning, the AP and UP/UPI-USAToday/ESPN.
Perhaps the most egregious example of a weak NC comes courtesy of Alabama in 1941. They lost two games and were ranked #20 in the AP. However, one selector chose them as NC and voila, Alabama claims 1941 as a title. Now, I don't know if Alabama claimed it immediately, or if they waited a few years like Washington is doing in the hopes that no one would notice.
posted on April 28, 2007 3:10 PM — 152.163.100.70 — link — abuse?
Hotty Toddy: Time for us to have a chat, my Rebel friend. In post #43, you tell Washington to "go for it" as far as claiming a NC in 1960. I'm curious if you are aware of the fact that it would dilute the claims of a certain Ole Miss squad who ALSO claims 1960 as a NC? Although Minnesota won the AP and UPI titles that year, out of the 42 selectors choosing champions, 18 went with Ole Miss, by far the greatest number of selectors of any team that year. It is generally accepted that because of that fact, 1960 is considered a split championship year between Ole Miss and Minnesota, although Iowa could make a strong case as well, having received more selctors than even Minnesota. (note also that Missouri recieved 2 selectors, Penn State and Washington one each.)
So if you want to erode the luster from your school's only national title, be my guest. Also, you and So Cal USMC play nice now!
Read my post #26 to learn more about why the two major polls chose their champion prior to the bowl games back in the day.
posted on April 28, 2007 3:35 PM — 152.163.100.70 — link — abuse?
So Cal: Another case study involving Alabama that I'm sure you are aware of is the 1978 split title year between Alabama and USC. Bama took the AP title and USC the UPI crown, but few know that the two teams actually met during the regular season and USC beat them handily at Legion Field. Alabama went on to win out, USC stumbled at Arizona State, but won out after that.
It's hard to imagine in today's poll climate that the final polls might give the nod to Bama over USC in spite of a regular season loss to them, but it happened. Since the AP was the one who awarded it, I repect it in accordance to the criteria I layed down in post #23. Since Alabama also won a title in 1979, no one ever really questions the 1978 season. It should also be mentioned that an 11-1 Oklahoma squad has a pretty good claim for that season as well.
So Cal USMC said:
posted on April 28, 2007 5:36 PM — 204.62.68.23 — link — abuse?
Hotty Toddy,
"ignorance"... yeah, right.
Dopey, this is not about the SEC, its not about Old Miss (And I said that Back Then Too). Its about the flimsy way Some People look at the National Champion selections in College Football.
So Cal USMC said:
posted on April 28, 2007 5:46 PM — 204.62.68.23 — link — abuse?
Hotty Toddy,
By the way, what are you refering to here? -
"... if the Huskies wanted to claim that.. then go for it. But the whole deal with that the NT was claimed before the bowl games seems kinda iffy"The Helms Foundation is one of the few Championship Selection Orgs in histroy that Always Included the Bowl Results in their determination.
What were you refering to? Cough-WhosIGNORANT?!-cough
Hotty Toddy said:
posted on April 28, 2007 6:36 PM — 209.214.150.184 — link — abuse?
So Cal,
If you choose not to recognize the Rebels NTs like you have been, fine. But according to what you've said before, I guess we're pretty stupid and ignorant to proudly display our three NC banners in Vaught-Hemingway stadium. So when it comes down to it, it doesn't really make a difference what YOU think.
So lets all throw away our claims to the NCs that are under question. Because apparently.. even though we were the best, they're not "legit." To appease everyone who wants a piece to the claim.. lets just throw away history.
And wonder why there wasn't a national title game. (That I know of)
..sorry we couldn't get the playoff system to you earlier. because if that was the case, there would no arguing about this right now, period. So we can all go round-and-round about this all day... claiming which ones are "legit" and the ones that are .. not so much.
So Cal USMC said:
posted on April 28, 2007 8:09 PM — 204.62.68.23 — link — abuse?
Zac, right... we know were we stand on this, both sides have made their stance known. But this news about the Washington Huskies is another example of how there's probably too much room for debate, etc. And at least, I was looking to see who, out there in the gallery, remains consistent with their rationale; Old Miss, then what about Washington ? (and what a coincidence that its with the 1960 Title here too).
But we did settle this, as far as where we stand...
Zac says:
posted on April 10, 2007 08:50 PM
"I have to agree with you on one point, there's a great deal of room for debate as to which forums or national bodies are worthy of championship selection... I'll take a step back as you recommended and agree to disagree."So Cal Clipper NATION says:
posted on April 11, 2007 09:10 PM
Tomcat [and Zac, indirectly]... Im on the side of the debate that keeps a tighter view of thing, closer to the standard. I think there's a bit too much "room" for debate... Anyway, its not "running a guy/team down" to say Mississippi hasnt won a Title. Im [simply] representing THAT side of the debate.Zac said:
posted on April 28, 2007 11:52 PM — 65.31.230.72 — link — abuse?
Here's what I don't understand. The NCAA sanctions/pronounces champions in (among other sports) Field Hockey, Golf, Lacrosse, Riffle, Swimming & Diving, Tennis, and Wrestling. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there even one in Ping-Pong and Curling? Yet, this body of infinite wisdom refuses to actually proclaim a National Champion in football. It must be this sport is even too big for them. So, instead, they relegate that task (More likely, they've been sighing in relief that someone else was willing to take it.) to a plethora of "expert" bodies or committees to do it for them. In addition to ESPN, FOX Sports, Sports Illustrated, the Sporting News, and USA today (To name a few - after all, even Playboy is into the act, and they're good at it.), you've got literally thousands of sports writers involved with news papers, magazines, radio, TV, movie trailers, and the information highway from every lowly hamlet to every major city putting in their 2 cents. The results are all of these committees, now-a-days, submitting their sacred data into special coffers for the BCS to sort out. The short version: There's been something wrong with the way college football national champions have been selected for many years. The BCS was developed to fix that, and whether or not it has is as much a subject for debate as to who won the NC in 1960.
You never hear about co-champions in other collegiate sports. Why? They all have some sort of NCAA sanctioned play-off system. But, as you all know, or at least as we've all debated, there's no easy way to set up a college football play-off, and besides, it'll ruin the bowl system. Odd thing: Div-1AA has a play-off system that has worked just fine for years. Besides, if you can establish a play-off with 67 teams in B-Ball, what is so difficult about setting one up which involves 16, 10, 8, or even only 4 teams? Ruin the bowl system? In how many threads has it been discussed there were 32 bowls last season? You think if there was a play-off involving even as many as 16 teams most of the other bowls would go bankrupt? I'm doubting it.
