Wikipedia

Talk:College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS/Archive 2023

< Talk:College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS
Latest comment: 1 year ago by PK-WIKI in topic Some listed non-major selectors are literally jokes


"Montgomery Full Season Championship" non-major selector

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

1958 Auburn was apparently selected as national champions by the "Montgomery Full Season Championship" selector.

College Football Data Warehouse lists this selector's picks for 1936–1982. The picks are attributed to "David A. Montgomery". CFDW offers no other source or information.

At first I thought this was a non-notable retroactive math/computer system from the internet era that Auburn fans were latching onto thanks to its inclusion on CFDW.

However I then saw the selector mentioned in a 1982 newspaper article!

The letter to the editor mentions a "Montgomery" or "Montgomery full season championships" selector picking 1953 Notre Dame. The selector apparently came up in research done by "the National Championship Foundation of Germantown, NY".

Any information or sleuthing on this selector is appreciated. PK-WIKI (talk) 05:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Rutgers claim edit request

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

At the bottom of the article, in the table of championships claimed by each school, the Rutgers claim for 1869 is marked as disputed. Please remove the whole line. The cited source clearly makes such a claim (if you visit page 2 and look at the left column, you'll see National Championships................1 (1869) on the third line from the bottom), but as has been documented in the last section of Talk:College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS/Archive 2022, the university doesn't make this claim anymore. 175.39.61.121 (talk) 06:18, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm inclined to make this change per WP:EXCEPTIONAL. "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources."
Note that Wisconsin's claim for 1942 was removed (by someone else) on August 12 for similar reasons.
I'll remove Rutgers 1869 claim for now, pending Wikipedia:Consensus reverts. PK-WIKI (talk) 04:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
In January 2023 Rutgers' 1869 claim was re-added. This is based on the newly cited Rutgers National Championhships webpage. PK-WIKI (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

National championship games historic occurrences

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

A number of games are listed under the "Historic occurrences" section of the article as "national championship games".

In deciding whether one of these games was a  “national championship game”, the appropriate test to apply is as follows. The test considers whether, before the game was played, it was overwhelmingly certain that either team, had it won the game, would necessarily have been voted number one in the final polls at the end of the season. If this was not true for both involved teams, the game fails the test and was not a national championship game.

The test is to be applied separately to both the winning team and the losing team at the point in time before the game was played. It must consider the range of possible outcomes of any games remaining in the season (not simply actual outcomes) for the team in question and for other highly ranked teams also chasing the title. Applying the test to the team that actually lost the game means assuming, for the purpose of the test, that this team had instead won the purported national championship game (a "shoe-on-the-other-foot" test).

1943: Before the game between Notre Dame and Iowa Pre-flight, those two teams and #3 Purdue each had 8–0 records. Notre Dame and Purdue both won that day. Notre Dame then played one more game after this and lost. Iowa Pre-flight and Purdue each played one more game and won. Before this purported national championship game was played in mid-November, was it certain that then-number-3 and undefeated Purdue could not become #1, considering the possibility that Notre Dame and Iowa Pre-flight could (and would) both finish 9–1? No, it was not. Therefore, the Notre Dame–Iowa Pre-flight game was not a national championship game.

1944: Navy was 6-2 going into the season-ending game against Army, which it lost. If Navy had won, would it have been extremely certain to finish ranked #1 ahead of three highly-ranked undefeated teams (Ohio State, Randolph Field, and Bainbridge NTS)? The answer is no. Therefore, this was not a national championship game.

1962: (1) USC had already been named #1 in both final polls (AP and UPI) four weeks before the Rose Bowl. (2) Before the Rose Bowl was played, was it certain that if Wisconsin had won the Rose Bowl instead of USC, finishing with a record of 9-1, the FWAA's Grantland Rice Trophy would have been awarded to Wisconsin, and not to 10-0 Ole Miss or to Texas (if Texas had finished 10-0-1)? No; were the FWAA to be true to principle, this was not certain. Therefore, this was not a national championship game.

