Talk:College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS/Archive 2018

Added per-row cites to "Yearly national championship selections from major selectors" section

This bold edit added the current table-wide citation in the header text as a new per-row citation within a new "Source" column. This is generally consistent with the "Source" column in the College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS#National championship claims by school section. Thinks this confirms with WP:TOOMANYREFS, as each cite is tied to a selection. Feedback?

There is no source (or controversy) around the two 2017 selections (UCF, Alabama) in this same section. However, they have been tagged with Template:CN as they aren't cited and cannot be cited with the 2017 yearbook. Welcome to refactor this as well. The 2017 selection citations become available in a single location from the pending 2018 NCAA yearbook, or currently from each selector's website. UW Dawgs (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

per Special:Contributions/Stephenj666 with these edits and pg 115, the 2014–2016 rows may need review. UW Dawgs (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I have a couple of problems with this all. First is the issue of collaboration and its accompanying Wiki protocol of using the Talk page to discuss significant alterations to a long-term stable text. Whatever its flaws, this article has been the product of a very long, very involved, and frequently contentious process and for my money is an article to be proud of, even as it continues to evolve. Of equal importance is the stance of the article vis-a-vis the confusing, conflicting, and internally inconsistent approaches that the NCAA itself has taken and continues to take on the topic. Of paramount importance to me is that the article remain independent of whatever breeze may be blowing through the NCAA's constantly shifting approach, necessitated by its refusal to designate any championship as "official" (including the BCS and CFP) in the sense that every other sport it sponsors has and its coincidental refusal to lay out specific and binding protocols for identifying such champions. I'd prefer to roll back the recent changes until Special:Contributions/Stephenj666 follows the usual protocols and proposes these changes with explanation and justification on this Talk page.Sensei48 (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Sensei48, I'm reading that feedback as narrowly directed at the ongoing 2014-2016 edits and not at the new per-row citations derived from the existing and global header cite, correct? UW Dawgs (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry that I missed seeing this - lots of other activity on this page. My concern is an overall one, not specific only to those years. In a word, our article here has striven to be comprehensive and internally consistent - and not relective of the capricious and unexplained inconsistencies in the NCAA's approach. NCAA for example lists Colley for many years (1992-2006, IIRC) - and then does not. Why? If I read your solution correctly, you would leave the selectors in that the new edits would drop, a;beit with a footnote of sorts. If that's the proposal, then I am all for that. I am not for having this article align itself with the changing and inconsistent policies of the NCAA record book. Sensei48 (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm also a little confused. In this new format, would we put all of the citations for the individual selectors for years they don't match up with the Record Book? Dolenath (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I apologize for not following the usual protocols, as I am a newbie at this and don't know what they are. Wasn't even aware of the existence of 'talk' pages until a day or two ago and for some reason my Chrome brower didn't show the tabs at the top for accessing it. FWIW, I have provided an explanation in the section above for the changes I have made to 2014 - 2017 national champions, I do not dodge discussion, now that I know of this page I will be happy to talk with anyone about it. Regards ... Stephenj666 (talk) 20:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Presentation of 2007 onward is forked in both the 2017, pg 115 and 2016, pg 114 Record Books.

...

2006
Florida: AP, Berryman, Billingsley, Colley, DeVold, Dunkel, FACT, FW, Massey, Matthews, NFF, Sagarin, Sagarin (ELO-Chess), Seattle Times, Sporting News, USA Today, Wolfe

2007
LSU: Berryman, ^BCS, USA Today, AP, Dunkel, FW, NFF

2008
Florida: Berryman, ^BCS, USA Today, AP, Dunkel, FW, NFF

2009
Alabama: Berryman, ^BCS, USA Today, AP, Dunkel, FW, NFF

2010
Auburn: Berryman, ^BCS, USA Today, AP, Dunkel, FW, NFF

2011
Alabama: Berryman, ^BCS, USA Today, AP, Dunkel, FW, NFF

2012
Alabama: AP, ^BCS, Dunkel, FW, NFF, USA Today

2013
Florida St.: AP, ^BCS, Dunkel, FW, NFF, USA Today

2014
Ohio St.: College Football Playoff, AP, FW-NFF, USA Today

2015
Alabama: College Football Playoff, AP, FW-NFF, USA Today

2016
Clemson: College Football Playoff, AP, FW-NFF, USA Today

This is the same issue as the "Colley" callout in an above section. Certain selectors (Seattle Times, Wolfe, Colley, etc) are still active per Record Book cite, but no longer referenced after 2007. So the 2007-2016 selections don't match with the associated cites. UW Dawgs (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Berryman updated

The Berryman QPRS article has been updated. It originally contained only 1920-1961 selections. It now has all selections, meaning retroactive of 1920-1989 and contemporaneous of 1990-2011 (end). Making this callout re the Colley, etc gap discussion where we're still firming up poll active/inactive dates prior to additional notes/cites. UW Dawgs (talk) 14:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Georgia claims (2 vs 5)

Georgia's claimed titles is currently 5 with a large footnote:

School	Claimed national championships	Seasons	Source
Georgia	5b	1927, 1942, 1946, 1968, 1980

^bIn an online list of the university's national championships, Georgia lists only two for football (1942 and 1980). However, in Georgia's football media guide, although these years (1927, 1946, 1968) are highlighted as consensus championships, each of the five championships are described separately and those seasons are highlighted as national championships in the year-by-year results.

Here is the 2012 prior discussion: Talk:College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS/Archive 2014#Georgia's Claims.

The Georgia Bulldogs football Infobox seems to be stable since Dec 2006 with 2 claimed national championships. The Infobox unclaimed parameter was created in October 2012. There's lots of edit warring around adding unclaimed to the article's Infobox, but unclaimed (with 3 vs 4 being a side issue) appears to added and stable from 20 October 2014.

The "Bulldog Champions" at http://georgiadogs.com/sports/2017/6/16/championships.aspx (Header > UGAAA > Championships/Honors/Awards) states:

The Georgia Bulldogs are one of the most decorated teams in college athletics. The Bulldogs have brought home over 40 National Championship trophies including two in football (1942 and 1980), a baseball (1990), ten gymnastics championships, six equestrian titles, thirteen between the two tennis teams, and six women's swimming trophies.