One more question: If the NCAA doesn't care which Div-1A college football team is crowned NC, why should they care so much about what goes on any given school's program? I don't have the answer, and I have to admit; a play-off system won't end the debate as to who won the NC in 1960. A play-off system will end the debate from here on out. If only, if only…
posted on April 29, 2007 5:03 PM — 68.215.251.208 — link — abuse?
So Cal: What is it that I don't get?
Hotty Toddy: You say there are 3 NT banners in V-H staduim? I think the University may only claim one officially, though. Like someone said on a Washington blog, they're 'recognizing' it, but not officially 'claiming' it (Husky NC)
ZAC: You're right, the NC in Division 1A IS too big for the NCAA. Of course, there's more money in prolonging the problem than actually fixing it, or so they think.
So Cal USMC said:
posted on April 29, 2007 6:59 PM — 204.62.68.23 — link — abuse?
WarEagleATL,
Hoddy Toddy either tries to discredit the arguement I make (strict standard for recognizing NCs), or just ignores the point... based it on a preconcieved notion! One thing is to disagree with the point-of-view, but its weak to write it off based on something other than the merits of the arguement.
I mention You so that he might get a broader idea (er, that its not just me)...
Ei, "University of Alabama Method of Title Determination (UAMTD)* playbook"... "list of teams who embellish their claimed national championships..."hrposon said:
posted on April 29, 2007 7:01 PM — 70.116.117.177 — link — abuse?
Congratulations to Vince Young for winning the 2005 Heisman (did you watch the 2005 & 2006 Rose Bowls?)
And congratulations to JaMarcus Russell for winning the 2006 Heisman. #1 in the NFL draft and Troy Smith #174. Herbstreit and the boys sold us another one.
Hotty Toddy said:
posted on April 29, 2007 11:34 PM — 209.214.148.77 — link — abuse?
War Eagle,
Yeah I think you're right, I do remember seeing a NC banner amongst a bunch of others I'm not 100% sure that they are the other 3. I think the rest are just SEC championships. Haven't been in there since the Vanderbilt game last season, though I have season tickets for the '07 one.
The National Champion said:
posted on April 30, 2007 5:33 PM — 192.31.106.35 — link — abuse?
I am the national champion. Forget about the huskies, boise state, and every other football team.
They all have nothing on me b/c i am the champion!!!
So Cal USMC said:
posted on April 30, 2007 7:18 PM — 204.62.68.23 — link — abuse?
~~ And Congrats to Mario Williams, Heisman Winner 2006 ~~
... War eagle ATL, the Hrposon-post is an interesting Attempt at a point, but its horrible execution.
The NFL Draft status of players has nothing to do with the Heisman Trophy.
We can debate the way players' virtues and accomplishments in College Football are interpreted by Heisman voters, and the media's influence - thats a legitimate issue(s) - But Hrpostank's point is loopey.
posted on May 1, 2007 1:13 PM — 64.12.116.77 — link — abuse?
So Cal: I agree, the Heisman hasn't a thing to do with the NFL draft, but even for purists like us, we still want to see some semblance of a correlation. Smith being drafted #174 totally skews that idea. Yea, I know. You don't have to tell me. The NFL doesn't want anyone at quarterback unless they're at least 6'4", regardless of their ability.
posted on May 1, 2007 4:55 PM — 205.188.116.201 — link — abuse?
I think Fanblogs.com should sponsor it's own National Championship. Why not? There are currently over 30 different selectors in the game. Why couldn't we do it as well? Certainly we would have no less credibility than most of the other selectors. Is this site not one of the largest online college football blogs? Don't we have that direct quote from Forbes.com to back us up? I know we probably wouldn't be the first selector to throw the voting open to the fans, but I think a poll of a dedicated online community is in order. Here's how I propose it could work:
We'd have two classes of voters; the general posters who have been registered on here for a time certain, and the designated posters who are selected by the moderator(s) (read Kevin+Co.)as being somewhat knowledgeable, dedicated, and fair with their posts. Designated posters will vote for a full crew of 25 teams, regular posters their top 10. The voting record of every poster should be made available, although I'm not sure if that is feasible--for sure the designated posters, as so to foster constructive criticism and expose bias.
Some of the posters on here have more specific knowledge of teams than probably most professional sports writers, so why wouldn't we be qualified. I don't know what you have to do to get registered in the game, probably just declare it and get plenty of exposure. We could put a thread on here and then have everyone email sports writers across the country of our intention, so that they could probably get a chuckle and promptly delete the email. But that wouldn't hold us back. So, whatta think?
So Cal USMC said:
posted on May 1, 2007 10:48 PM — 204.62.68.23 — link — abuse?
USC 2007 - Someone in this backfield better step-up...
Chauncey Washington, CJ Gable, Hershel Dennis, Desmond Reed, Emmanuel Moody, Allen Bradford, Stafon Johnson, Michael Coleman... recruits Brodrick Tyler, Joe Green, Marc McKnight or whatever the fugk their names are.
Plain and simple, which moe-foe wants to join this list?!... thats all...USC Rushing Leaders (Year, Games, Carries, NetYards, Average)
_________________________
1. Marcus Allen, 1981 12 433 2427 5.6
2. Charles White, 1979 11 332 2050 6.2
3. Ricky Bell, 1975 12 385 1957 5.1
4. O. J. Simpson, 1968 11 383 1880 4.9
5. Charles White, 1978 13 374 1859 5.0
6. Reggie Bush, 2005 13 200 1740 8.7
7. Marcus Allen, 1980 10 354 1563 4.4
8. O. J. Simpson, 1967 10 291 1543 5.3
9. Charles White, 1977 12 285 1478 5.2
10. Mike Garrett, 1965 10 267 1440 5.4
11. Ricky Bell, 1976 11 280 1433 5.1
12. Anthony Davis, 1974 12 301 1421 4.7
13. Ricky Ervins, 1989 12 269 1395 5.2
14. Clarence Davis, 1969 11 297 1351 4.5
15. LenDale White, 2005 13 197 1302 6.6
16. Anthony Davis, 1972 12 207 1191 5.8
17. Mazio Royster, 1990 11 235 1168 5.0
18. Morley Drury, 1927 9 223 1163 5.2
19. Sultan McCullough, 2000 12 227 1163 5.1
19. Fred Crutcher, 1984 12 307 1155 3.8
21. Chad Morton, 1999 12 262 1141 4.4
22. Anthony Davis, 1973 12 278 1112 4.0
23. Steven Webster, 1987 10 239 1109 4.6
23. Delon Washington, 1995 12 236 1109 4.7
25. LenDale White, 2004 13 203 1103 5.4Zac said:
posted on May 2, 2007 1:05 PM — 209.36.193.14 — link — abuse?