1963: Texas had already been named #1 in both final polls (AP and UPI) over three weeks before the Cotton Bowl.

1966: The Notre Dame-Michigan State game was played November 19. Notre Dame had one more game remaining at USC. (1) Before the November 19 game was played, was it certain that, if Notre Dame avoided a loss to MSU but were to lose later to USC, it would still finish #1? (2) If Michigan State had finished 10-0 by beating Notre Dame, was it certain on November 19 that 8-0 Alabama, who went on to win two more regular season games and finish 10-0, could not have finished #1? In both cases, the answer is no. Therefore, this was not a national championship game.

1967: USC finished 9-1 in the regular season, after which the final polls were released. This November 18 game against UCLA was its last regular season game. Prior to this game, undefeated #1 UCLA was followed in the AP rankings by four one-loss teams and two other undefeated teams. Following this game 9-1 #1 USC was followed by four other one-loss teams, each with one more regular season game left to play. Prior to the UCLA-USC game, it was still possible for another team to finish the regular season ranked #1, especially Tennessee or Purdue. Therefore, this was not a national championship game.

1968: A USC victory in the Rose Bowl would have sealed a 10-0-1 record. Was it extremely certain in this case that USC would have been voted #1 instead of 11-0 Penn State? Maybe, but not necessarily a slam dunk.

1969: (with regard to the AP poll) The Texas-Arkansas game ended the regular season on December 6. This game decided the national championship for the UPI coaches poll. For the AP title, Texas and Penn State were both 10-0 going into their bowl games. If Texas had lost the Cotton Bowl, it would not have been #1. Therefore, the Texas-Arkansas game was not a national championship game for the AP title.

1971: (with regard to the Coaches poll) The Nebraska-Oklahoma game was played on November 25. After that day, each team had one regular season game remaining. Despite winning the game, Nebraska could have lost its final regular season game, which could have given the UPI coaches poll title to Alabama, Michigan, or even Oklahoma. Therefore, the Nebraska-Oklahoma game was not a national championship game for the UPI poll.

1972: If Ohio State had won the Rose Bowl against USC, was it extremely certain that a #3 Buckeye team that was 10-1 would have vaulted over #2 Oklahoma team that finished 11-1? The answer is no. Therefore, this was not a national championship game.

1973: (with regard to the AP poll) Even though 10-0-1 and #2 Oklahoma was ineligible to play in a bowl game, it could still be ranked #1. Before the Sugar Bowl was played, was it a near guarantee that Oklahoma would not be voted #1 if Alabama lost? No. In fact Notre Dame received only 33 of 60 first-place votes. Therefore, this was not a national championship game.

1977: Going into the bowl season there were seven 10-1 teams ranked behind #1 Texas in the AP poll. Oklahoma, Alabama, and Michigan were ranked #2, #3, and #4. Before the Cotton Bowl it was not at all certain that the win by Notre Dame would vault it ahead of any of those other one-loss teams that would win their bowl games. Therefore, this was not a national championship game.

1978: Based on the loss by #1 Penn State in the Sugar Bowl against #2 Alabama, 12-1 USC jumped to #1 in the Coaches poll to win the UPI national title. There was certainly a chance that USC could also do so in the AP poll (although it didn’t). Therefore, the Sugar Bowl was not a national championship game.

1981: If 9-2 #4 Nebraska were to win the Orange Bowl to go 10-2, it would have had to rely on the result of the Sugar Bowl being played at the same time. Therefore, the Orange Bowl was not a national championship game.

1983: #5 Miami won the Orange Bowl to go 11-1. But one-loss #3 Auburn was playing in the Sugar Bowl at the same time. Before these two games started, there was no guarantee that Miami would vault over Auburn if both were victorious (which they were). Therefore, the Orange Bowl was not a national championship game.

1984: The Orange Bowl between Washington and Oklahoma does not qualify as a national championship game, because the game did not involve BYU, who was #1 in both AP and Coaches polls.

