re: Why are some schools' National Championship "claims" more valid than others

quote:

---

1. Did a poll listed in the records book that existed at the time name Ohio State as their 2012 national champion?
2. Did the BCS or CFP (the first systems that everyone agreed to play under with a designated title game and trophy) exist in 1984 and 1993?

---

Don't expect those questions to get answered.

quote:

---

As far as I know, no one disputed that number at that time

---

Yes, we all know of the popularity of internet message boards in the early 90s



We didn't have an opportunity to dispute it

quote:

---

Not nearly as funny as Alabama claiming more national titles every year, whether they win one or not.

---

Can't have it both ways. Y'all claimed 1942 retroactively.

In the poll era it is AP, Coaches Poll (UPI), or stfu

quote:

---

In the poll era it is AP, Coaches Poll (UPI), or stfu

---

Georgia and Tennessee fans don't like that at all though.

My Gosh. 6 National Championships

quote:

---

You might wanna take a look at your 1983 media guide...

---

I have a 1992 media guide, but it is 10 miles from here.

Maybe ABC or one of the other networks compiled the number for that broadcast or for another broadcast. It's kinda late to ask Keith Jackson.

Or maybe since it had been 13 years they decide to dream a dream of many more national championships.

You won all your games.

That’s enough for me.

While the NCAA provides a decently "respectable" authority we can use as a focal point, really the only problem with anyone's claim is people have to put it in context. If I want to claim 1904 for Vandy, for instance, I can either admit that I'm just making the argument myself (I am) or I'm referencing a specific poll or authority in claiming it. Every single NC claim needs an asterisk in this sort of situation. "Alabama, 2018"* ** ***

* CFP
** BCS
*** AP

and so on. There's no point in arguing the legitimacy of the title. The only argument is the legitimacy of the source. So if some football magazine decides to award Vandy the 1904 title 114 years later, I can say we're the national champs that year, and your counterargument would be "Yeah, because "Football Duh" magazine is such a credible source, right?" That simple. I'd have my own reasons to supporting the credibility of "Football Duh" while a Michigan fan (I think they're the ones who get named the 1904 champs most of the time, though I'm too lazy to check) will vehemently disagree. Or maybe vehemently agree because Michigan fans aren't too tightly wrapped.

Edit: Meant to say: but you need to be intellectually honest and agree/disagree with all of the given source's evaluations. You can't honestly say they're great because they gave you the title in X year but they suck because they didn't give you the title in year Y. That's one of the main reasons I think people should concentrate on the source rather than the title itself.

quote:

---

National Champions in a sport where 128 teams play 12 games is sort of contrived anyway you look at it.

---

I actually agreement this even though this clearly helps Auburn. They deserve some recognition for '83 and '04