War Eagle: So, it’s “Dread”, not “Dreaded”, eh? Hmmm, so much for a direct quote. U guys are stuck with me for at least another 6 months. Saaahhry, ha, ha, ha… (Probably should have asked, “Are quotes from the Muppet Show OK?”)
New question: If we establish “Fanblogs” as a nationally recognized college football pundit society, and elect our own National Champion, won’t we need a voting committee? Who do we put on it? Will we have to establish our own bowl game? Are we there yet…
posted on May 2, 2007 4:10 PM — 205.188.116.201 — link — abuse?
Zac: With my quote of "inconceivable", it looks like I'd have to go on a 6-month sabbatical myself, playing by those rules. "This word...I do not think it means what you think it means."
With the power of the internet, I think it would be no time before we establish ourselves as a power-house of the source-based sites (I can't remember the technical term, but it is a site where most of the content is generated free by the users, like Wikipedia) Once there, Kevin can sell out to Google for like a cool Billion, having previously committed to using a large portion of the proceeds to establishing the fanblogs.com Bowl, which we could locate in a nice warm clime and establish a ridicuously large payout to attract good teams and create instant credibility. Charter contributers like us would have admittance to the fanblogs.com luxury suites and could get totally smashed, reveling in our meager participation in the greatest grassroots sports proposition ever.
With our newly bought prestige it would be no time before we might challenge for national title supremacy in the country. Inconceivable?
There's quite a few posters on here who have excellent knowledge of the game and their favorite team and who are resonable about what their keyboard spits out. And it doesn't hurt to have a sense of humour. Some of the guys whose posts I enjoy are you, T-Mac, Gatorhippy, Tampa Gator, AU03, J Boe, Chris, So Cal USMC, Tommy Trojan, Tiger Educated, and Hotty Toddy. I'm sure there are others I'm leaving out, and there are quite a few idiots, the drive-by posters and the ones who don't fly their colors (pirates)??
posted on May 2, 2007 4:45 PM — 205.188.116.201 — link — abuse?
So Cal: USC certainly has a solid claim as being 'Tailback U', something you might be alluding to in your post above, but may I submit to you that my alma mater has a pretty good claim as far as producing some damn good NFL talent? We don't have the Heismans to go with it, but some solid runners stand out: Tucker Frederickson, Lionel James, Joe Cribbs, James Brooks, William Andrews, Bo Jackson, Brent Fullwood, Stephen Davis, Rudy Johnson, Brandon Jacobs (passed thru) Carnell Willaims and Ronnie Brown. Not bad for a cow college...
So Cal USMC said:
posted on May 2, 2007 8:34 PM — 204.62.68.23 — link — abuse?
The Fanblogs.com College Football National Championship Selection committee -
WareagleATL, I tried getting a Fanblogs College Footbal League going last year (on Sportsline)... I think it just ended up being just another league - not too much participation from people here on Fanblogs (btw, I won the league, huh-ray for me~)... so I dont know how many would actively participate in something like this.
But if any of these people are a part of it, I'll might give-up my membership under protest: ATLien, IrishTJ, Bleed Crimson, wareagle254, RUkid, Hokie4Vick, gator-tud (I might have the wrong 'gator' & 'wareagle' but Ill know em when I see em).... and selection system is gonna need a name, or an acronym or something.
Zac said:
posted on May 2, 2007 11:24 PM — 65.31.230.72 — link — abuse?
War Eagle A - I'm honored. In this regard, I will endeavor to strive for excellence or making a complete idiot of myself…not necessarily in that order. Just so long as we don't fall victim to one of the classic blunders; i.e. getting in over our heads. Of course, as you well know,
" The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this: never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line!!"
(Had to through that in being a Ginzo myself.)
So Cal USMC, you want us to come up with a name for this committee? Oh, geez, here comes "Naming Contest For Cat's *No Name* Offense" all over again.
posted on May 3, 2007 12:28 PM — 64.12.116.77 — link — abuse?
You know boys, it's probably all for naught. Kevin already sold out to Rivals.com, so we can kiss the billions from google goodbye. There goes our bowl game, but I guess we can still try with our national championship selection committee. I say that the first order of business when we get started is to somehow 'un-reward' the University of Washington their newly minted 1960 national title. The thread can read like this: ANGRY FANBLOGS.COM POSTERS TAKE BACK HUSKIES' BOGUS SELF-AWARDED NATIONAL TITLE
You know, I went on that Husky blog where that story came from and tried to start a fight, but none of them cared...
ZAC: Ah, yes, the land war in Asia. I forgot!
So Cal: Was that like fantasy football for the NCAA? I don't know much about that because I don't follow pro football any more.
So Cal USMC said:
posted on May 5, 2007 8:09 PM — 204.62.68.23 — link — abuse?
War Eagle, these people are NOT gonna like the strict standards that we have for recognizing College Football's National Champs.
"Un-rewarding", or Un-Awarding, this Championship from the Washington Huskies means Un-Awarding Mississippi's Bogus, Self-Awared 1960 Title... which also means un-awarding Alabama's Bogus, Self-Awared "Titles" of 1941 and 1934... Iowa's 1956 & 1958 (if they even claim em)... Notre Dame's 1953 (if they even claim it)... Arkansas' 1964, etc...Im willing to do the dirty work.
I have an argument ready if the committee is prepared to hear it; about When the College Football National Championships selections should begin to be officially recongnized - what Year in history to start counting from (1869 is not even a consideration, sorry Yale, Princeton).
So Cal USMC said:
posted on May 5, 2007 8:25 PM — 204.62.68.23 — link — abuse?
... Who's gonna be in the Committee? Its gotta be a little selective with its memebership right?
My first nomination/suggestion for committee membership:
- The Mayor: honest opinions, semi-knowledgeable, overall decent guy.... and Zac, come on dont be silly, I dont want this thing to be know as the "Pee-Pee & Pee-Pee, Pee-Pee CFB Selection org" ... lets please keep this on a serious note, if you dont mind ~eh~hem~
Zac said:
posted on May 6, 2007 1:14 PM — 65.31.230.72 — link — abuse?