1988: If #3 West Virginia were to win the Fiesta Bowl to remain undefeated, would it have been extremely certain to vault over #2 Miami, which won the Orange Bowl later in the day? The answer is no, so WVU would have been relying on a Miami loss in the later game. Therefore, the Fiesta Bowl was not a national championship game.

Based on the above information, the games listed in the article for 1943, 1944, 1962, 1966, 1967, 1969 (AP), 1971 (UPI), 1972, 1973 (AP), 1977, 1978, 1981, 1983, 1984, and 1988 were not historic occurrences of national championship games. 1963 and 1968 should also probably be excluded.

Jeff in CA (talk) 11:28, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I generally agree with your test that both teams should know, as they are playing the game, that the winner will be able to claim the national championship. I discussed the same rules with the user that added many of these games to the list.
However the most important criteria for Wikipedia is reliable sources calling the game a "national championship game" or using substantially similar language.
Just as the early AP Poll played rather fast and loose with the timing of final polls, early declarations of "national championship games" perhaps ignored subsequent final games or #3 challengers. Inclusion criteria for this list can't entirely be a strict mathematical formula.
For example:
  1. The 1966 ND/MSU tie was heavily promoted in the national press as the National Championship Game... despite ND being scheduled to play USC a week later.
  2. The opening of the 1979 Sugar Bowl has a graphic "BOWL GAMES FOR THE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP" that lists 1963 Rose, 1964 Cotton, 1969 Rose, 1972 Orange, and itself as the 5th.
Reliable sources should be used to vet inclusion in this list. We should also make it clear that winning a "national championship game" does not preclude other awards/claims. I don't think it's necessary to list the full timing of every selector/poll/claim in this section, as that is discussed extensively elsewhere in the article.
PK-WIKI (talk) 22:11, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
I fully agree regarding RS. However, this section is already supported by excellent sources for every singly contest listed, with most of those sources being contemporary to the games. The NCAA's failure until creating its weak-kneed "playoff" ever to establish its own criteria for a poll-era NC allowed for a wide variety of opinions in many years as to who the champion was, and that is covered clearly and explicitly in the article. It's not within the scope of this Wikipedia article to create our own definition of what a NC game is, especially when there are RS's available and cited to establish the historical perspective on the question for every given year. Sensei48 (talk) 01:38, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Pseudo-infobox

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hey @Jeff in CA, I removed the table because I thought that the contents didn't reflect the contents. I searched for the trophies, but most weren't mentioned in the article, and neither were the other Longest continuous selector, First season awarded, and Last completed season labels. I'm not really sure what this all is, so do you know if there's an appropriate infobox, or if the info can be put into the body? SWinxy (talk) 02:52, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@PK-WIKI:: directing attention to the above comment. Jeff in CA (talk) 23:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
The trophies can and should be integrated into the body. A new sub-section in the History section might work well. I will add that in the upcoming week(s) if no one else has a crack at it. PK-WIKI (talk) 04:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
I've added some of the major trophies to the history section. Also added a new column to the "major selectors" tables to display each selector's trophy. PK-WIKI (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Slippery Rock football 1936

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments1 person in discussion

The 1936 Slippery Rock Rockets football team were apparently named as national champions via the transitive property by a sports writer in 1936/1937. The column was then carried across the country by a wireservice, and the satirical(?) pick gained such popularity that the Slippery Rock scores began being announced at Michigan games in the years to follow.

(1967) Slippery Rock was No. 1 in the nation because the team that beat West Virginia Wesleyan which beat Duquesne, 2–0, which in turn beat Pitt, 7–0, which beat Notre Dame, 26–0, which beat Northwestern, 26–6, which beat Minnesota, 6–0 so there.
(1990) Backtracking scores from 1936, the writer used the following logic: Slippery Rock beat Westminster, which beat West Virginia Wesleyan, which beat Duquesne, which beat Pitt, which beat Notre Dame, which beat Northwestern, which beat Minnesota. Conclusion: Slippery Rock was No. 1.

This 'urban legend" is repeated in many tertiary sources, but without an original source that I can find.