That page also has a "View More Info" link to "NCAA/SEC Championships" page which states:

http://georgiadogs.com/sports/2017/6/16/championships-ncaa-sec.aspx

42 NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS

• BASEBALL (1)
• FOOTBALL (2)
• MEN'S GOLF (2)
• WOMEN'S GOLF (1)
• EQUESTRIAN (6)
• GYMNASTICS (10)
• WOMEN'S SWIMMING & DIVING (7)
• MEN'S TENNIS (8)
• WOMEN'S TENNIS (5)

with the section callout of

FOOTBALL (2)
1942 • 1980
The 1927, 1946, 1968 teams were also recognized as National Champions but these were not consensus and thus not officially recognized as National Championships.

So net, we have the Georgia article editors aligned since 2006 with 2 claimed, two pages at Georgia's official site which both reference football championships for only 1942 and 1980 (but no other seasons), and their "NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS" page which itemizes counts of all Georgia sports as "FOOTBALL (2) 1942 • 1980." This seems to be unambiguous differentiation of 1942 and 1980 from other seasons. UW Dawgs (talk) 17:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Absent feedback for or against, Georgia has been updated per above which also aligns with long-standing treatment at Georgia Bulldogs football. Welcome to edit or revert and discuss further. UW Dawgs (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Auburn's 'claims'

@UW Dawgs: There is a footnote for Auburn which states 'Auburn's 1913, 1983, and 1993 (Auburn was disqualified from post-season play in 1993 and did not play in a bowl game) championships are not recognized by the school'. The source is http://www.auburntigers.com/trads/02_auburn_national_championships.html The same Auburn website does list 1913, 1983, and 1993 under national championships. That link is http://www.auburntigers.com/sports/m-footbl/history_and_tradition.html This looks like the Georgia situation to me. They overtly claim a few titles and less publicly claim some others. For consistency, I think Auburn should have five on this table.

See here for prior discussion. UW Dawgs (talk) 15:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Current Media Guide, pg 172-183 has same treatment. The current citation in the "claimed" section references AU's national titles page which explicitly and only includes two football championships. That's decisive in my view. UW Dawgs (talk) 15:55, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@UW Dawgs: I think they are claiming five. How is the following not claiming a national championship? The official Auburn Tigers website has entire pages dedicated to the unqualified "NATIONAL CHAMPIONS" in all caps - 1993 NATIONAL CHAMPIONS, 1983 NATIONAL CHAMPIONS, and 1913 NATIONAL CHAMPIONS just like 2010 NATIONAL CHAMPIONS and 1957 NATIONAL CHAMPIONS. Those are decisive. n64ra

That's great new info. However, the current Media Guide, pg 172-183 clearly differentiates 1957 and 2010 from 1913, 1983 and 1993 as does auburntigers.com AUBURN NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS which lists only "2010 Football National Champions" and "1957 Football National Champions." I find those two (particularly the 2017 Media Guide) as clear indications of claimed vs 'attributed to specific selectors' (unclaimed). UW Dawgs (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I think I side with n64ra on this one. This case is pretty much identical to Georgia. I vote we count it as 5 and give a footnote explaining the above. Dolenath (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Unrelated. Re Georgia, we should revisit in another thread. Edit wars aside, the Georgia article Infobox seems to be stable with 2 since Dec 2006. I did not review this article's Talk which does does discuss. Callout is only that both articles should align. UW Dawgs (talk) 12:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Auburn maintains this NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS page which itemizes their national championships within their "Traditions" section. It is the very first page listed in a site navigation section which links to 17 prominent pages (Fight Song, Conference Titles, Official Colors, Nickname, Band, etc). archive.org demonstrates this page is actively maintained (not a forgotten orphan) per this sequence from 2016-07-12 to 2016-08-13 in which they added their most recent national championship (2016 Equestrian National Champions) and updated the prose from "Auburn has earned 19 National Championships..." to "Auburn has earned 20 National Championships...". The page itemizes each of their 20 national championships (20 instances of "Year + Sport") AND sums each sport ("2 - Football: 2010, 1957") while omitting 1993, 1983, and 1913. There still doesn't seem to be any ambiguity here. If these were actually claimed, they would be included in this prominent and managed location. UW Dawgs (talk) 12:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Auburn maintains this football specific tradition and history page. Archive.org demonstrates that this page is actively maintained (not a forgotten orphan) with 36 updates between March 21, 2014 and November 9, 2017. Is your argument a year must be prominently claimed to count? If so, changes are needed with Iowa, Georgia, and Washington to name a few. n64ra —Preceding undated comment added 20:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

That listing isn't particularly different from the media guide and it also overtly attributes voice to the NCAA ("2010 | 1993 | 1983 | 1957 | 1913 (Source: NCAA Record Book)." Auburn only stating the NCAA or selector(s) say something is a hallmark of being unclaimed -Auburn is factually attributing championships to others rather than claiming in their voice. I don't think there's any new ground here at all. re other schools, you're welcome to open/reopen discussions. UW Dawgs (talk) 20:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

What is the next step since @Dolenath: wants Auburn listed as five and @UW Dawgs: wants two?

@N64ra: Why do you think we should ignore their national championships page? Doing so seems like WP:OR.UW Dawgs (talk) 00:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The trend on this page seems to be if a school claims it anywhere in their print or online publications, then it's added - except for Auburn. I'd rather have their football specific page cited than the overall athletic department page cited. Georgia seems to be in the most similar siutation. Their footnote even starts with 'However, in Georgia's football media guide, although these years (1927, 1946, 1968) are highlighted as consensus championships, each of the five championships are described separately'. Change 'media guide' to 'website' for Auburn, and it's the same. 1957 and 2010 are highlighted as championships, but each of the five championships are described separately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N64ra (talk • contribs) 15:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I noted above that Georgia in this article appears to be incorrect and is certainly inconsistent with the long-standing (2006+) treatment at Georgia Bulldogs football. Georgia also has nothing to do with Auburn. So again, why should we ignore Auburn's unambiguous National Champions page? UW Dawgs (talk) 15:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I must have missed the intent of your Georgia comment above. Is that you are thinking Georgia only claims two? Georgia has a lot to do with Auburn here. They are both clearly claiming two but also referencing three others. They should be treated the same. Either both Auburn and Georgia are claiming two OR both Auburn and Georgia are claiming five. To list one program as claiming two and the other as claiming five is inconsistent on the part of this page not the universities. It's not about ignoring Auburn's national championship page because you either have to ignore that or their football national championship page. n64ra (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@UW Dawgs: We have @Deolenath: voting for five. I vote for five. You vote for two. Who else votes?