SoCalUSMC: I waz only jokin. Geez, wat a grouch. On a serious not, I've never been very good at coming up with titles or names to things. While you're absolutely correct, I was being overly silly; my preference is to place a humorous spin on this sort of thing. If that disqualifies me, then, as you see fit, and so be it. Otherwise, I'm at your disposal in this…ahem, venture.
So Cal USMC said:
posted on May 7, 2007 9:58 PM — 204.62.68.23 — link — abuse?
2007 All-American Teams, preseason list... anyone?
Quarterbacks
1st - Colt Brennen, Hawai'i
2nd - Colt McCoy, Texas
3rd - Pat White, WestVU
HM - JD Booty, USC/Andre Woodson, Kentucky/Chad Henne, MichiganRunningbacks
1st - Ian Johnson, Boise St
1st - Darren McFadden, Arkansas
2nd - Steve Slaton, WestVU
2nd - Micheal Hart, Michigan
3rd - Raymell Rice, Rutgers
3rd - Branden Ore, VTech
HM - James Davis & CJ Spiller, Clemson/Tashard Choice, GTech/Yvenson Bernard, Oregon St/Wells & Wells, Ohio StAll-Purpose
1st - Jonathan Stewart, Oregon
2nd - Percy Harvin, Florida
... the rest, is ytbdSEMINOLE_NATION said:
posted on May 7, 2007 11:12 PM — 71.14.108.232 — link — abuse?
I agree about the ACC having great RB depth. Antone Smith is flying under the national radar though due to FSU's recent struggles running the ball. In one of the worst rushing attacks in the nation (105th) he averaged an impressive 5.2 yards per carry. Trickett will greatly improve the FSU line so smith might actually have a hole or two to run through this year.
So Cal USMC said:
posted on May 8, 2007 8:18 PM — 204.62.68.23 — link — abuse?
SEMINOLE, how long was RB Lorenzo Booker at FSU ?!
It seems like he was there 6 or 7 years... I remember a lot of smack about how the number one prospect in the country "snubbed" USC (he being from So Cal) when he decided to commit to FSU instead... a fews National Titles & Heismans later... ~?~?~?~
FSU, besides the Running game, another aspect to keep on eye on is their Turnover Margin (102nd in '06).
So Cal USMC said:
posted on May 8, 2007 9:29 PM — 204.62.68.23 — link — abuse?
- Proposal as to when to begin "Counting" the past National Champions -
The first year that College Football was played was 1869. I propose that the first year that College Football had a National Champion was 1920. It was the year that College Football became a turely National sport.
College Football did not & could not have a "National" Champion before the sport was a National sport. The first few decades that College Football was played, it was clustered in the Northeastern part of the country. At around the turn of the century, Michigan broke the un-official strangle hold that the un-official "Ivy League" had on the sport way back then, but even so, the sport was still predominantly concentrated out in the Rustbelt region of the country. Even as late as the 1910s, some future national powers like Texas, Alabama, USC, and Nebraska, where playing against High Schools, Medical Schools, Mechanics Schools, and Schools for the Deaf!!! College Football was not a truely National sport.
LSU in 1908*, was arguably the first team outside of the Rustbelt to be recognized as the Champs in College Football (* the retro-active poll known as the National Championship Foundation named Penn & LSU the split Champions for 1908). In 1917, GTech was arguably the first team outside of the Rustbelt to be recognized as the clear-cut Champion.
Still there hadnt been a team West of The Mississippi, let alone a team West of The Rockies recognized as the Champs. In 1919* the NCF selected the first team west of The Mississippi, Texas A&M, as the Champs (* 3-split Champs with Harvard & Illinios). But it wasnt until 1920, when Cal Berkeley became the widely recognized Champion, that College Football - and its Championship - finally became turely National.It was in the 1920s that guys like "Knute Rockne", and "Red Grange" made their names... it was in the 1920s when national powerhouses -- Notre Dame, USC, Alabama -- began to established themselves.
Not to take-away from the accomplishments of teams like Michigan (5 Titles pre-1920), Penn St (2 Titles pre-1920), and Pitsburgh (3 Titles pre-1920) in the College Football world, but it realy just wasnt a National sport back then.
SEMINOLE_NATION said:
posted on May 9, 2007 7:36 AM — 71.14.108.232 — link — abuse?
Booker was a great talent and a great back. Even at FSU he showed signs of what he was capable of. Booker's problem was FSU's line wasnt worth a damn and didnt give him (or any of the other backs) a chance. Rick Trickett IMO is hands down the best offensive line coach out there. Since his arrival in Jan he's made a tremendous impact and improvements in the line. I think the running game will be very affective this year and Antone Smith will actually have running lanes.
As far as the turnover margin, yeah it was ugly. Honestly, I think a solid running game will help lower FSU's turnovers. Couple reasons why, one is because a QB is more likely to throw an INT then a RB will fumble and FSU was something like 80% pass and 20% run. It will be much more balanced this coming season. Secondly, the QBs wont feel like they have to force things to try and make a play to move the ball because they will have a running game to support them. I think with an established running game the TO margin will work its self out. IMO.
posted on May 9, 2007 1:09 PM — 64.12.116.77 — link — abuse?
So Cal: Explain why you think 1920 should be the first year to 'count' national titles, considering the fact that there was no national poll of any kind established at that time. Any statistical attempt to determine rankings would be virtually non-credible
In post #23 above, I suggest that 1934 should be the first year, since the AP debuted then. They didn't poll the next year, in 1935, but started back in 1936 and every year hence.
The most contentious item will be how to treat the multitude of selectors that have operated over the years. My idea is to only recognize two, the same two that have complemented each other since 1950--the writer's (AP) and the coach's poll ( currently the USA Today/ESPN ) By doing that, you will go to great lengths to eliminate multiple claims for given years--like 1960 for example, the year in contention for this thread.
Using my method, Minnesota would be the sole champion for 1960, since they won both the AP and UPI crowns. Although 18 of the 42 selectors chose Ole Miss as champion, and 12 chose Iowa, not to mention one each for Washington and Penn State, since none of those selectors are one of the designated two, those titles cannot be counted. Do I think that the schools will ever cease counting them? No, of course not. Too much pride at stake
Zac said:
posted on May 9, 2007 11:01 PM — 65.31.230.72 — link — abuse?
