Talk:NCAA Division I-A National Football Championship/Archive 2006

message: there is an * by 1947 Michigan anyone know what that is supposed to mean? Also 1950 Kentucky (Modern Analysts)  Who are the mondern analysts ? Smith03 15:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  1947 and 1950 

message: Would like comments on whether following list is preferred to that currently posted:
Year	Champion      	Source    	Record	Bowl       	Head coach
1869	Princeton     	(NCF)     	1-1-0 	           	
1870	Princeton     	(NCF)     	1-0   	           	
1871	No Champion   	          	      	           	
1872	Princeton     	(NCF)     	1-0   	           	
1873	Princeton     	(NCF)     	1-0   	           	
1874	Yale          	(NCF)     	3-0   	           	
1875	Harvard       	(NCF)     	4-0   	           	
1876	Yale          	(NCF)     	3-0   	           	
1877	Yale          	(NCF)     	3-0-1 	           	
1878	Princeton     	(NCF)     	6-0-0 	           	
1879	Princeton     	(NCF)     	4-0-1 	           	
1880	Princeton     	(NCF)     	4-0-1 	           	
1880	Yale          	(NCF)     	4-0-1 	           	
1881	Yale          	(NCF)     	5-0-1 	           	
1882	Yale          	(NCF)     	8-0-0 	           	
1883	Yale          	(H)       	8-0-0 	           	Ray Tomkins (Captain)
1884	Yale          	(H)       	9-0-0 	           	Eugene L. Richards (Captain)
1885	Princeton     	(H)       	9-0-0 	           	Charles DeCamp (Captain)
1886	Yale          	(H)       	9-0-1 	           	Robert N. Corwin (Captain)
1887	Yale          	(H)       	9-0-0 	           	Harry W. Beecher (Captain)
1888	Yale          	(H)       	13-0-0	           	Walter Camp
1889	Princeton     	(H)       	10-0-0	           	Edgar Poe (Captain)
1890	Harvard       	(H)       	11-0-0	           	G.A. Stewart/G.C. Adams
1891	Yale          	(H)       	13-0-0	           	Walter Camp
1892	Yale          	(H)       	13-0-0	           	Walter Camp
1893	Princeton     	(H)       	11-0-0	           	Tom Trenchard (Captain)
1894	Yale          	(H)       	16-0-0	           	William C. Rhodes
1895	Pennsylvania  	(H)       	14-0-0	           	George Woodruff
1896	Princeton     	(H)       	10-0-1	           	Garrett Cochran
1897	Pennsylvania  	(H)       	15-0-0	           	George Woodruff
1898	Harvard       	(H)       	11-0-0	           	W. Cameron Forbes
1899	Harvard       	(H)       	10-0-1	           	Benjamin H. Dibblee
1900	Yale          	(H)       	12-0-0	           	Malcolm McBride
1901	Michigan      	(H)       	11-0-0	Won Rose   	Fielding Yost
1902	Michigan      	(H)       	11-0-0	           	Fielding Yost
1903	Princeton     	(H)       	11-0-0	           	Art Hillebrand
1904	Pennsylvania  	(H)       	12-0-0	           	Carl Williams
1905	Chicago       	(H)       	11-0-0	           	Amos Alonzo Stagg
1906	Princeton     	(H)       	9-0-1 	           	Bill Roper
1907	Yale          	(H)       	9-0-1 	           	Bill Knox
1908	Pennsylvania  	(H)       	11-0-1	           	Sol Metzger
1909	Yale          	(H)       	10-0-0	           	Howard Jones
1910	Harvard       	(H)       	8-0-1 	           	Percy Houghton