A substantial basis for your argument seems to be disparity with (prior) Georgia treatment ("This looks like the Georgia situation to me."). As this article's treatment of Georgia has been updated (and now aligns with the long-standing Georgia Bulldogs football article), I personally don't see you offering any basis to change the current treatment. UW Dawgs (talk) 01:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Good. You now treat Georgia and Auburn the same. n64ra (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

New unanimous and split counts for claimed MNCs

@N64ra: Thought folks should discussN64ra this edit, which added new columns of "Unanimous national championships" and "Split national championships" which sum to the value of the existing "Claimed national championships" column.

One concern is "claimed" is already a loose concept, frequently debated on this Talk page using incomplete documentation provided by the school (often the Media Guide). Some schools don't overly "claim" at all, instead factually referencing the selector(s). Other schools both overtly claim some and omit others.

Second, this text exists in the "National championship claims by school" section, and NOT the "Major Selectors" section where we have a finite number of selectors to review. That is, we do not possess an exhaustive list of selectors for the "National championship claims by school" section, so it isn't clear how these could be truly described as unanimous. "Unanimous" in this context seems to mean "not believed to be claimed by others."

I don't question your intention or math, but thought it worthy of discussion around WP:SYN or WP:NOR to hear some other opinions. Cheers, UW Dawgs (talk) 21:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Different header titles is fine with me. I want an easy list to view that shows which years one school claims a title and which years multiple schools claim a title. This is easy with the info already available in the table. n64ra

I agree with UW Dawgs that this is bordering on WP:NOR since the NCAA Record Book doesn't ever really talk about unanimous/split championships. However, what we could do is have a new column for "Consensus National Champions", as the Record Book does discuss those and even has a separate list for them. Dolenath (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Props to User:N64ra for the energy and legwork in this compilation. I too have some reservations about the possible OR nature of it, but for the moment I'd like some clarification as to what the information purports to show. Schools are of course responsible for their own claims but can in no way affect whether or not other schools make claims in the same year. So in 1978, for example, we have both USC and Alabama claiming a national title with multiple major selectors supporting each claim. Does the rival's claim in any way either illuminate or mitigate the first school's claim? I think not. As pointed out above, "unanimous" just wouldn't be the right word to describe a year in which only one school made a claim. It could, however - in concert with N64ra's suggestion above - help to create a more illuminating subsection. As with the annual All-American selections where some players are deemed "consensus" and a smaller number "unanimous," a list within the article of unanimous NC selections - years in which all of the selectors chose only one team - would have some genuine significance, though without RS it too could be construed as OR. Just IMO, in any event. Sensei48 (talk) 03:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

The goal is to show the number of times a school is the lone program to claim a year as a national championship year vs the number of times a school is one of multiple programs to claim a year as a national championship year. For example, the table as presented now shows Princeton has 28 claims. Wow, that's a lot. My edit reveals that in 21 of those 28 years another program made a claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N64ra (talk • contribs) 19:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@Sensei48: So can we add it back in with column titles of your choosing? n64ra

Well, that wouldn't be up to me, clearly. I thank you for your patient explanation, but as I note above, I don't feel that claims in and of themselves shed light on either the process or any individual season or school. Princeton's claims, for instance, are based on their teams having been retroactively identified by selectors, regardless of what any other selectors did in the same year. The issue of OR remains as well. However, consensus is our goal here, and if Dolenath, UW Dawgs, and other involved editors see merit in including the new info, then I wouldn't object. Sensei48 (talk) 17:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

This strikes me as prohibited per WP:NOR. UW Dawgs (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

OR is 'material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist'. This clearly has sources. It's what's already posted on the Source column. To prove it is not OR, look at an example. Texas will have "Claimed National Championships" with "4" in the cell, "Seasons" with "1963, 1969, 1970, 2005" in the cell, "Split" with "1" in the cell, and "Unanimous" with "3" in the cell. The final column "Sources" keeps http://texassports_com.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/2014/12/18/05_2014bowl_records_history.pdf to prove both the "Claimed National Championships" and "Seasons" cells and adds http://www.huskers.com/ViewArticle.dbml?SPSID=230&SPID=22&DB_OEM_ID=100&ATCLID=606981 to prove the "Split" cell. (Ohio State can also be cited to prove the "Split" cell.) The "Unanimous" cell is described as the difference between "Claimed" and "Split". n64ra (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

This edit created two new terms of "Unanimous national championships" and "Split national championships," and contains no citation(s). The first sentence of WP:NOR policy states:

Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.

Do you have "reliable, published sources" which support your two new terms/ideas? The idea of "split" championships seems like the very definition of WP:SYNTHESIS which states

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.

Please consider that two editors are uncomfortable with your uncited content and new terms. UW Dawgs (talk) 04:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The name of the columns can be anything. Instead of "Split", use the whole phrase - "Times a claimed national championship year was also claimed by another program". Nothing to do with combining two sources to come to a new conclusion. This entry is filled with sources that already discuss the idea of years in which multiple schools claim the national championship. Here the first one I clicked on http://www.secsportsfan.com/support-files/october_09.pdf n64ra (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@UW Dawgs: I will proceed with the edit as the phrase mentioned above since I have not heard from you in two weeks.

And that edit will likely be promptly reverted, as you haven't addressed these concerns. UW Dawgs (talk) 01:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm with UW Dawgs here. I think the proposed addition constitutes OR. However, I stand by my original assertion that we could add in a # of "Consensus National Championships", which is supported by the Record Book. That might provide a lot of what n64ra is looking for. Dolenath (talk) 22:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Dolenath: It would provide some of what I am looking for. n64ra (talk)

The College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS#Total championship selections from major selectors by school section currently displays, ala:

School	Championships
Princeton	28
Yale	27
Alabama	22
etc	N

So add 3rd and 4th columns which sum to the 2nd column, ala (stubbed with fake data, as I didn't count)?

School	Championships	Consensus	Non-consensus
Princeton	28	20	8
Yale	27	19	8
Alabama	22	11	11
etc	N	X	N-X

With current header text of "The national title count listed below is a culmination of all championship awarded since 1869, regardless of consensus or non-consensus status, as listed in ... the official NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision Records..." Yes? UW Dawgs (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Strike the above example. "Consensus" is only post-1950, so the rows won't sum nicely as shown in the example above.