The author of the 1936 article is not stated. It was perhaps by Bill Cunningham of Boston: https://www.newspapers.com/clip/116134498/slippery-rock-1936-national-champions/

It has to have been written after Nov 21, 1936. Most likely in Dec 1936 or Jan 1937

I'm searching for the author's name, the original column, or the wire service stories if anyone would like to help with this search. PK-WIKI (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Some more details written by @User:Murphanian777 are included at 1936 college football season#The Slippery Rock National Championship, although still no original source for the Slippery Rock selection.
Murphanian did find similar Associated Press national championship selections for other transitive property teams:
PK-WIKI (talk) 21:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
An editor at Talk:1936_Slippery_Rock_Rockets_football_team has mentioned that the 1936 Slippery Rock Rockets football team did beat the 1936 Westminster Titans football team, but Westminster does not seem to have played the 1936 West Virginia Wesleyan Bobcats football team as reported.
Creating articles for all of the notable season articles in the various 1936 transitive property chains might help establish the contemporary facts of the situation:
PK-WIKI (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Retroactive AFCA Coaches Trophy

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Know 3 are currently listed as being awarded (TCU - 1935, 1938; Oklahoma State - 1945) via Blue Ribbon Commission.

Seen 2 pics on social media that Texas A&M has 1 as well (1939). 2605:59C8:5062:EF10:F5CC:DB56:8094:5760 (talk) 15:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Here's an image of the Texas A&M crystal football:
"1939 Texas A&M National Championship trophy" (original FB source)
Posted April 8, 2017
PK-WIKI (talk) 02:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2023

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

West Virginia as National Champions for 1922. Tylerdavis55 (talk) 11:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 12:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Here are all of the 1922 selections collected by CFDW, which does not include West Virginia. West Virgina's season and win in the 1922 San Diego East-West Christmas Classic seems plausible enough for a national championship selection by some newspaper/organization, but a citation will need to be found.
(Note: all of the pages linked above have been recently edited to add West Virginia as a national champion. Those need citations too and the claim should stay synchronized with this page.)
PK-WIKI (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Under “National championship claims” is the statement, “For the pre-poll era from 1901 through 1935, 41 major selections of teams from 20 schools have not been used to make national title claims.” In light of the Billingsley-related revisions, I believe this statement likely needs to be revised. Jeff in CA (talk) 09:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Sentence removed. PK-WIKI (talk) 21:04, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

Latest comment: 1 year ago11 comments2 people in discussion
Unsuccessful. ArcticSeeress (talk) 03:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ArcticSeeress (talk · contribs) 19:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC)


Hello, PK-WIKI. I'm ArcticSeeress, and I'll be reviewing this nomination for the GA criteria. I'll look forward to working with you. ArcticSeeress (talk) 19:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:NCAA logo.svg, the infobox image, has a valid public domain licence.
  • File:First ever year-end college football ranking from The Sun newspaper (1901).jpg: The newspaper crop may not have the correct licence, though it is well within the public domain as it was published before 1928, so it doesn't really matter much anyway. I'd suggest exporting it to Commons and changing the licencing where necessary (though this is not a GA criterion)
  • File:College Football Champions Map.png uses a map of the United States, which may be copyrighted; the author does not state where they retrieved the map from. I'll assume that they got it from elsewhere on Commons, though I can't really be bothered to sift through hundreds of images of maps to verify whether it's there or not. I'll assume good faith in its publication here.
  • File:University of Michigan 1997 AP Trophy.jpg does not have a correct licence, as it was not published before 1928, as the image's description states, nor was it published without a valid licence (that only applies for works published before 1989, see Commons:Hirtle chart); the source link states that it was published in ca. 1998. It also states the licence the image is published under: CC BY 4.0. This should be reflected in the image description, per 6a of the GA criteria "media are tagged with their copyright statuses".
  • I'm not sure File:BCS Championship Media Day, Jan. 5, 2013.jpg has a valid non-free use rationale; the picture is simply used to illustrate, not to provide commentary. Per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE: "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative" (emphasis mine). Looking at the image in the context of the article, it doesn't seem entirely necessary, so I'd suggest removing it, as it is simply illustrating a trophy.
  • File:Tennessee Stadium, 2010.jpg has a valid licence, and the flickr source seems to be the original author.
  • I'd appreciate alt text, but that is not part of the GA criteria. ArcticSeeress (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Some references in the article are links to YouTube bootlegs of copyrighted works. Please remove them immediately (per WP:LINKVIO) and find sources to replace them. GA nominations can be failed without further review for having copyright violations (WP:GAFAIL), but here they are not of significant issue as long as you remove the links to the infringing material. The text itself does not seem to contain any copyright violations. I'll continue reviewing the article once the offending references are removed. ArcticSeeress (talk) 20:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I should probably ping you here: @User:PK-WIKI. ArcticSeeress (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
I've removed the YouTubes links from the URL parameters of the citations. The published television productions themselves are still cited as WP:PRIMARY sources for the "National Championship Game" billing. PK-WIKI (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll look through the article more in a bit (possibly today if time permits). ArcticSeeress (talk) 22:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Article scope