1911	Princeton     	(H)       	8-0-2 	           	Bill Roper
1912	Harvard       	(H)       	9-0-0 	           	Percy Houghton
1913	Harvard       	(H)       	9-0-0 	           	Percy Houghton
1914	Army          	(H)       	9-0-0 	           	Charley Daly
1915	Cornell       	(H)       	9-0-0 	           	Al Sharpe
1916	Pittsburgh    	(H)       	8-0-0 	           	Pop Warner
1917	Georgia Tech  	(H)       	9-0-0 	           	John Heisman
1918	Pittsburgh    	(H)       	4-1-0 	           	Pop Warner
1919	Harvard       	(H)       	9-0-1 	Won Rose   	Bob Fisher
1920	California    	(H)       	9-0-0 	Won Rose   	Andy Smith
1921	Cornell       	(H)       	8-0-0 	           	Gil Dobie
1922	Cornell       	(H)       	8-0-0 	           	Gil Dobie
1923	Illinois      	(H)       	8-0-0 	           	Bob Zuppke
1924	Notre Dame    	(H)       	10-0-0	Won Rose   	Knute Rockne
1925	Alabama       	(H)       	10-0-0	Won Rose   	Wallace Wade
1926	Stanford      	(H)       	10-0-1	Tied Rose  	Pop Warner
1926	Alabama       	(H)       	9-0-1 	Tied Rose  	Wallace Wade
1927	Illinois      	(H)       	7-0-1 	           	Bob Zuppke
1928	Georgia Tech  	(H)       	10-0-0	Won Rose   	Bill Alexander
1929	Notre Dame    	(H)       	9-0-0 	           	Knute Rockne
1930	Notre Dame    	(H)       	10-0-0	           	Knute Rockne
1930	Alabama       	(Other)   	10-0-0	Won Rose   	Wallace Wade
1931	USC           	(H)       	10-1-0	Won Rose   	Howard Jones
1932	USC           	(H)       	10-0-0	Won Rose   	Howard Jones
1933	Michigan      	(H)       	7-0-1 	           	Harry Kipke
1934	Minnesota     	(H)       	8-0-0 	           	Bernie Bierman
1934	Alabama       	(Other)   	10-0-0	Won Rose   	Frank Thomas
1935	Minnesota     	(UP)(H)   	8-0-0 	           	Bernie Bierman
1936	Minnesota     	(AP)      	7-1-0 	           	Bernie Bierman
1937	Pittsburgh    	(AP)      	9-0-1 	           	Jock Sutherland
1938	TCU           	(AP)      	11-0-0	Won Sugar  	Dutch Meyer
1939	Texas A&M     	(AP)      	11-0-0	Won Sugar  	Homer Norton
1940	Minnesota     	(AP)      	8-0-0 	           	Bernie Bierman
1941	Minnesota     	(AP)      	8-0-0 	           	Bernie Bierman
1942	Ohio State    	(AP)      	9-1-0 	           	Paul Brown
1943	Notre Dame    	(AP)      	9-1-0 	           	Frank Leahy
1944	Army          	(AP)      	9-0-0 	           	Earl Blaik
1945	Army          	(AP)      	9-0-0 	           	Earl Blaik
1946	Notre Dame    	(AP)      	8-0-1 	           	Frank Leahy
1947	Notre Dame    	(AP)      	9-0-0 	           	Frank Leahy
1948	Michigan      	(AP)      	9-0-0 	           	Bennie Oosterbaan
1949	Notre Dame    	(AP)      	10-0-0	           	Frank Leahy
1950	Oklahoma      	(AP)(UP)  	10-1-0	Lost Sugar 	Bud Wilkinson
1950	Tennessee     	(NCF)     	11-1-0	Won Cotton 	Robert Neyland
1951	Tennessee     	(AP)(UP)  	10-1-0	Lost Sugar 	Robert Neyland
1951	Michigan State	(H)       	9-0-0 	           	Biggie Munn
1951	Maryland      	(NCF)     	10-0-0	Won Sugar  	Jim Tatum
1952	Michigan State	(AP)(UP)  	9-0-0 	           	Biggie Munn
1952	Georgia Tech  	(INS)     	12-0-0	Won Sugar  	Bobby Dodd