Note, I currently lean against inclusion due to the complexity in conveying the meaning re terms, years, and selectors, per Talk:College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS/Archive 2013#"consensus" championships vs "Consensus National Champions" (it would necessarily have some seasons with multiple teams listed as "Consensus" champions). Defer to someone else to think through and propose, but a "Consensus 1950+" section with a robust and cited intro feels the least controversial. UW Dawgs (talk) 05:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

More Disruptive Editing, January 2018

I'd like to jump in above and comment and query about the possible re-formatting of NC Claims By School, but I think that there is a more immediate concern at hand. Dolenath, UW Dawgs, and others may recall from a month ago that IP User Special:Contributions/75.140.207.119 was trying via edit summary to reconfigure this article along his/her interpretation of the NCAA website on the topic. I responded to 75 on his/her Talk page to no avail here [1]. The attempt to force a correlation between whatever current half-baked and self-serving formulae that NCAA is using to the painstakingly constructed Wiki article here is currently being pushed by User Special:Contributions/Stephenj666 and User Special:Contributions/NCAAFACTS, both of whom have attempted to disrupt the last few years of NCs from major selectors. Despite my 10 years editing hundreds of articles here, I have never perfected the kind of mass rollback skills necessary to restore the integrity of the lists - and I know that several other editors here can repair the gratuitous damage. Sensei48 (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I restored it, but it's getting ugly. I wish they would just air their grievances here. Dolenath (talk) 20:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Restore looked great to me. UW Dawgs (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Stephenj666 (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC) Hi, I am StephenJ666. I have been editing the 2014 - 2017 national champion listings because my edit comports with what the NCAA FBS Division Record Book - which everyone seems to accept as gospel for this page - actually lists as the National Champions and the respective "major selectors". If you look at page 115 of the Record Book, here is how it lists the champs of the CFP era (2014 - 2016):

2014 Ohio St.: College Football Playoff, AP, FW-NFF, USA Today

2015 Alabama: College Football Playoff, AP, FW-NFF, USA Today

2016 Clemson: College Football Playoff, AP, FW-NFF, USA Today

Note that NO computers of any kind, even those listed as "major selectors" during the BCS era, are listed by themselves. The ONLY recognized selectors are the CFP, AP, FW-NFF, and USA Today (Coach's Poll).

Also, the champion of the last year of the second to last year of the BCS, Alabama in 2012, is listed as:

2012

Alabama: AP, ^BCS, Dunkel, FW, NFF, USA Today

Note that Colley-Matrix, the "selector" indicated for including Notre Dame as a 2012 champion, is NOT listed here in the NCAA Record Book. Only the overall BCS computer ranking is indicated a 'selector', not individual computers like CM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephenj666 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

So in my view it follows that schools like UCF 2017, Notre Dame 2012, and Alabama 2016 should not be listed as national champions on the basis of being selected by Colley-Matrix, DuS, CCR, or any other computer or poll save for those listed by the NCAA. In fact, with respect to Colley-Matrix (CM), which is listed as the selector for Notre Dame 2012 and UCF 2017, the NCAA Book hasn't listed CM as a distinct selector since 2006.

That is my justification for the "disruptive" editing that I have engaged in. IMO it is not disruptive, it makes the Wiki page comport with the NCAA listing. Here's the reference, see page 115:

http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_records/2017/FBS.pdf

@Stephenj666: thank you for discussing this on the Talk page. Please refrain from making these changes again on the article until we've had a chance to discuss it here.

You are absolutely right that the NCAA Record Book doesn't list the individual selectors in its year-by-year accounting of selections. However, on pages 108-110, they do provide a list of all major selectors "to present." So, while CFP, AP, FW-NFF and USA Today are the only ones listed in the year-by-year list, they do still list A&H, BR, CFRA, CM, CCR, DuS, MCFR, SR, and W as being "major selections" to present day. Dolenath (talk) 15:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks/agree. In my view on these specific rows, we should add a global note (re those active but inline-omitted from the record book) and also back-fill rows with cites which aren't in the record book (Colley, DuS, Seattle Times, etc). I will start this in the next week as cites aren't controversial, then any/all welcome to refactor (or preempt me if you want to do it now). UW Dawgs (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Dolenath: I see your point about the Major Selectors list on page 108-110. But, this list is described as a list of major "historical" selectors. to me, this implies that it is meant to indicate selectors regarded as major for one reason or another, and the time frame that they *existed*, not that they necessarily have been major for the entirety of that time. So, on page 108, Colley is listed as a "major", and the time frame indicated is 1992 - present. One way to interpret that is "the NCAA is saying Colley has been a major selector from 1992 to the present day". Another is that the NCAA is saying "Colley has existed as a selector from 1992 - present and was a major one for some or all of that time". How would we know what time it was major? We then look at the year by year listing. The year by year is "where the rubber hits the road", where the concept of "major" defined on page 108 is put into practice to actually indicate national champions for given years. What does it show? On pp 114-115, Colley is NOT listed in the year by year from 1992 - 2000. Then, it suddenly appears in the listing for 2001, and remains listed each year after, either separately or as part of the combined BCS formula listing, through 2013. Then, from 2014 on, it is not listed in any way or form. Is this pattern of no/yes/no over its 1992-2016 life span arbitrary or a typo? I don't think so. 2001 is the year Colley became part of the BCS formula, which it remained a part of from then on, and 2014 is the year the BCS formula ceases to exist as the CFP replaces it. This clearly implies that Colley's "major" status, in the eyes of the NCAA, rather than characterizing its entire 1992-2016 existence as can be read on page 109, was instead linked to its inclusion in the BCS. Pre-BCS inclusion, not major (and thus not listed 1992 - 1998, the time before the BCS existed, and also not listed 1998- 2000 because it was not part of the BCS formula those years), post-BCS, also not-major (2014 onwards). Major for 2001-2013, the years it was part of the BCS formula (see heading at http://www.colleyrankings.com/wes.html). On page 108, the description of major selectors even says that the list includes "selectors that were among the BCS selectors", which to me further ties "major" status for selectors like Colley to their membership in the BCS, which no longer exists, therefore negating that status. IMO, this means that the 2014 - 2017 listings on page 115 aren't a typo of some kind, rather they reflect the operational meaning of "major" that the NCAA has adopted. Stephenj666 (talk) 06:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, if it's only intended to show historical selectors and when they "existed", why does it include many that it states are still considered major selectors "to present"? Dolenath (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Dolenath: ... I think we all recognize that there is a discrepancy here. The NCAA says one thing (your "to present" comment) but does another (e.g., after 2013 doesn't list the CM champ in its yearly list of champs). The issue is "how should we resolve the discrepancy"? It seems pretty clear that CM's status as "major selector" was tied to its inclusion in the BCS formula. The pattern of its inclusion or exclusion from the yearly list of selectors follows this very closely: It is referenced as a major selector from 1992 onwards, but before it joined the BCS in 2001, it has no inclusion in the yearly listing. During the time it was in the BCS formula, it is listed. Once the BCS formula ceases to exist, it drops out of the yearly list again. This suggests that the "to present" description is sloppy editing by the NCAA, as it is unlikely that the pattern shown is by chance. To me, that indicates we should side with the yearly selection list, not the "to present" description. Stephenj666 (talk) 00:25, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Dolenath: @UW Dawgs: ... more evidence on my side, this new NCAA web page lists "College football national champions, 1869 - 2017", and only Alabama is listed for 2017, just as only Clemson is for 2016 (despite Alabama 'winning' Colley-Matrix title). Come on guys, I know you carefully crafted this page over time, but for the reasons I give above, it's clear the NCAA only regarded CM (and other BCS formulas) as 'major' so long as they were part of the BCS process: https://www.ncaa.com/news/football/article/college-football-national-championship-history Stephenj666 (talk) 20:35, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