The article contains a lot of info that may be better fit for their own list articles, though where exactly what information would be is a task beyond my pay grade (and also my understanding; I'm not much of a sportswoman myself). I see this has been brought up before in a prior review for this article (Talk:College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS/GA2), and I find myself agreeing with the author's comment. I'll copy what they wrote here (courtesy of User:Wugapodes):

The compelling reasons are WP:USEPROSE and WP:NOTSTATS. From WP:USEPROSE: "Wikipedia differentiates between articles that consist primarily of lists (and are termed "lists" or "stand alone lists") and articles that consist primarily of prose (and are termed "articles"). Articles are intended to consist primarily of prose" and from WP:NOTSTATS: "Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. [Where exhaustive statistics are not necessary] omit excess statistics altogether and summarize any necessary data concisely."

This article could be better of it the information was summarized in a few paragraphs of text, as per WP:SUMMARIZE. Maybe save the detailed info for a list elsewhere. Although the article has undergone a lot of revisions over the years, it has remained very similar structurally, which means it is pretty far away from reaching criterion 3b of the WP:GA criteria: "stay[ing] focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail" (emphasis mine).

Ignoring any such criteria and thinking strictly of the user experience reading this article, I still think it would do a poor job explaining the topic to the average reader, and it would be better off without the lists. It seems unlikely that they will look at the content present in the tables unless they were specifically looking for the information itself (in which case, it would be better off in its own article(s)). For anyone wanting to find out about the topic, the tables would just get in the way (though the new Wikipedia layout certainly helps a bit with that).

I'm tempted to quick fail the article foregoing any massive structural changes, as it is very far away from reaching criterion 3b. I'll probably look at some of the prose and references just to give feedback on them, as it looks like you've made a fair amount of edits to the article already and will probably continue editing it in the future. If you disagree with my assessment, feel free to comment with your own thoughts here. ArcticSeeress (talk) 02:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

History section

Below are some comments for the history section based on some reading. I haven't done an exhaustive examination of the entire section, but the early history seems a bit dodgy.

  • The concept of a national championship in college football dates to the early years of the sport in the late 19th century - The reference does not verify this. You'd need to find a source that states this information outright. Just finding a single source dating to the late 19th century isn't enough to make a claim like this that can withstand scrutiny.
  • Who is Charles Patterson, and how is he relevant?
  • and New York newspaper The Sun - This is referenced to a primary source. I'd suggest finding a secondary source for this info.
  • Beyond rankings in newspaper columns, awards and trophies began to be presented to teams - The information in the rest of the paragraph would certainly suggest this is the case, but I'd still recommend finding a secondary source that verifies this. How would you know that there weren't awards and trophies being given earlier than the dates given here (or even before or at the same time as the newspaper columns)? It is unverifiable, as there is not a citation that makes this specific claim present in the article.
  • for the national championship in 1919 - I cannot verify this with the source. The closest I could find is "This Association for the past six years has sought to designate those champions whose notable achievements entitle them to distinction and honor and this is the first year that Bonniwell trophy, significant of a national championship, has ever been awarded". I'm not sure if this verifies this. Please correct me if I'm wrong here.
  • The BCS victors were awarded The Coaches' Trophy "crystal football" on the field immediately following the game. - This does not have a citation to verify the information