1953	Maryland      	(AP)(UP)  	10-1-0	Lost Orange	Jim Tatum
1953	Notre Dame    	(H)(NCF)  	9-0-1 	           	Frank Leahy
1954	Ohio State    	(AP)      	10-0-0	Won Rose   	Woody Hayes
1954	UCLA          	(UP)      	9-0-0 	           	Red Sanders
1955	Oklahoma      	(AP)(UP)  	11-0-0	Won Orange 	Bud Wilkinson
1956	Oklahoma      	(AP)(UP)  	10-0-0	           	Bud Wilkinson
1957	Auburn        	(AP)      	10-0-0	           	Shug Jordan
1957	Ohio State    	(UP)      	9-1-0 	Won Rose   	Woody Hayes
1958	LSU           	(AP)(UPI) 	11-0-0	Won Sugar  	Paul Dietzel
1959	Syracuse      	(AP)(UPI) 	11-0-0	Won Cotton 	Ben Schwartzwalder
1960	Minnesota     	(AP)(UPI) 	8-2-0 	Lost Rose  	Murray Warmath
1960	Mississippi   	(FWAA)    	10-0-1	Won Sugar  	John Vaught
1961	Alabama       	(AP)(UPI) 	11-0-0	Won Sugar  	Paul "Bear" Bryant
1962	USC           	(AP)(UPI) 	11-0-0	Won Rose   	John McKay
1963	Texas         	(AP)(UPI) 	11-0-0	Won Cotton 	Darrell Royal
1964	Alabama       	(AP)(UPI) 	10-1-0	Lost Orange	Paul "Bear" Bryant
1964	Arkansas      	(FWAA)    	11-0-0	Won Cotton 	Frank Broyles
1965	Alabama       	(AP)      	9-1-1 	Won Orange 	Paul "Bear" Bryant
1965	Michigan State	(UPI)     	10-1-0	Lost Rose  	Duffy Daugherty
1966	Notre Dame    	(AP)(UPI) 	9-0-1 	           	Ara Parseghian
1967	USC           	(AP)(UPI) 	10-1-0	Won Rose   	John McKay
1968	Ohio State    	(AP)(UPI) 	10-0-0	Won Rose   	Woody Hayes
1969	Texas         	(AP)(UPI) 	11-0-0	Won Cotton 	Darrell Royal
1970	Nebraska      	(AP)      	11-0-1	Won Orange 	Bob Devaney
1970	Texas         	(UPI)     	10-1-0	Lost Cotton	Darrell Royal
1971	Nebraska      	(AP)(UPI) 	13-0-0	Won Orange 	Bob Devaney
1972	USC           	(AP)(UPI) 	12-0-0	Won Rose   	John McKay
1973	Notre Dame    	(AP)      	11-0-0	Won Sugar  	Ara Parseghian
1973	Alabama       	(UPI)     	11-1-0	Lost Sugar 	Paul "Bear" Bryant
1974	Oklahoma      	(AP)      	11-0-0	           	Barry Switzer
1974	USC           	(UPI)     	10-1-1	Won Rose   	John McKay
1975	Oklahoma      	(AP)(UPI) 	11-1-0	Won Orange 	Barry Switzer
1976	Pittsburgh    	(AP)(UPI) 	12-0-0	Won Sugar  	Johnny Majors
1977	Notre Dame    	(AP)(UPI) 	11-1-0	Won Cotton 	Dan Devine
1978	Alabama       	(AP)      	11-1-0	Won Sugar  	Paul "Bear" Bryant
1978	USC           	(UPI)     	12-1-0	Won Rose   	John Robinson
1979	Alabama       	(AP)(UPI) 	12-0-0	Won Sugar  	Paul "Bear" Bryant
1980	Georgia       	(AP)(UPI) 	12-0-0	Won Sugar  	Vince Dooley
1981	Clemson       	(AP)(UPI) 	12-0-0	Won Orange 	Danny Ford
1982	Penn State    	(AP)(UPI) 	11-1-0	Won Sugar  	Joe Paterno
1983	Miami (FL)    	(AP)(UPI) 	11-1-0	Won Orange 	Howard Schnellenberger
1984	BYU           	(AP)(UPI) 	13-0-0	Won Holiday	Lavell Edwards
1985	Oklahoma      	(AP)(UPI) 	11-1-0	Won Orange 	Barry Switzer
1986	Penn State    	(AP)(UPI) 	12-0-0	Won Fiesta 	Joe Paterno
1987	Miami (FL)    	(AP)(UPI) 	12-0-0	Won Orange 	Jimmy Johnson
1988	Notre Dame    	(AP)(UPI) 	12-0-0	Won Fiesta 	Lou Holtz
1989	Miami (FL)    	(AP)(UPI) 	11-1-0	Won Sugar  	Dennis Erickson
1990	Colorado      	(AP)      	11-1-1	Won Orange 	Bill McCartney
