WikiProject College football (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon
This template is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of College football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Template This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Which selectors

So, the template currently identifies only some of the national champions recognized by the NCAA record book. A few examples include:

We need to figure out which ones are included. The options appear to be:

  1. List all of the national champions recognized by the NCAA, an option that avoids WP:OR issues.
  2. Establish an objective and reasonable methodology to determine which to include (e.g., minimum 2 selectors or only specified selectors [an option that raises WP:OR issues since the NCAA recognizes all as major)

Cbl62 (talk) 18:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Berryman and Williamson both seem eccentrics. Also think of things like 1) one cannot lose their last game and/or 2) against another claiming a championship; as a way to clear up potential oddities. Davis selections are probably oversights. Cake (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More discrepancies

A few more instances in which the template currently identifies only some of the national champions recognized by the NCAA record book:

Note: I tend to agree that a claim based solely on Billingsley MOV (an alternate method used by Billingsley) probably should not be included in the template. Cbl62 (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an exhaustive memory of every champion, nor was I wise enough to always refer to the category, such that some are left off unintentionally for others in future to add and provide further refinement. However, I effectively leave off Billingsley, Berryman, and Sagarin, at least by themselves. I try to have some knowledge of southern football during this stretch. 1917 Georgia Tech is the first southern national champion, period, and the second in 1925 Alabama. With that in mind, I put my comments above in red. Otherwise it was just a wall of text here. Pardon I went at it chronologically, so you might start at the bottom. Cake (talk) 03:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have now tracked the template to the NCAA record book for the years 1869-1919 so that it includes every NCAA-recognized claimant to the national championship with the exception of those whose sole claim is under the Billingsley MOV (i.e., alternate) system. Cbl62 (talk) 02:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The championships hard to justify:
1935 LSU = 2 L, including to TCU; Williamson co-champion
1935 TCU = 1 L, to SMU, Williamson co-champion
1933 Ohio St = 1 L, to Michigan, Dunkel champion
1933 USC = 1 L 1 T, Williamson champion
1927 Yale = 1 L, to Georgia, Football Research champion
1927 Notre Dame = 1 L 1 T, loss to Army which loss to Yale, Houlgate champion
1927 Texas A&M = 1 T, unclaimed until 2012, Sagarin champion
1927 Georgia = 1 L to next year's champ Georgia Tech in the rain (ahem, very similar to UF's loss to Tenn the next year), Berryman, Boland, Poling champion
1926 Michigan = 1 L, to Navy, Sagarin co-chammpion
1925 Michigan = 1 L, Sagarin co-champion
1922 Vanderbilt = 1 T, Berryman champion
1921 Vanderbilt = 1 T, Berryman champion
1920 Georgia = 1 T, Berryman champion
1919 Texas A&M, played nobody outside the Southwest, unclaimed until 2012, Billingsley MOV champion, NCF co-champion
1919 Centre, played nobody stronger than WV, Sagarin co-champion
1916 Georgia Tech, 1 T, Billingsley champion
1915 Oklahoma, played nobody out of southwest and missouri valley, Billingsley MOV champion
1915 Minnesota, 1 T to Illinois, Billingsley champion
1914 Texas, only beat Wabash outside of southwest and missouri valley, Billingsley MOV champion
1913 Auburn, played nobody outside of the south, Billingsley MOV champion
1908 LSU, even their Southern title was vacated by some as season was clouded by professionalism, played nobody out of south, southwest and missouri valley, think historians just wish Doc Fenton's season isn't forgotten. Cake (talk) 05:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't disagree that some of these claims are harder to justify than others. This is the dilemma we face in the pre-AP poll era. There is no single selector who speaks with the same gravitas as the AP starting in 1936 and the UP starting in 1950. We are left with several selectors who the NCAA deem to be major selectors for these years. The NCAA is the most authoritative body we have. For us to supplant its judgment with our own in deciding which selectors should be recognized, or to omit selected years' picks because we find them undeserving, would IMO run afoul of WP:OR. Cbl62 (talk) 18:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm stuck in a conundrum in that I don't dispute this, but I do discount it a bit. You might see the yearbook of the 1917 Ga Tech team to see what I mean about the 1916 team's claim being a phantom. Cake (talk) 18:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cbl62: I think it would look much cleaner if we tried to provide consensus national champions by after the turn of the century requiring at least 2 selectors and perhaps 3 for especially contentious years of 4 or more champions. I might change the box accordingly. If it's too ugly to face you can change it back. Cake (talk) 08:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with eliminating teams that were recognized as NC by only one of the NCAA-recognized selectors. This has the benefit of eliminating those whose claim to the NC is based solely on a single, oddball selector. Listing only those teams with at least two selectors is a relatively objective and reasonable standard. However, I do see a problem with using different standards for different years -- i.e., requiring only 2 selectors in some years, but increasing the standard to 3 or 4 selectors in other years. That type of fluctuating standard, allowing us to do what you or I may think is "right" in years with multiple contenders, is far too subjective and over the line into WP:OR. Cbl62 (talk) 14:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do admit I'm trying both to apply a consistent standard and have its output look 'right'. I think the idea is also to avoid having say 5 champions with two selectors each when there's still a clear-cut champion or champions, such as in 1927 or 1919 or 1922. I am glad you are sympathetic to a quantitative as opposed to qualitative standard, for it gives a proper output IMO with e. g. 1924 or 1925. It seems like being selected by just Parke H. Davis is a lot more important before 1900. Cake (talk) 21:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What leads you to believe that Davis's selections were more important before 1900 than for the years from 1900 forward. Like others, his selections were retroactive for all years prior to 1933, and he tended to be biased in favor of the Ivy League (he played for Princeton), particularly for years prior to 1920 (he selected at least one Ivy League school as the national champion or co-champion every year prior to 1920). If we are going to have a consistent standard, we'd have to have a strong basis for treating Davis's retroactive selections as more significant than others. Cbl62 (talk) 00:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He seems to account for what seem like necessary co-champions such as e. g. 1869 Rutgers, but it's probably a worthy sacrifice for consistency. Berryman is often so odd that I wonder if I can exclude him. In application, it would e. g. leave off 1927 Georgia (not claimed by the school, lost to GaTech in last game. Even your Wolverines were ranked higher by Dickinson), which I think helps the credibility of the navbox, frankly. Cake (talk) 02:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Year breaks

Not sure what the rationale is for the irregular year breaks in the template. Why not use simple decade breaks? Cbl62 (talk) 22:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dickinson = 1924. 1906 = forward pass. The rest is Parke H. Davis. If decades are more useful, go for it.
I do think decade breaks are easier to follow. As you have no objection, I will modify accordingly. Cbl62 (talk) 01:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]