The page you reference does not purport to list selections from "Major Selectors." The data / presentation I believe you're disputing is 2014~present within the "Yearly national championship selections from major selectors" section. If above is correct, then I don't see any relevance of this webpage. UW Dawgs (talk) 18:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The core issue remains reconciling the Major Selectors list in the 2017 Record Book (pg 108) with the annual listings (pg 115). UW Dawgs (talk) 18:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

CFBDW treatment

Callouts:

• http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com continues to limp forward
• Some of our cites point to webarchive.org, re being unreachable
• IPs are inserting an unsourced 2017 Alabama claim
• The directory page lists 1869–2009, see http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/national_championships/nchamps_year.php
• The team pages seem more current, see http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/national_championships/nchamps_team_results.php?team=86 (Alabama with 15 total, including 2015)
• But not fully, see http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/national_championships/nchamps_team_results.php?team=721 (Clemson, 1981 listed but not 2016)

Changes per WP:BOLD and with this edit[2]

• Scoped the CFBDW section as "1869 to 2009"; Using the date range in header might be excessiove
• Changed poll text from "Associated Press Poll (1936–present)" and the "Coaches Poll (1950–present)" to "(1936–2009)" and the "Coaches Poll (1950–2009)"
• Updated the text above the table and added a new cite
• Removed claims from 2010-present as unsourced

Comments, full revert, partial revert as you see fit. UW Dawgs (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

2018 yearbook is out with changes

There are some changes, relevant to above discussions. 2008 Utah is now overtly called out for Anderson/Hester (Seattle Times) ksl.com. And there are BCS changes.

• 2017.pdf
• 2018.pdf pg 115 in both, and maybe 108.

Have not thoroughly reviewed, yet. UW Dawgs (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Any update on your review of these? WestWorld42018 (talk) 01:05, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@UW Dawgs: It appears the NCAA is drawing some distinctions this year with the new release of the NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision Records. The 2018 version changes the heading of the full listing this Wikipedia article refers to as "Yearly national championship selections from major selectors" to "Final National Poll Leaders". Last year's version of the record book had the heading "National Poll Champions" (pg. 110 for both). I'm continuing to review as I have time. WestWorld42018 (talk) 04:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

new "NCAA.com National Champions listing" section

@WestWorld42018:

re this new section[3]. This is currently characterized as "According to the NCAA's website in August, 2018, the following is a listing of the organization's recognized college football national champions from 1998 to 2017." To my eye, this is incorrect.

1. The NCAA is attributing national championship selections to specific selectors. The right column states (in both your edit and their site's table) "Selecting Organization." This does not seem to be "a listing of the organization's recognized college football national champions"
2. It appears that this new article section is merely repeating a subset of the content already shown in the "major selectors" section.

If so, it seems very redundant to the existing content and has a misleading introduction. What do you think? UW Dawgs (talk) 01:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey there, @UW Dawgs: . I felt the opposite. To my knowledge, the NCAA has never released such a document before last Monday.

1. The title is College football championship history with the only content on the page other than the chart being: "College football national champions from 1869 to 2017."[4]
2. The listing from the NCAA also omits many of the selectors when reviewing the full listing on this recent release. For example, in 1920 the selectors chose up to five teams as listed on the Wikipedia page, but this NCAA release only lists one, California (CFRA, HAF, NCF).

This is why I felt the section was warranted. I see no way that the factual accuracy of the section to be in question when it's derived from a primary source of the governing organization and differs from the listings below. Maybe that would be better seen by putting the full listing up. I've only had time to do the basic chart so far and wanted to see how it was received before I put in a ton of work on it. Thoughts? WestWorld42018 (talk) 00:54, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

It's just an existing (not new) page which lists a subset of prominent selectors. And it is explicitly does not claim to list "...the organization's recognized college football national champions from 1998 to 2017" as currently stated in this article. Here's how that NCAA page appeared in June 2017. So it does not seem to say what you purport it to say, rather it is just a list of some selectors selections. I don't see the relevance or value, even if the summary were corrected. UW Dawgs (talk) 01:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

The link from last season you shared only supports even more that these are the national champions recognized by the NCAA. The fact that their list differs from the current list in this article gives it relevance in my view. I propose cleaning up the section lede to more closely match the NCAA release and update the chart from there. I completely support this new section as the governing body over the sport disseminated their historical statistics on such a highly-debated topic. WestWorld42018 (talk) 03:03, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I believe you have misread this news release, which does not appear in the official record book (though an earlier version of it used to). Start with the one incontrovertible fact: neither in the 2018 guide nor in any previous guide has the NCAA ever used the term "recognized" to describe its listing of NCs that have been awarded by other selectors, not the NCAA itself. The section on polls and championships this year begins on p. 108 and concludes on p. 175. Dozens and dozens of pages are devoted to various NC selecting organizations and their results. The section starting on p. 110 is the record book's equivalent to our article's section on yearly NCs from major selectors. The page alluded to above here [5] is a news release, not part of the official record book, and it is an updated variation of a page that used to appear in the official NCAA records site but does not any more. The operative term in this news release is the third column - the one that identifies the "Selecting Organization," which is never the NCAA itself. By way of contrast, the FCS NC IS an official NCAA championship and acknowledged by the organization as such, since its playoff is organized and directed by the NCAA.