1990	Georgia Tech  	(UPI)     	11-0-1	Won Citrus 	Bobby Ross
1991	Miami (FL)    	(AP)      	12-0-0	Won Orange 	Dennis Erickson
1991	Washington    	(CNN)     	12-0-0	Won Rose   	Don James
1992	Alabama       	(AP)(CNN) 	13-0-0	Won Sugar  	Gene Stallings
1993	Florida State 	(AP)(CNN) 	12-1-0	Won Orange 	Bobby Bowden
1994	Nebraska      	(AP)(CNN) 	13-0-0	Won Orange 	Tom Osborne
1995	Nebraska      	(AP)(CNN) 	12-0-0	Won Fiesta 	Tom Osborne
1996	Florida       	(AP)(CNN) 	12-1  	Won Sugar  	Steve Spurrier
1997	Michigan      	(AP)      	12-0  	Won Rose   	Lloyd Carr
1997	Nebraska      	(ESPN)    	13-0  	Won Orange 	Tom Osborne
1998	Tennessee     	(BCS)(AP) 	13-0  	Won Fiesta 	Phillip Fulmer
1999	Florida State 	(BCS)(AP) 	12-0  	Won Sugar  	Bobby Bowden
2000	Oklahoma      	(BCS)(AP) 	13-0  	Won Orange 	Bob Stoops
2001	Miami (FL)    	(BCS)(AP) 	12-0  	Won Rose   	Larry Coker
2002	Ohio State    	(BCS)(AP) 	14-0  	Won Fiesta 	Jim Tressel
2003	LSU           	(BCS)     	13-1  	Won Sugar  	Nick Saban
2003	USC           	(AP)      	12-1  	Won Rose   	Pete Carroll
2004	USC           	(BCS)(AP) 	13-0  	Won Orange 	Pete Carroll
2005	Texas         	(BCS)(AP) 	13-0  	Won Rose   	Mack Brown
2006	Florida       	(BCS) (AP)	13-1  	Won BCS    	Urban Meyer
 above unsigned suggestion by Drewinmaine
* Personally, I prefer the current version of the table, which features more information.  I think more info is usually better so long as it is relevant and remains readable, which I think the current version does nicely.  I did restore USC in 2003, as was suggested above.  Also, if anyone does decide to change the table, please note that I changed University of Texas to Texas Longhorn Athletics as the second article is more directly relevant.  Johntex\talk 18:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has? I give it no more value than I give any of those other random NC selectors. I propose, as mentioned below, we use the same criteria as the College Football Data Warehouse.--NMajdan•talk 18:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed "Thinned Out" List 

message: Notre Dame is listed as a school that does not count all potential titles, but by consensus counts has 11 championships.  I've removed the following (with reasons:
# 1946 Helms (contemporaneous) split between ND and Army, CFRA also chose Army
# 1947 Helms split between ND and Michigan, AP picked ND, NCF and CFRA picked Michigan
# 1973 UPI picked Alabama, AP/FWAA picked ND
Rkevins82 19:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus titles 

message: I have excised the link to a video on YouTube that someone had added in the External Links section. I think it was supposed to be funny, as it suggested a homoerotic relationship between Texas quarterback Vince Young and Texas coach Mack Brown, criticized rainbow iconography, and liberally used the word "homo" in a derogatory way. But yeah it had nothing to do with Division I-A national championships. At all. So it's gone. And yes, I do live in Texas. And no, I am not gay. And from what I understand, neither are Mack Brown and Vince Young.