I'm unfamiliar with this topic area, so maybe there aren't many reliable sources about the early history of traditions like this, but I'd still like more secondary sources. To me, a lot of the information present reads like original research. It may be difficult to find sources about the period that discuss things like this directly, but I think the article would greatly benefit from their addition. I won't comment on the rest of the section, as it seems fine at a cursory glance. I have verified some of the information, and they seem to check out. The sources beyond this seem reliable (though the press release and the reference to an image are best replaced with other sources), so I'll let that rest for now.

Though the comments here may not be exhaustive, I hope they can give you a better framework for working with the rest of the article; there may be other areas with similar issues that other editors/reviewers would pick up on in the future. ArcticSeeress (talk) 02:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Assessment

I haven't reviewed for all of the GA criteria, but I think my comments thus far will provide a better framework going forward. I'll provide a checklist for a better overview.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article needs some restructuring to work and extra verification with secondary sources.
  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:  
    I have not read the entirety of the article, so this criterion has not been checked
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:  
    Same as above.
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:  
    All of the references seem to be formatted properly
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):  
    Some of the information does not have citations
    C. It contains no original research:  
    Some of the material in the history section seem like original research, as the sources do not verify overall trends, but rather single instances of something happening.
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:  
    There is no copyright violation in the prose
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:  
    The article is broad enough
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):  
    This is the main issue with the article. I'd suggest removing the big tables (especially the one in the "Yearly national championship selections from major selectors" subsection". The information present here is better off in a list article. I suggest summarizing some of the information present in the tables, or leaving them out entirely.
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:  
    I have not checked for this criterion
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:  
    The history suggests that there are two to three authors contributing to the article, and it may change rapidly depending on the editor in question, so I won't comment on the activity level as of this review.
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:  
    Some of the media do not have appropriate licences, and at least one non-free image does not seem to have a valid non-free use rationale as it has a purely illustrative purpose in the article.
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  
    All the media are relevant and have suitable captions. I'd suggest adding alt text, but this is not a GA criterion.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  
    The article does not meet several of the GA criteria, with at least one of them not being easily changeable within the frame of a single review.


Overall, the article has some issues, with some of them being easier to fix than others. The main issue is the scope being too large, including detailed information that may be better suitable in a list article. Seeing as it is very far away from reaching 3b, I'll unfortunately have to quick-fail this nomination, as it is too big a problem to fix here. If you feel like you've improved upon the article sufficiently in the future (or feel like my assessment is incorrect), you may nominate the article again in the future. Good work so far, and good luck in the future. If you have any questions about the review, you can send me a message on my talk page, as the tool used for reviewing articles archives the stuff written here. ArcticSeeress (talk) 03:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Some listed non-major selectors are literally jokes

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments2 people in discussion

The list of unique national title selections by non-major selectors includes some that are not to be taken seriously, are not unbiased, or are literally jokes.

The Baton Rouge Advocate wrote about the 2004 Auburn selectors:

”Well, the Eufaula [Alabama] Tribune polled its six-person staff and declared Auburn No. 1. And the Tigers were named “People’s Champions” in an online survey organized by a fan in Opelika [Alabama]. But those could hardly be considered unbiased.” And Golf Digest named Auburn national #1 after Auburn coach Tommy Tuberville jokingly asked the magazine to do that.

In 1983, Bruce McLellan, sports editor in Macon, Georgia, did the equivalent, if Wikipedia had existed then, of looking up information in Wikipedia to make his selections. All of his claimed sources are sources listed for this article.

Jack Kent Boyd was a 21-year-old Tulane student in 1931 who released a book that year naming, who else, Tulane as national champion.