Further - The record book's listing of "Final National Poll Leaders" from 1869-2017 alluded to above as starting on p.110 record book concludes on p.115 with these notes:

+From 1998-2013, the BCS was used to

determine national champions in FBS. All

“major selectors” not otherwise listed also

selected the BCS champion as its higest

ranked team in those seasons. In years where

a “major selector” had a team other than the

BCS champion as highest ranked team in its

final poll that team is listed below the BCS

Champion.

+Beginning in 2014, the College Football

Playoff was used to determine national champions in FBS.

All “major selectors” not otherwise listed

also selected the CFP champion

as its highest ranked team in those seasons.

In years where a “major selector” had a team

other than the CFP champion as highest

ranked team in its final poll that team is listed

below the CFP Champion.

What these notes give us are the well-known variations created by Colley Matrix (included on pp. 108 and 109 opening this section as a "major selector") and listed here on this page: OklaSt listed over BCS champ Alabama in 2011, Notre Dame over BCS Alabama in 2012 after and despite its overwhelming loss to the Tide, Alabama listed in 2016 despite its loss to CFP champ Clemson, and last year's selection of UCF over CFP Alabama. Further still - the NCAA concludes its discussion of the 1998-2014 BCS with this note on p. 163: "NOTE: The NCAA did not enact, adopt or otherwise approve of the Bowl Championship Series. The NCAA had no role in the selection of the institutions that participated in postseason bowl games. The College Football Playoff began with the 2014-15 season." But the NCAA publication describes CFP (as it does every major selector over time and the BCS and Bowl Alliance and Bowl Coalition) without explicitly endorsing it and certainly without appending the term "recognized" anywhere in that section or on any one of the 67 pages discussing polls and NCs. The bottom line is that in its usual inconsistent fashion, the NCAA talks about NCs without either awarding one in FBS or even "recognizing" one beyond listing organizations that did so. Sensei48 (talk) 08:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

And further further yet - the section as it currently exists is inaccurate and apparently OR. The linked news release does not list as the section text does "a listing of the college football national champions from 1998 to 2017." It is clearly a listing of champions from 1869-2017. On what basis not explicit in the source is 1998 chosen as the starting date? The section must be removed on these bases, as well as the overwhelming evidence in the "Football Bowl Subdivision Records" .pdf cited above regarding the organization's absolute refusal to apply the term "recognized" or "official" to ANY FBS NC selection. Sensei48 (talk) 08:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd removed the word "recognized" already. My first point is that this information doesn't come from the record book. It comes from their website. A release that has been disseminated for at least two seasons now. Even if it is a subset of selectors, this is the subset the NCAA chose to publish in their release for whatever reason. In my eyes, that is extremely significant. Also, it seems the basis of your argument in the last paragraph is that it doesn't include the full chart. I chose 1998 because it was two decades ago and the start of the BCS. It was simply a lack of time to list the full chart during my initial edit. I'll happily populate the full chart with links all the way back to 1869. That's not a problem. I continue to stand by this section as factually accurate and significant. It should be expanded. WestWorld42018 (talk) 21:19, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

This content is the NCAA non-controversially restating the selections of some external selectors. There is nothing compelling here, at all. ABC, LA Times, Bleacher Report, and similar content sites with editorial staff regularly publish similar "convenience" lists. These aren't the NCAA's selections, so there is no purpose served within this article by transcribing the NCAA's page and sourcing it back to the NCAA as validation of 3rd party selections -indeed, a second citation for this section will never exist. As the routine content is already present in the article, this redundant and non-notable section should be removed. UW Dawgs (talk) 21:42, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Again, I simply disagree. It is your opinion that this is a convenience list. In my opinion, it is not. The content is worthy of inclusion and more than compelling enough to be discussed in a section of this article. I, actually, feel to not include it calls into question the factual accuracy of the entire article. WestWorld42018 (talk) 23:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with UWDawgs in each particular. The lede to our article makes it explicit with reliable sources that there is no official FBS NC according to the NCAA. Further, that press release list contradicts actual facts at a number of points listed in our article as footnotes a through e under "Yearly national championship selections from major selectors." The NCAA lists a championship in a given year to a selector that actually made a different selection as evidenced on their websites. Case in point: the NCAA news release lists USC as the NC for 2004 and cites the BCS as the source of this. Now I know and every fan knows that USC won the NC that year, including the AP, but as a result of the Reggie Bush affair, the BCS itself vacated USC's championship, revoked its award, and lists no NC for that year - in direct contradiction of this "news release." The new section placed anywhere is anti-encyclopedic and a refutation of the hard work done by many editors of this article to present a complex and controversial issue in a fair and comprehensive and extensively sourced manner. We are not here to be nor need we be complicit with the NCAA's failings and its hypocrisy. It does not award, recognize, endorse, or any other handy verb any NC for FBS - but it seems to want to have its cake and eat it too. A section such as the new one cannot appear in this article until the NCAA reverses itself and actually participates in the FBS NC process - which it never, never has and is never likely to do. The NCAA is teetering on the edge of oblivion as inconsistencies like this one have riled enough ADs and university admins that we may well live to see this organization dissolve or be reduced in scope. As of now, NCAA's refusal to participate in an FBS NC makes its press release a prime example of its inconsistency and hypocrisy - and it provides no useful information for this article.Sensei48 (talk) 23:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Which makes my point from earlier in the discussion more valid. This list differs from the listing in the other section of this page. Both lists should be stated for the article to be as factual as possible, or at least until these inaccuracies are cleared up. I also raised my eyebrow at 2004, but to say a listing of historical information disseminated by the actual governing body is inaccurate could be discussed in the section with extensive referencing. Also, after re-reading your reasoning, I now see this is more about this release refuting all the past work on this page, which is an extremely weak (and questionable) argument for keeping this information off the page. I feel your reasoning raises the question of any bias in your editing and monitoring of this page. WestWorld42018 (talk) 23:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the new section per WP:BRD, without prejudicing the ongoing discussion or additional comments from current/additional editors. UW Dawgs (talk) 00:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Can you point me to the proper procedure to escalate this to an administrator? Thanks. WestWorld42018 (talk) 00:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Suggest starting here at Wikipedia:Consensus. UW Dawgs (talk) 00:22, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Per my reading of WP:BRD, you did not follow the reverting section correctly. Please advise. WestWorld42018 (talk) 00:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