For reference, here is the link:
The Vince Young Mack Brown Story
Kind regards
J. Charles Taylor 11:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for taking care of this.  I do some editing in locations where I can't access some media (like many others), so I can't vet videos.  Best. Rkevins82 15:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to Vince Young-Mack Brown Video on YouTube 

message: Why have this section?  People can much more easily look at the list to see who has won recently, than since 1901.  I hope it is not to maximize Miami's visibility. Rkevins82 18:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last 25 years? 

message: Executive summary: See "The new proposal" subheading.   Sorry I'm so long-winded.
OK, as I'm processing the emerging consensus, here's my summary of what seems to be more-or-less the consensus or at least not-yet disputed:
*The MNC article has some information of value
*The juxtaposition of cfb to other sports, historical or present, without organized championships is interesting and encyclopedic
*This existing article is already a good size, and moving material into it may not be a good idea.
Here are a couple of other points that you've made me think about:
*While a certain amount of redundancy is tolerable in a prose encyclopedia, WP has a pretty standardized way to avoid extreme redundancy by setting up subordinate articles to deal with topics in depth.   E.g. United States, History of the United States, History of the United States (1789–1849), etc.     The reasons that make DRY applicable to programming also make it applicable to documentation.   For example, I posted a quote from Bernie Machen on this article, but in principle I should also post it at MNC to keep it current, and any other article referencing the present playoff controversy.   I would hope that each new piece of info would have an unambiguous home where it belongs, though I recognize there are exceptions (such as linking the same article at Bernie Machen, etc.). 
*I'm still not convinced that Mythical national championship isn't in essentially intended to be a dictionary entry.   Indeed, Seancp's reply actually confirms this original impression.   I've recently been looking into an example where WP:WINAD was absolutely flouted.   A Motorway and a Freeway are virtually the exact same thing, but because they've grown up on a term-by-term basis instead of a concept-by-concept basis, each article is now jealously guarded by its editors in its US-centric or UK-centric form.   Wikipedia articles are about concepts, not specific terms.
Now, that said, there's obviously material there that people think is beneficial to maintain separate from NCAA Division I-A national football championship, and I've come to agree.   So how about this?
==== The new proposal ====
*Migrate material from both this article and Mythical national championship concerning the college football controversy to something like, NCAA Division I-A national football championship debate (although I'd like to make the title shorter).   There's precedent for this: Free trade and Free trade debate, for example.
*Make what remains of Mythical national championship into a list.   Wikipedia has all kinds of useful lists and I think a list of sports with mythical championships (or list of sports without established championships or pseudo-championships) is certainly valid.   I don't actually think it should just be "national championships" though, because that's fairly arbitrary.   (Why wouldn't something transnational like a poll of European soccer clubs predating the European Champions' Cup not be equally relevant to this list?)   
*Use the  template and disambiguation as appropriate:
:*Mythical national championship should probably direct to the appropriate college football articles.   Someone looking under the term "mythical national championship" almost certainly either doesn't know what the term means or wants to read about the football debate.
:*Of course the debate article should explain the term MNC and probably have a templated dab at the top like .
:*The debate article should cross-reference the list of other sports in addition to the dab
:*The present article NCAA Division I-A national football championship should give a brief intro to the debate but point to the debate article, cf. Free trade.
This would meet my needs because new material concerning the cfb debate would now have a single unambiguous home.  At the same time, if we discover that say some prefecture in Japan has a Sumo "championship" that's as disorganized as I-A cfb, then that fact/juxtaposition has an unambiguous home too (the list).  