Fascinating: We have yet to really begin this venture, and already there's a question as to where or when is best to begin. SoCalUSMC, you want to start around 1920, you're basis being it was around that time college football became a national sport. War Eagle, you want to start later, 1934, when those considered to be the two most prestigious bodies, AP & UPI, came into being. I say there's no place to start like the present. Sure, we can look back at a couple of multi champion years, do a little research, consider the statistics, and render our opinion at to who we believe to be the true champion. (If anything it would be good practice.) But, done is done, I say. That's history; we'll learn from it and move on. Besides, our opinion won't change the complaining. It will, at least offer a new perspective. That at least, as I understood it, is after all what we're trying to achieve.
posted on May 10, 2007 12:41 PM — 64.12.116.77 — link — abuse?
Zac: We don't want to re-write history, I think we were just discussing when the modern age of college football started, and more importantly, when true national champions started to be made.
It will never happen, but I wish the NCAA would give schools guidelines about claiming national titles. As you mentioned in an earlier post, the NC in D1A is too big for the NCAA, so they'll continue to duck this issue.
In recent years, with the advent of the BCS, more legitimacy is slowly being installed into the NC. Take the case of Auburn, for instance. If the school came out immediately in 2004 and tried to claim a split NC, everyone in the country would have cried foul, the reason being that USC was chosen by the legitimate selectors. Thirty years ago that might have been a different story. Too much media focus is around to try something slick like that. Of course, if you try that 47 years later like Washington is doing, it might work.
The college football data warehouse, which seems to be a solid source, actually goes back to the 1860s and awards a NC for every year, interpreting data from the multitude of NC selectors who awarded back-dated titles. I wish they didn't do this. It gives more legitimacy to the idea of these back-dated titles. Besides, when you go back that far, only the Ivy League teams really played football, and one of them was the supposed champion virtually every year.
Zac said:
posted on May 10, 2007 8:11 PM — 65.31.230.72 — link — abuse?
War Eagle: I think as we move forward, we're going to come across a lot of gray. I can see good points in a lot of these arguments, but I can also see points against. For example: Consider Baseball. When was it invented? Who adopted it right away? When the Providence Grays won the 1st World Series in 1884, was Baseball considered a national sport? I suppose it would have been by 1947 when the 1st College World Series Champion was crowned. What about college basketball? Was it national when Yale won the title in 1901? If we're not here to rewrite history, and I don't propose that we do, why concern ourselves with the Huskies' claim at all, let alone Ole Miss, IA, or anyone else who thinks they have an arguably legitimate claim. I'm only suggesting we learn from the past and move on. A little "what if" practice, or "devil's advocacy" now and then is OK, but for the most part, move forward. That's why I suggested we start from the here and now. Because before long, somebody's going to argue title legitimacy based upon the legitimacy of Massey, or the CFF, or other arguably legitimate organization who once crowned champions. By starting now, it seems we might avoid all that. Just a thought.
So Cal USMC said:
posted on May 10, 2007 8:45 PM — 204.62.68.23 — link — abuse?
War Eagle, the first AP "Poll" wasnt a Poll... it was one guy's list of Top 10 teams - sports writer, Alan Gould - and I think it was 1935, not '34, when it was published.
The Dickinson System pre-dates the AP Poll by about a Decade anyway.
1920 is the best compromise. Its silly to consider those pre-historic Princeton teams "National Champs"... but its also silly for those Red Grange, Four Horsemen teams to go un-accounted for. 1920 is the best compromise.
So Cal USMC said:
posted on May 10, 2007 9:00 PM — 204.62.68.23 — link — abuse?
War Eagle, Post 96, recognize only two selection orgs...
Thats roughly what the standard has been over the years (sometimes overlapping, sometimes not)... the 2 Premiere selection orgs of the time.
Dickinson from 1926-1940 (retro 1924-25)
AP from 1936-Present
Coaches from 1950-97/BCS 1998-PresentSo Cal USMC said:
posted on May 10, 2007 9:15 PM — 204.62.68.23 — link — abuse?
War Eagle,
The notion of the 2-premiere Selection Org recognizing the National Champs is not "your method", or "my method"... That IS what the Standard Is, basically.
BTW, I hope the NCAA stays out of it, as far as recognizing past Champions. That near-sighted monolithic behemoth would just Eff things up (in this case). But it should work towards establishing a Playoff system for the furture.
As for the Retro-Selections, I'd argue that 1920 would be the furthest back they could go, legitimately. The debate whether there Should Even Be any Retro-Selections is one that Im on the fence about.
So Cal USMC said:
posted on May 10, 2007 9:31 PM — 204.62.68.23 — link — abuse?
National Titles from 1947 to 1974 would be open to questioning if the 1960 Title is awarded to any team other than Minnesota.
1947 set the precidence. The AP Poll took a 2nd Vote after the Bowl games. Notre Dame, ranked No. 1, was named the Champ... but after No. 2 Michigan "destroyed" USC in the Rose Bowl (a team that Notre Dame just "beat"), public pressure prompted the AP to have a 2nd Vote! Michigan was No. 1 ... the precidence was set.
The Helms Foundation (from my understanding) has always included the Bowl Results as part of their system. In 1947, Helms had Michigan and Notre Damed Tied at No. 1, fittingly. So the Helms Fndn carries some serious credibility.
The AP didnt include Bowl Results until 1965!(then 1968)...
So Cal USMC said:
posted on May 10, 2007 9:45 PM — 204.62.68.23 — link — abuse?
... the Football Writers assn. of America isnt as widely recognized as the AP or the Coaches Polls; its sortava copy-cat Poll that came about in 1954. But the FW did start including Bowl Results in their Voting as early as 1955!
If we looked to include the Bowl Results since 1947, we'd be tearing-into the AP and Coaches Polls legitimacy in that Era (Miss?/Wash?/Minn? 1960, etc). I'd argue that the Helms Foundation and the Football Writers should be the Premiere Selection Orgs to rely on. But thats a big "if" though... thats the Pandora's Box I've warned about.
1951 - Tennessee loses its Title
1953 - Marylaned loses its Title
1960 - Minnesota loses its Title
1964 - Alabama loses its Title
1970 - Texas loses its Title
1974 - Alabama loses its Title
So Cal USMC said:
posted on May 10, 2007 10:01 PM — 204.62.68.23 — link — abuse?
... If that were the case, we'd have different Champions than the AP/Coaches those years, the AP joining the Helms and FW in 1965 & then in 1968-Present...