BRD is not a WP:Policy, but consensus is a policy. You've articulated your view and argument. Other editors are likely to engage, as not everyone watches every page every day. UW Dawgs (talk) 01:14, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Should the content be moved here for discussion? WestWorld42018 (talk) 01:30, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Note, all editors can see the content via the linked "[3]" at the top of this discussion, or via the WP:Edit history. Cheers, UW Dawgs (talk) 01:36, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Note, all editors: the content via linked "[3]" at the top of this discussion is not the updated section content. WestWorld42018 (talk) 01:49, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

It is always visible in the Edit history. Editors know how to locate. UW Dawgs (talk) 02:02, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

As an editor who has previously worked on this article, I must agree with UWDawgs in each particular as well. Assertions that are not rooted in context can never be absolute. Jeff in CA (talk) 19:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@Jeff in CA: Actually, there's been a pretty significant update in the Rulebook Dawgs hasn't addressed yet. Please review my comments above in the 2018 yearbook is out with changes section. Thanks! WestWorld42018 (talk) 19:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Dunkel System diffs

We have a longstanding footnote at just above here, of eThe NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision Records book lists Dunkel as having selected LSU,[6]:114 while Dunkel's official website gives USC as its 2007 selection.[42]"

It appears Dunkel may have changed its view at some point over the summer, possibly via modification to their formula which was applied retroactively to prior season(s). Specifically re 2007, archive.org from March 7, 2018 give us "LSU was able to beat Ohio State (38-24) to claim its second BCS championship, but it was USC that finished with the top rating in the Index after dismantling Illinois in the Rose Bowl (49-17)." and "1 So. California 113.215 11-2 7-2 Pac-10," while both the August 16, 2018 crawl and current version state LSU with "1 LSU* 12-2 117.082..."

Beyond primary, there are issues directly related to above discussion sections on NCAA Record Book presentation inconsistencies/footnotes, when a major selector differs from the "majority":

• The 2017 NCAA Record Book becomes vague pg 115 from 2007-present
• The 2018 NCAA Record Book becomes vague pg 115 from 1998-present

So looking for additional eyes and feedback before proceeding on Dunkel changes. I suppose the right way to proceed on these Dunkel issues would be something like, "200XX Dunkel originally stated Y(w/ archive.org cite), but currently states Z(current site, NCAA site). UW Dawgs (talk) 18:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• I see that the retroactive change in the Dunkel method shuffles its entire rankings in 2007. The revised method appears to have been applied back to 2005. I did not check to see how other years' Dunkel rankings might have been shuffled. I do agree this needs to be addressed as you have described.
• It appears that, with the following footnote in 2018, the footnote in the 2017 book was corrected to list the exceptions omitted in the 2017 book. I consider this to be appropriate.

^From 1998-2013, the BCS was used to determine national champions in FBS. All “major selectors” not otherwise listed also selected the BCS champion as its higest (sic) ranked team in those seasons. In years where a “major selector” had a team other than the BCS champion as highest ranked team in its final poll that team is listed below the BCS Champion.

• On a less important note, the 2018 version shows from 1998 thru 2004 a change from the name "USA/ESPN" to "USA Today", i.e., a substitution of the common shorthand of the poll name for the accurate contemporary name (not appropriate, in my opinion). Jeff in CA (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

As stated above, the Dunkel System does not name a "national champion". We need to address the overarching problem with the entire section. Not all of the listings on this chart are "national champions". To list them as so is inaccurate. We should first start by labeling the section (and sub-section) to more accurately reflect the current Rule Book as was done and reverted by you all. WestWorld42018 (talk) 22:05, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

• RE: Dunkel note wording, I think that's fine. However, how do we adjust the count? Does the Dunkel vote get counted in the tally or not?Dolenath (talk) 19:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposed changes per 2018 version of the Records

@UW Dawgs: @Jeff in CA:

There are significant changes in the wording regarding the listing of national champions in the 2018 version of NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision Records. There are also other issues relating to the document and this Wikipedia page, in my opinion, that pre-date this version.

The first major change in this document I see is the heading on pg. 110 of "National Poll Champions" in 2017 to "Final National Poll Leaders" in 2018. This is hugely significant, in my eyes. Nowhere do they refer to this exhaustive list as national champions any longer. The wording of this article will need editing to reflect this change in nomenclature.

Another thing that jumps out to me is that the overall section heading on pg. 108 is (in both versions) "National Poll Rankings". The lack of calling this entire section of the record book a listing of national champions as this Wiki article states is troubling to me. I feel we need to take a strong look at these differences and immediately correct these headings, at the least, to read the way the referenced material states it.

My immediate heading changes suggestions:

• "National championships in the official NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision records", as the second section heading reads now, to "National Poll Rankings in the official NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision records", as it is in both of the past two versions of the NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision Records.
• "Yearly national championship selections from major selectors", as the sub-heading currently reads, to "Final National Poll Leaders" (pg. 110), as it stated now in NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision Records correcting the significant change in nomenclature.

After the updates, I also propose the consideration of a new section to reflect the Record book's section of "National Poll Champions in Bowl Games". WestWorld42018 (talk) 20:09, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

After no feedback on this, I'm moving forward with the heading edits per WP:BRD. WestWorld42018 (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Note, WP:BOLD is the guideline under which you are acting with this pair of edits which retitled two sections[6]. It changed the first section header from "National championships in the official NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision records" of "National Poll Rankings in the official NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision records", and a second section from "Yearly national championship selections from major selectors" to "Final National Poll Leaders." 1) Not every selector in the full section is a poll. 2) Use of "National Poll Rankings" erroneously implies the section displays a season-long (weekly) duration of the poll data, when it only reflects the the final selection. 3) Removal of "major selectors" is inappropriate when that is the sole criteria for inclusion in the section. Related, can you locate a single poll-based selector who describes their end-of-season national championship selection as a "Poll Leader" rather than a "national champion?" My suggestion is that you cease your focus on trying to transcribing this PDF or similar NCAA-authored documents, as they simply aggregate 3rd party content rather than produce the actual team selections. UW Dawgs (talk) 21:54, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah, yes. WP:BOLD Thanks for the correction. I'm still doing research as to how to respond to this. I'm going to be monitoring the edits over the past few years to see how important this annual NCAA Records document has been to the updates and changes to the page. You mentioned it in the section above as if you needed to compare for updates and changes. So, it appeared to me, at first glance, as if this was THE document for editing this page. If that's not the case, I'll happily take a different approach in ensuring the accuracy of this article. To your final question, I'll start researching what the individual poll-based selectors call themselves. I've only been studying the Colley Matrix recently and have yet to find any mention or documentation of him calling it a national champion. Please, correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks. WestWorld42018 (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@UW Dawgs: My responses are below:

1) Not every selector in the full section is a poll.