As a fallback compromise, if Mythical National Championship is held to be the proper title for the article about the cfb debate then I would suggest moving the relevant material from here to avoid redundancy.   But now we have an article both about the MNC and about various mncs.   The confusion over capitalization, in my book, exposes a greater confusion about the purpose of that article.   (The status quo has the title capitalized, but is an article ostensibly about various championships, not one particular one, which seems thoroughly inconsistent.)
I welcome your thoughts. - PhilipR 00:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate all the effort you're putting in here, but I think what you suggested just makes everything way too complicated.  I suggest we allow the article to develop as it has been.  Like I mentioned before, I am going to get to work on sourcing it and adding info about high school football and college basketball.  I'll also look for other sports that have mythical national championships.  Separating the info, merging some here, moving some there, etc, etc just really makes things messy.  They MNC article is a pretty decent article.  If it is redundant it is redundant in a way that is useful.  For instance, let's say a non-football fan overhears a reporter on ESPN mention "Mythical National Championship" and wonders what he means by that then he can just go to the wikipedia article and learn a lot about it.  The information on the DI-A national football championship page would be harder to find for a non-football fan, and even if they did find it, they'd have to read through a lot of other information before finding the answer to their question.  As far as the capitalization goes, I really don't see how that implies that there is only one MNC, especially when one reads the article.  However, if Wikipedia has a capitalization policy that states it should be lowercased then we should make it lower case.  To summarize, I would like the see the MNC page left as it is and allowed to develop.  It is a decent page right now and will continue to get better. Seancp 13:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Seancp. Let MNC develop. I think there is plenty of room for this article and MNC and BCS articles (where most of the debate really occurs). --MECU≈talk 13:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modified proposal 

message: *Migrate material from both this article and Mythical national championship concerning the college football controversy to something like, NCAA Division I-A national football championship debate (although I'd like to make the title shorter).   There's precedent for this: Free trade and Free trade debate, for example.
*Make what remains of Mythical national championship into a list.   Wikipedia has all kinds of useful lists and I think a list of sports with mythical championships (or list of sports without established championships or pseudo-championships) is certainly valid.   I don't actually think it should just be "national championships" though, because that's fairly arbitrary.   (Why wouldn't something transnational like a poll of European soccer clubs predating the European Champions' Cup not be equally relevant to this list?)   
*Use the  template and disambiguation as appropriate:
:*Mythical national championship should probably direct to the appropriate college football articles.   Someone looking under the term "mythical national championship" almost certainly either doesn't know what the term means or wants to read about the football debate.
:*Of course the debate article should explain the term MNC and probably have a templated dab at the top like .
:*The debate article should cross-reference the list of other sports in addition to the dab
:*The present article NCAA Division I-A national football championship should give a brief intro to the debate but point to the debate article, cf. Free trade.
This would meet my needs because new material concerning the cfb debate would now have a single unambiguous home.  At the same time, if we discover that say some prefecture in Japan has a Sumo "championship" that's as disorganized as I-A cfb, then that fact/juxtaposition has an unambiguous home too (the list).  
As a fallback compromise, if Mythical National Championship is held to be the proper title for the article about the cfb debate then I would suggest moving the relevant material from here to avoid redundancy.   But now we have an article both about the MNC and about various mncs.   The confusion over capitalization, in my book, exposes a greater confusion about the purpose of that article.   (The status quo has the title capitalized, but is an article ostensibly about various championships, not one particular one, which seems thoroughly inconsistent.)