(*correction, 1973 Texas, not 1974*)
1951 - Michigan St Wins the Title
1953 - Notre Dame Wins the Title
1960 - Washington(Helms) & Mississippi(FW) Win a Title
1964 - Arkansas Wins the Title
1970 - Nebraska(AP-post Bowls), Only, Wins the Title
1973 - Notre Dame(AP-post Bowls), Only, Wins the Title1958 - Iowa(FW) Wins a Title (along with LSU; Helms)
1961 - Ohio St(FW) Wins a Title (along with Alabama; Helms)#1952 - Georgia Tech(INS) Loses a Title
# this is If you even counted the INS (International News Service) as you do the Coaches/UP and AP -- it being another copy-cat type of Media Poll (1952).
posted on May 11, 2007 12:34 PM — 205.188.116.201 — link — abuse?
So Cal: Okay, there's a lot of info there. Give me a chance to review it. So, are you saying that the Helms Foundation and Dickinson system were promulgating polls back in the 1920s? Let me research this.
Zac: I think the legitimacy of old NCs in college football matters because it figures prominently in ranking programs historically. For example, college football data warehouse has an all-time rankings index, and national championships play no small part in the overall score. But cfbdw seems to take schools' word on how many titles they claim. Programs that embellish their record rank higher. I wish it was more objective than that.
Zac said:
posted on May 11, 2007 6:02 PM — 65.31.230.72 — link — abuse?
War Eagle/SoCalUSMC: Post 107 - I'd be happy if things were a lot less complex, if in fact there were one or two "objective" orgs which had determined the champion. Just because a school makes a claim doesn't make it so; there still has to be sound basis. Unfortunately, for some the basis is sound, or at least bears considering. The problem is, where do you draw the line? I don't have a suggestion, let alone an answer to that one.
Tomcat said:
posted on May 11, 2007 6:03 PM — 69.148.173.57 — link — abuse?
Zac, War Eagle, So Cal Guys I find this to be very entertaining and yes this opens up the can of worms as yall say.My perspective is a little different concerning different teams claims to national titles.I've heard fans from certain teams to claim titles and other guys argue with them concerning the number of Championships. During modern times 1960 to present , every year there were different polling organizations with different results, some before the Bowls Etc.
Check this out, just my own perspective[not official] whatever that means?
1960
Ole Miss 10-0-1
Wash 10-1-0 who's the champ?
I beleive Minn right? what does official mean?
unofficial Champs Ole Miss1964
Alabama 10-1 Alabama Nat Champs right
Texas 10-1
Arkansas 11-0
Texas beat Alabama in the Orange Bowl 21-17
Texas only loss was to Arkansas
Arkansas went undefeated unofficial Champs1962
USC 11-0
Ole Miss 10-0
Texas 9-0-1
Unofficial Champs Ole Miss
certainly from all the unbias information that we receive here on fanblogs we can all agree that the SEC is tougher than the pac-81967
USC 10-1
OK 10-1
unofficial champs Oklahoma
We know that OU beat UT and that USC didnt1966
ND 9-0-1
Mich St 9-0-1
Alab 11-0
unofficial champs Alabama1965
Alabama 9-1-1
Mich St 10-1
Ark 10-1
Neb 10-1
Guys this continues forever on up to
AU unofficial champs 2004
The formation of BCS was to help determine a champion, however there will always be debate over how many Nat titles does a particular school have, official[ whatever that means] or unofficialHookem Horns
OU suxZac said:
posted on May 12, 2007 9:58 PM — 65.31.230.72 — link — abuse?
All: On occasion I'm made to travel in my line of work. This week I'm expected to assist with a self-assessment at Monticello Nuclear Pwr Sta. I regret to say for the next week you'll be untouched by my venerable wisdom. Try and put on without me. Until my return, all the best to you and yours.
Zac
posted on May 12, 2007 10:52 PM — 205.188.116.201 — link — abuse?
Tomcat: We're just trying to determine which polls from the old days that we find credible and whose findings we will respect. Once that's established, it certainly doesn't mean that we have to agree with their findings every single year, but we'll have to respect them. Back in the day, the polls chose before the bowl games. Although today that seems totally moronic, that was the way it was back then. Alabama has a few titles that were won in spite of them losing a bowl game, in some cases to another team claiming a national title. Would that pass muster today? No. But if we say that the AP and UPI polls were credible back then, then we have to accept the results. Confused now?
So Cal USMC said:
posted on May 13, 2007 8:21 PM — 204.62.68.23 — link — abuse?
War Eagle,
The Dickinson System began in 1926, retro-actived to 1924, on Knute Rockne's request. The Trophy that Dickinson presented to the Champs was later named after Rockne.
The Helms Foundation began in 1941, retro-active to 1883, when football first adopted a point-scoring system. I believe it know, moreso, for its Basketball Rating system in its time, moreso than football.
Tomcat said:
posted on May 14, 2007 5:37 PM — 70.249.45.141 — link — abuse?
#112 Good Post
#114 So-Cal as silly as it might seem to you, its not near as funny to some guys who's teams were overlooked, overshadowed or down right denied the mystical"Nat Title".
Reread post #109 with an open mind and try to think outside the box so to speak.
I've heard you on here argueing with Bama and Ole Miss fans about there number of titles.etc. etc.
Hookem-Horns
#1 sports movie Forresst GumpSo Cal USMC said:
posted on May 14, 2007 5:57 PM — 204.62.68.23 — link — abuse?
If the standard Recognized Championships are disrupted, it opens things up to even more questions of legitimacy. The precedence was set in the 1947 season regarding the relevance of Bowl games when the AP had a 2nd Vote after the Rose Bowl result. The Coaches Poll didnt include Bowl results in their Vote til 1974... the AP Poll, til 1965 & then 1968... the Football Writers Poll, since 1955... the Helms Foundation system, since before 1947.