That's a generalized term for the ratings, rankings, and polls that make up the majority of the section. The Records refers to them as the general term "polls" on pg. 108 in the introductory content. The term is much less problematic than calling them all "national champions", which to me is extremely more egregious of an error.

2) Use of "National Poll Rankings" erroneously implies the section displays a season-long (weekly) duration of the poll data, when it only reflects the the final selection.

Then, let's add the word "Final" before it until consensus can be made of how to move forward with reorganizing and correcting this page.

3) Removal of "major selectors" is inappropriate when that is the sole criteria for inclusion in the section. Related, can you locate a single poll-based selector who describes their end-of-season national championship selection as a "Poll Leader" rather than a "national champion?"

I ask you the opposite question. Can you show that all (or even the majority) of these selectors describe their end-of-season top-ranked team a "national champion"? While I'm not finding the exacting wording of "Poll Leader", neither am I finding the phrase "national champion". "Poll Leader" is a lot closer to the wordings of "rankings", "ratings", etc. that I'm seeing on these sites on their About and FAQ pages. My compromise would be Final National Ranking Leaders from major selectors for the time being. All of these, no matter how determined, end with a ranking. Correct?

I also suggest an immediate change to the lede statement of this subheading that used the 2017 version of the NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision Records as a reference.

It states: "Below is a list of the national champions of college football..." but that's actually the wording of the NCAA press release (from 2017 and Aug. 2018) you all didn't like last week. This last year's version of the records book calls them "National Poll Champions" but now calls them "Final National Poll Leaders". The 2017 version of this document was used to update this very "fact" but it's incorrectly stated in the current version of the article. No where does the document state that.

My suggestion is that you cease your focus on trying to transcribing this PDF or similar NCAA-authored documents, as they simply aggregate 3rd party content rather than produce the actual team selections.

So, why has the 2017 version of this document been referenced dozens of times in the current version of the page? I question any 3rd party content at this point because of the errors in using the term "national champions" based on the "NCAA Records" document when that's not what the document is saying or what the website for some (possibly many) of the selectors states.

This page, in my opinion, is in need of a major overhaul. WestWorld42018 (talk) 02:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, that last remark is not a smart thing, considering the years-long process that has resulted in a long-term stable article.Jeff in CA (talk) 06:27, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I am very surprised that this has not been reverted so far, as the renaming of two headers is exceptionally problematic. Thoughts from others? UW Dawgs (talk) 22:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

It needs to be reverted immediately for the following reasons.

1. No consensus for the changes has been established. The three editors who have commented on WestWorld's proposed changes have all opposed them, and no one else so far has endorsed them.

2. The edits are OR. At no point has the NCAA announced a policy change regarding the selection of NCs. Westworld infers policy change from differences that he sees in the records book and from the news release despite the lack of such an announcement. Such inference without a direct statement is OR.

3. The only point at which NCAA refers to a policy in 2018 records is the part I quote above - a disavowal of taking any part in NC selection during the BCS era. Failing an equally direct statement that the group has changed it stance, that disavowal stands as a matter of record - and a cursory glance at NCAA history demonstrates its refusal to participate in NC selections. No board member or official of the NCAA ever sat on the committees for the Bowl Coalition, the Bowl Alliance, or the BCS, and none sits currently or over the last four years on the CFP. Secondary sources such as this [7] simply reaffirm NCAA's refusal to participate. This 2015 article asserts "The NCAA's web page listing national champions is just that -- a web page. It is the regurgitation of a list gleaned from somewhere else." That has not changed.

In sum: to make these changes, the edits would require RS from the NCAA itself - a direct statement and not editor's inference - and/or solid secondary sourcing. None such has been offered thus far. Sensei48 (talk) 00:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

You three seem to the gatekeepers to this page but we can bring Admins into the discussion via several avenues of Dispute Resolution, if necessary. This is important and needs full vetting by unbiased editors. Re: OR edits, none are intended. I only want the article to reflect that actual document, just as you did with your own edit to the page on September 3rd. Numerous editors use primary sources to update thousands of pages each week, especially in sports. The NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision Records has been the authoritative document for most of the edits to the current article (even your own), especially the section in question. It should remain so. The secondary source you link is from 2014, which is dated and not accurate to current authoritative documents. I will detail issues and ask for discussion of potential edits to the diputed section below. WestWorld42018 (talk) 17:49, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I know I'm a little late to the discussion, but I agree with UW Dawgs, Sensei48, and Jeff in CA. I understand WestWorld42018's frustration with the inconsistency of it all, but sadly that's really NCAA's fault with the messy way they've handled all this over the years. Dolenath (talk) 20:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Past conduct by any entity fails to qualify as a reason to discontinue improving this encyclopedia. WestWorld42018 (talk) 01:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Have reverted per above, without regard to ongoing discussion and potential new consensus. UW Dawgs (talk) 23:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Monitoring all responses and reverts. Will respond soon. WestWorld42018 (talk) 08:28, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

We need to get back to this discussion. Per WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD, it doesn't appear that using primary sources is a problem. In fact, this article has been updated using the NCAA Record book numerous times if you review the edit history. It is my strong suggestion we begin to edit this article to more closely resemble the 2018 version of the Record Book in regards to the careful wording differences in the headings and mentions of "national champions" in the current version of the page. To allow it to remain as anything different is whitewashing, in my opinion. WestWorld42018 (talk) 20:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Utah unclaimed title in 2008

Any thoughts on Utah's undefeated season and 2008 national championship claim?? ETchilembe (talk) 00:10, 2 December 2018 (UTC)