An AP sportswriter named the Saint Vincent team in 1936 as national champion by the joke transitive property.

And the Washington State Senate picking Washington State … give me a break!

The above selectors only sully the reputations of the other legitimate non-major selectors who are listed. Therefore, they should not be included.

Jeff in CA (talk) 02:21, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that some of the picks in the section are contrarian selections, protests against the choices of the polls and BCS invites, perhaps with some local bias as well.
With regards to 2004 Auburn, the awards by these nouveau selectors were very well covered by reliable secondary sources writing about the BCS snub of the 13–0 SEC champion. The Golf Digest anecdote made the headline of The Wall Street Journal's coverage of Auburn's case for the national championship. "But that's nothing new for college-football fans nor coaches, who are used to the concept of mythical titles based on the opinions of some."
Tommy Tuberville accepted the Peoples' National Championship trophy alongside the Foy-ODK trophy at a basketball game in 2005, presented by Jim Donnan of ESPN. The trophy is displayed prominently today at Auburn. Other teams would recognize and accept the PNC trophy in subsequent years : Florida 2006, Alabama 2009.
Auburn / Tuberville had the team's rings engraved as "National Champions" after they were declared as such "by anybody". The Eufula Tribune's poll and selection was noticed enough to get a retrospective article 13 years later.
These Auburn selections were actually a major part of the 2004 bowl season media discussion, which itself justifies their inclusion in the table.
PK-WIKI (talk) 06:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
For the 1936 transitive property selection, 1936 Slippery Rock's clame to the title is regularly discussed as part of the "mythical national championship" story and college football lore. Ranks as one of the "most absurd and controversial"; the only non-major selection in the list. Slippery Rock's selection definitely has the coverage to be included in this list, despite being satirical.
The only problem is... per our research above, it appears that Slippery Rock was never named champion and doesn't even have a transitive property path to the title. Saint Vincent was the actual selection; they are listed instead. Someone should write a story about this smooth pebble.
PK-WIKI (talk) 07:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
The text of the article states, “Teams in the following table were selected by notable national championship selectors.” The Eufaula Tribune, Golf Digest, Bruce McLellan, Jack Kent Boyd — none is notable for football, and they are not selectors of any kind. They are just number one pickers, with picks that are no more notable than your or my picks. Beware any so-called “selector” that fails to rank teams and instead only picks a number one team, especially if they only did it once. (I know some major selectors such as NCF, HAF, and PD didn’t rank, but they are in the NCAA book, so are notable.) Jeff in CA (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
The sources cited for this article and at MNC are very clear that there is no official organization of national championship selectors, and also, critically, that selections from local, one-off, and non-traditional national championship selectors are an established part of the sport.
"...as the decisions were about to be made by all the people who currently chose national champions—everyone, it seems, from the AP to Sara Lee." (1967)
"It was basically the same thing that the late Bear Bryant once said - that even if a local grocery store were to name Alabama as national champions, the Crimson Tide would count it." (2005)
"to Richard Nixon’s self-anointed role in choosing a national champion ... did not anticipate the implications of getting personally involved in the declaration of a national champion, as sportswriters had been doing with a lack of definitive success for decades." (2013)
Thus your distinction between card-carrying "selectors" and mere "number one pickers" is complete WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH.
A more exclusive list of established, serious, or respected selectors is certainly needed as well. The NCAA has designated one such list, duplicated here in the "Major selectors" section, as has the widespread public recognition of the two wire service polls listed in the "Major Polls" section. These sections form the majority of the article, as is appropriate for WP:DUE weight.
The "Other selectors" section at the end of the article covers the selections not included in the the above sections, but that still represent significant views published by reliable sources. 2004 Auburn is a perfect inclusion in the table: a 13–0 SEC Champion ignored by the major selectors but whose pick by lesser selectors received widespread media attention and caused the university to semi-claim the national championship on their team rings and recognize it in their media guide.
PK-WIKI (talk) 21:51, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:College_football_national_championships_in_NCAA_Division_I_FBS/Archive_2023&oldid=1224633505"