So if the standard of the AP and Coaches Polls is imploded...1973
- Bama LOSES its superfluous Coaches-pre Bowl Title
- Notre Dame is the only Champ (Helms, FWs, AP-post Bowls)1970
- Texas LOSES its superfluous Coaches-pre Bowl Title
- Nebraska is the only Champ (Helms, FWs, AP-post Bowls)1966
- Michigan St picks-up a Title (Helms split)
- Notre Dame then shares the Title (Helms split, FWs, AP-post Bowls)1964
- Bama LOSES the superfluous AP & Coaches pre-Bowl Titles
- Arkansas picks-up a Title, is the only Champ (Helms, FWs)1961
- Ohio St picks-up a Title (FWs)
- Bama then shares the Title (Helms)1960
- Minnesota LOSES the superfluous AP & Coaches pre-Bowl Titles
- Washington picks-up a Title (Helms)
- Mississippi picks-up a Title (FWs)1958
- Iowa picks-up a Title (FWs)
- LSU then shares the Title (Helms)1953
- Maryland LOSES their superfluous AP & Coaches pre-Bowl Titles
- Notre Dame picks-up a Title, is the only Champ (Helms)1951
- Tennessee LOSES its superfluous AP & Coaches pre-Bowl Titles
- Michigan St picks-up a Title, is the only Champ (Helms)
In every other season, the AP or Coaches Pre-Bowl superfluous Titles are backed-up with either a Helms or FWs Title, therefore they dont necessarily LOSE the Title for that season.
Eye of the Tiger said:
posted on May 15, 2007 2:27 PM — 138.163.0.42 — link — abuse?
In the world where championships can be debated I will just go ahead and say LSU has been the National Champs since 1958 and nobody can tell me different. I personally could careless what one poll says compared to the other. I might as well make up my own poll and throw it in the mix. What makes one better than the other? AN OPINION. So, now you see it would be better to have a playoff system than have some A-Hole w/ an opinion such as myself tell you which poll is better be/c of course I believe my poll is the greatest. As long as there are polls we are all champs.
posted on May 15, 2007 5:09 PM — 205.188.116.201 — link — abuse?
So Cal: You're right, the Dickinson system did originate in 1926. Somehow, I got it in my head that they didn't commence until the late 1930s. You can then certainly make an arguement that their 1926 pick is a legitimate champion. However, I'm still not sold on the back-dated titles for 1924 and 1925.
Some may counter that since Dickinson folded in 1940, they shouldn't be considered legitimate by today's standards. I'm more inclined to accept them as legitimate, since they appear to truly be the first selector to try to formulate a national champion. Good research on that!
posted on May 15, 2007 5:59 PM — 205.188.116.201 — link — abuse?
Rebel Chuck: You're right, Ole Miss does claim 3 NCs. Unfortunately, they're the only ones who recognize anything more than one. In 1959 and 1962, some selectors did choose them, but not a majority. Nor did the big two (AP and UPI) choose them. In 1960, Ole Miss did have a majority of selectors; however, neither of the big two chose them that year. Using the strict guidelines I set up in post #23, they wouldn't have any. But conventional wisdom recognizes one, so be happy with that.
If the Rebels had the clout of Alabama, no one would challenge their claim. Maybe one day we'll have a standard for claiming this stuff.
posted on May 15, 2007 6:14 PM — 205.188.116.201 — link — abuse?
Eye of the Tiger: You really have no idea what we're debating on this thread. And yes, I'm willing to bet that you do care what the polls say. Liar!
So Cal: Now I know why you're so familar with Dickinson: While researching it, I came across an article on the USC official site from 2004 declaring their intention to claim 1939 as a championship since they were chosen by the Dickinson system. That's just as lame as what Washington is trying to do! Do you approve of this?? ( http://usctrojans.cstv.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/072604aaa.html )
So Cal USMC said:
posted on May 15, 2007 8:08 PM — 204.62.68.23 — link — abuse?
Tomcat, there not even a question about a dispute for the 1962 Title. That goes for 1967 too - Wyoming was 10-1 too that year, are they in the mix for the 1967 Title? In 1960, New Mexico St was the only Undefeated/Untied team in the country; not Minnesota, not Washington, not Mississippi.
Boise State went undefeated in 2006 - the only team that did; not Florida. Is Boise St your unofficial Champ? ~They beat Oklahoma~
Fresno St was 11-0-1 in 1985. Every other team had atleast 1-Loss, including the "Nat Champs". F State your 1985 unoffical Champs?
Arizona St in 1975 and 1970 went undefeated... the "Nat Champs" did Not... ASU 2-Time unofficial Champs?
Tomcat, the point is that you have to maintain some sort of consistant standard, even if you are liberal about it.
Tomcat said:
posted on May 16, 2007 9:10 AM — 70.249.45.141 — link — abuse?
#122 Wareagle The 1939 champs Texas A&M not USC if you get a chance visit College Station and Kyle Feild. They will tell you who the 1939 Champs Are The Fighting AggiesSo beating
#123 So-Cal Boise St 2006 champs-not
Sure they beat Oklahoma so did Texas 28-10. I also saw the Texas A&M game in which they dominated the Sooners for four quarters and lost the game by one point due to poor coaching decisions.They also lost to the Oregon Ducks despite the contraversial bad calls by the refs they certainly didnt beat the mighty ducks.So beating a 3 or 4 loss team doesnt qualify for Nat Champs.It looks like until some form off playoff or touryment is formed that teams like 2006 Boise, 2004 Utah and 2004 Aurburn are just great undefeated teams that never had a shot.
Hookem-Horns
posted on May 16, 2007 12:37 PM — 64.12.116.77 — link — abuse?
Tomcat: A+M is the recognized NC for 1939. The AP and a majority of the selectors chose them. For USC to claim it, they would have to use the UAMTD formula (University of Alabama Method of Title Determination) which is the most liberal way of pumping up the resume.
posted on May 16, 2007 1:05 PM — 64.12.116.77 — link — abuse?
Rebel Chick, I mean Chuck: Comparing Ole Miss and Auburn? How do I count the ways? Although not big SEC rivals, we do own a 23-8 record against you (.742) We have a .571 SEC winning %, you have a .450. We have a .631 all-time winning %, you have a .566. We have 674 wins, you have 594. Where Ole Miss comes close to Auburn is SEC championships--we each have 6. Of course we have 4 additional titles from the Southern Conferenece and Southern Intercollegiate Conference, the precursors to the SEC of which Ole Miss was a member, so it's really not close.
We have 1 legitimate national title, you have none. If you want to claim your 3 non-legits, we can claim an additional 6 non-legits, although I don't think we should.
Now, what stat were you going to use to show that Auburn is a "suck-ass" team compared to Ole Miss?
So Cal USMC said:
posted on May 16, 2007 9:40 PM — 204.62.68.23 — link — abuse?