I welcome your thoughts. - PhilipR 00:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate all the effort you're putting in here, but I think what you suggested just makes everything way too complicated.  I suggest we allow the article to develop as it has been.  Like I mentioned before, I am going to get to work on sourcing it and adding info about high school football and college basketball.  I'll also look for other sports that have mythical national championships.  Separating the info, merging some here, moving some there, etc, etc just really makes things messy.  They MNC article is a pretty decent article.  If it is redundant it is redundant in a way that is useful.  For instance, let's say a non-football fan overhears a reporter on ESPN mention "Mythical National Championship" and wonders what he means by that then he can just go to the wikipedia article and learn a lot about it.  The information on the DI-A national football championship page would be harder to find for a non-football fan, and even if they did find it, they'd have to read through a lot of other information before finding the answer to their question.  As far as the capitalization goes, I really don't see how that implies that there is only one MNC, especially when one reads the article.  However, if Wikipedia has a capitalization policy that states it should be lowercased then we should make it lower case.  To summarize, I would like the see the MNC page left as it is and allowed to develop.  It is a decent page right now and will continue to get better. Seancp 13:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Seancp. Let MNC develop. I think there is plenty of room for this article and MNC and BCS articles (where most of the debate really occurs). --MECU≈talk 13:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The new proposal 

message: It should be noted that, except for the header, this paragraph is reproduced in its entirety at NCAA Division I-AA national football championship.  In other contexts I would suggest moving this to one canonical place and linking it from there, but redundancy and branching revisions are very much in vogue in Wikipedia so I really don't see any need to bother.   Just pointing it out for future editors who change that graf.   - PhilipR 19:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Football Bowl Subdivision: verbatim copy from [[NCAA Division I-AA national football championship]] 

message: It was a disingenuous statistic of summing together the AP and Coaches titles; so I removed the section.  It is incorrect to say that Texas won two titles last year.  If someone wants to recalculate the section with total number of titles awarded by either AP or Coaches (set theory applies here) then it would be fine.  For another reason why the revert was warranted, awarding Oklahoma the top spot with 13 titles goes against the entire rest grain of the article which has them with a total of 9 throughout their history. -- KelleyCook 21:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added back.  It's a legitimate statistic, found in most media guides (,  (last page)), that helps reflect and account for undisputed wire national championships.  There was no reason for you to blank the section just because you don't like wherever your particular team ranks.  Please refrain from blanking in the future.-PassionoftheDamon 11:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The complaint has nothing to do with where a particular team ranks.  It does have everything to do with being misleading.  It essentially halves the championship value between 1936–1949 when the coaches did not yet vote.  Modify the table to be an OR instead of a SUM and it would be fine. -- KelleyCook 21:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a valid objection about the pre-Coaches poll years.  I'll split the table to make separate tables for each poll.-PassionoftheDamon 21:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that it should be removed. It's quite misleading. I'll refrain from removing it for now though, in case some others have something to say, but if no one else says anything, I will remove it. Dlong 21:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it both informative and unobjectionable.  As PassionoftheDamon stated, it does a good job of reflecting the weight of each national championship a school has won; i.e. split championships count for less.  It should be kept.-JDD18 21:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Combined AP/Coaches section 

message: There is no list of NCAA official national champions for DI-A football in their records book and if there were official champions, where are the trophies that would be awarded to the national champion?  The NCAA does not make a championship trophy for DI-A football.
Although I like the current set up of this site, I do think that there should be a category for "claimed titles". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 38.100.146.10 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No NCAA official National Champions for DI-A football 

message: On the Texas A&M Wikipedia site, it claims the Aggies won the national championship in 1919 and in 1939. Although it does mention the championship in 1939, this page does not mention the championship supposedly won in 1919. Anyone have a source supporting/declining this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.53.17.190 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only sources I could find for a 1919 championship for A&M were James Howell, a computer ranking that I believe was conducted in 2000, and a 3 way tie in the National Championship Foundation retroactive research results.  The Aggies were undefeated and untied that year and it is quite possible that the press in Texas and elsewhere declared them national champions at the time.  During this period, though, the NCF declared multiple champions on several occasions, making the inclusion of its champions on this list less useful than some other sources, as one would prefer a source that actually chooses a single national champion.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drewinmaine (talk • contribs) 22:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  In 1919...