The Dickinson System - according just about everything Ive come across, it was the premiere Selection Org of its time. Another interesting piece of information that I find significant is that the Dickinson System actually presented a Trophy to the team they named National Champs. I dont know that these other 3rd-rate polls/systems (Bama-style) even did that, way back when. Besides that, these Berryman, Houlgate, Williamson type of polls/systems were never considered the premiere Selection Orgs of their time, the Dickinson System was.
"Stanford (in 1926), Michigan (in 1932) and SMU (in 1935) claim a football national championship after being selected almost solely by the Dickinson System."
Consistancy. Thats the rationale. Dont even try to get into this crap... "Now I know why you're so familar with Dickinson..." and also, dont call punching-up Wikipedia, doing "research".
posted on May 16, 2007 10:01 PM — 152.163.100.70 — link — abuse?
It's a joke man, lighten up. I pulled up a number of articles on the Dickinson system. There's really not a whole lot out there. Wikipedia's article is a stub. However, if USC wants to claim a national championship 65 years after the fact, go ahead. You and I both know that's weak. Answer this, and don't get pissed off that I'm asking, it's a straightforward question: If the Dickinson was that prestigious back in 1939, why did USC wait until 2004 to claim it?
Tomcat said:
posted on May 17, 2007 7:28 AM — 70.249.45.141 — link — abuse?
War Eagle-thanks #128
#131 So Cal I enjoy reading your posts, silly is as silly does.BTW your so hard headed are you sure your from Calfs or you really from Deuchland? Its all good. I've got to go now, I have my boat in the river.
Adios TomcatAU03 said:
posted on May 17, 2007 3:54 PM — 205.255.224.10 — link — abuse?
The Dickinson System - according just about everything Ive come across, it was the premiere Selection Org of its time.
So Cal, define "everything (you've) come across." If the extent of that is a page from USC's athletic website then you can see why we're skeptical.
Other things to note- USC had two ties that year, whereas A&M was undefeated and untied. USC won the Rose Bowl by shutting out Tennessee (a team that had not given up 1 point until that game, with all of its wins being double-digit, except Auburn- quite impressive); A&M beat 8-0-1 Tulane in the Sugar Bowl (a home game for the Green Wave, no doubt).
Both make good cases- but USC still had blemishes, whereas A&M did not.
posted on May 18, 2007 12:23 PM — 152.163.100.70 — link — abuse?
So Cal: It does appear that you're getting pissed off when you say things like "don't try this crap with me". I wasn't trying to make you mad. There's no reason for you to get angry just because we're questioning USC's motives for this. Only Alabama fans fans feel a threat to their manhood if you start questioning their national titles. ( Some Bama fans, not all)
But yes, it does matter what a team like USC 'claims' as national titles. If it's a team like Washington, then they don't have the clout for anyone to seriously accept what they claim. But look at Alabama. They're one of the top teams historically, so people give them more respect, and consequently, take what they claim for granted. USC has that same standing. If USC starts embellishing their record, people may not take it seriously for a while, but eventually, they will.
I take the high road with Auburn. We could claim 7 national titles, but only claim one. I would protest vehemently if they tried to claim more, especially if they were back-dated titles or minor-selector choices.
AU 03: Good point about A+M.
Zac said:
posted on May 19, 2007 12:14 PM — 65.31.230.72 — link — abuse?
Zac is back!!! Gee, don't everyone say, "Hi" at once. Anyway, with another Self Assessment out of the way, I can now get down to what's important in life: College Football. Ah…
E of T, Post 118: I agree, if you're a true fan of your team, and a true fan of the game. Besides, there isn't a poll that existed, exists, or ever will exist that isn't based upon some element of opinion.
War Eagle, Post: Can't happen; I'm Italian.
There's been a lot of debate as to which systems have been legitimate, not to mention those teams claiming arguably legitimate NC's, which weren't awarded to them. It's all well and good to point out how well a team did against another in one game. My fellow WVU fans have been spouting about the 2005 Sugar Bowl since the final gun sounded. It was one game. USC's impressive victory over an arguably powerful TN team back in 1939 was one game. (By the way, I'm only using this as an example.) You have to take into consideration the entire resume', not just wins vs. losses, but wins on the road, schedule strength, the number of home games vs. away games, etc. Additional intangibles have to be considered, such as margin of victory, injuries to key personnel, teams played prior to and following emotional rivalries, poor officiating, etc. We all know, no matter how good a team is, that team will play poorly at least once during the regular season. We also know, no matter how poorly a team consistently plays they will over-achieve at least once during the regular season. So, at what point do you penalize a team for its schedule or for a specific loss or tie?
It was my understanding; the point of this exercise was to 1) determine the legitimacy of the poling body(ies), and 2) utilize it/them to determine "The" champion for a given year. Of course, like any given poll, this would be based solely on our collective opinion. As we all may have guessed by now, this is not an easy under-taking. Therefore, I submit this recommendation: Select a committee; let said committee hear the arguments; let said committee bring it to a vote, and let the next round of debates begin. Because you know; that's what will happen.
Finally, So Cal USMC, you do tend to come off a bit too serious about this, and understandably so, given this sort of thing tends to be serious, and you're obviously passionate about it. While many of us are as passionate in our own way of given things, as you are of this and other things, many of us sit back, look at the comments and laugh. Sometimes, depending upon the comments, we joke around, raz, tease, and yes, get a little silly. This is supposed to be fun. While there will be those who don't take the joking around as well as others, without an element of humor, how can any of this be fun? I think Roger Rabbit said it best: "Sometimes laughter is the only weapon we have." There may come a day when that may well be true. Till then, savor what laughter you can while you can. Just a thought.
Tomcat said:
posted on May 20, 2007 11:43 PM — 70.249.45.141 — link — abuse?
Hey Zac enjoyed your post, so a self-essesment was this done within the team enviroment.Maybe we should schedule a meeting have a round robin disscussion and reach a consenses.Did you earn yourself an EE- exceeds expectations.
Humor and laughter are important elements, and yes some of these posters take things as personal insults, which in fact they are not.
Thank you for your imput and keep it up dude.
Ole Miss 1960 Nat Champs
Texas A&M 1939 Nat Champs
Florida 2006 Nat Champs
Hookem-Horns
GiGem-Aggies
Roll Tide
Geaux Tigers
Sicem-Bears
Go Frogs
Ou-Sux
Please note that all comments are subject to the Fanblogs Comment Policy.
SEMINOLE_NATION said:
posted on April 26, 2007 9:36 AM — 71.14.108.232 — link — abuse?Congrats to Boise State for being the 2006 National Champions!