NCAA makes UCF’s National Championship official.

[Dansker]

16 hours ago, Redux said:

 

If any Bama fan complains about UCF getting an MNC for 2017. they need to admit that like 6 or their national titles are bulls#!t.

 

Does that mean we have to admit 1 or 2 of ours is BS too? Recognizing UCF as "national champions" in a year where they didn't even compete IN the playoff is opening a can of worms.

[Dansker]

13 hours ago, Huskers93-97 said:

Guessing frosts opinion that’s its not really a natty won’t change. I wish the NCAA would get a standard for what actually qualifies then use that for history. It’s pretty silly they recognize 11 titles for Nebraska. But Nebraska only recognizes 5, why do we have higher standards than them 

 

If you get the hardware, then you're the champ. We've got 5 to show for. It's like, show me the money but show me the titles 

[Huskers93-97]

15 minutes ago, FTW said:

 

If you get the hardware, then you're the champ. We've got 5 to show for. It's like, show me the money but show me the titles 

Who is this Colley pole that voted UCF?

[brophog]

4 minutes ago, Huskers93-97 said:

Who is this Colley pole that voted UCF?

 

Nobody voted, in fact one of Colley's defining characteristics is to avoid any human adjustments. The Colley Matrix was one of the computer ranking systems used in the BCS. That's why it is still a recognized selector. 

 

To the OP, there is nothing official about this. There are no official national champions. Not the playoff, not the BCS, not the AP, etcetera. There are simply recognized selectors, and if a team is recognized, like UCF was, then it can get into the record book.

[Redux]

2 hours ago, FTW said:

Does that mean we have to admit 1 or 2 of ours is BS too? Recognizing UCF as "national champions" in a year where they didn't even compete IN the playoff is opening a can of worms.

 

Which of our 5 are bulls#!t?  If you look at Bama and their full list of claimed national titles, it's pretty sketchy.  The 5 we claim are legitimate, the only one in question would be 1997 and the only ones who question that are in denial about how good Michigan really was.

[dvdcrr]

36 minutes ago, FTW said:

 

Does that mean we have to admit 1 or 2 of ours is BS too? Recognizing UCF as "national champions" in a year where they didn't even compete IN the playoff is opening a can of worms.

It is not UCF's fault they were not gifted a playoff spot like Alabama was. It is simply a popularity contest.  For example Iowa with their workman-like approach could win out,  beating all B1G foes by an average of 3 pts, win the CCG by one point, and almost certainly not be invited as well.

[Dansker]

16 minutes ago, Redux said:

 

Which of our 5 are bulls#!t?  If you look at Bama and their full list of claimed national titles, it's pretty sketchy.  The 5 we claim are legitimate, the only ly one in question would be 1997 and the only ones who question that are in denial about how good Michigan really was.

 

You kind of just answered my question and your own  probably could lump 94 in there as well since PSU finished unbeaten and #2. It's just one of those things where you'll never know who would win (97 Mich or 94 PSU) because the games didn't happen.

[4skers89]

21 minutes ago, brophog said:

 

Nobody voted, in fact one of Colley's defining characteristics is to avoid any human adjustments. The Colley Matrix was one of the computer ranking systems used in the BCS. That's why it is still a recognized selector. 

 

To the OP, there is nothing official about this. There are no official national champions. Not the playoff, not the BCS, not the AP, etcetera. There are simply recognized selectors, and if a team is recognized, like UCF was, then it can get into the record book.

This article explains the history of the computer rankings https://www.google.com/amp/amp.si.com/college-football/2018/07/11/bcs-computer-rankings-polls-formula-sagarin-billingsley

 

It is kind of strange that when they went from BCS to the CFP that they didn’t include the computer rankings as part of the determination. Some of them might have had UCF in the top 4 and into the playoffs.

[Dansker]

20 minutes ago, dvdcrr said:

It is not UCF's fault they were not gifted a playoff spot like Alabama was. It is simply a popularity contest.  For example Iowa with their workman-like approach could win out,  beating all B1G foes by an average of 3 pts, win the CCG by one point, and almost certainly not be invited as well.

 

You're comparing the $EC versus the AAC. As for Iowa, you don't know that. Had they beat Michigan State in 2015, they're almost assuredly in the playoff on the end of an *** whooping from Alabama as well.

[Redux]

1 hour ago, FTW said:

 

You kind of just answered my question and your own  probably could lump 94 in there as well since PSU finished unbeaten and #2. It's just one of those things where you'll never know who would win (97 Mich or 94 PSU) because the games didn't happen.

 

In no way shape or form does that take any credence away from Nebraska's claim to the titles, and also Nebraska would have won in 1997 hands down not even really that debatable.

 

Alabama claims 17 national titles according to Wikipedia, go ahead and take a gander if you like.  I promise that roughly half of them hold a hell of a lot less water than Nebraska splitting the national championship with another undefeated team.

[Dansker]

53 minutes ago, Redux said:

 

In no way shape or form does that take any credence away from Nebraska's claim to the titles, and also Nebraska would have won in 1997 hands down not even really that debatable.

 

Alabama claims 17 national titles according to Wikipedia, go ahead and take a gander if you like.  I promise that roughly half of them hold a hell of a lot less water than Nebraska splitting the national championship with another undefeated team.

 

Wikipedia is not a reliable source lol. Every team that has won or feels they deserved it has an argument over a NC. I'm just simply stating that Nebraska is no exception to every other school out there. So there really is no point arguing over what we deserve and what other schools deserve. The average CFB fan is probably aware of our 5 NC's even millenialls out there.

[Redux]

Okay, you're clearly not getting what my point is.  Nebraska is only claiming 5 National Titles:

 

AP 1970

AP 1971

AP 1994

AP 1995

Coaches 1997

 

If you think those are even remotely disputable then you are in a very very very very slim minority and I think almost anyone here could verify this.  We do NOT claim 9 that we technically could: (1915, 1921, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1993, 1999)

 

Alabama claims it has won national titles in 1925, 1926, 1930, 1934, 1941, 1961, 1964, 1965, 1973, 1978, 1979, 1992, 2009, 2011, 2012, 2015, and 2017.  The years in question:

 

• 1978 — Finished 11-1 after a 14-7 win over Penn State in the Sugar Bowl. A whopping 24 entities picked a national champion that year, and seven chose Alabama. Eight of them chose 11-1 Oklahoma and nine picked 12-1 Southern Cal. The NCAA recognizes Alabama and USC as co-champions.
• 1973 — Fell to Notre Dame 24-23 in the Sugar Bowl to complete an 11-1 season. Alabama won the title awarded by United Press International and the coaches’ poll, which announced its winner before the bowls. That changed the following season. Notre Dame (11-0) is the NCAA’s recognized champion, but Michigan, Ohio State and Oklahoma were all awarded titles by various entities.
• 1965 — Defeated Nebraska 39-28 in the Orange Bowl to complete a 9-1-1 season. Four entities awarded the national title to Alabama, but another 12 favored 10-1 Michigan State. The NCAA recognizes them as  co-champions.
• 1964 — Lost to Texas 24-17 in the Orange Bowl to complete a 10-1 season. Four entities, including both major media polls, awarded the national title to Alabama, but did the final vote before the bowl games. That changed after this incident. Arkansas (11-0) and Notre Dame (9-1) are recognized as champions by the NCAA along with Alabama. Michigan (9-1) was one entity’s choice as champion as well.
• 1941 — Defeated Texas A&M 29-21 in the Cotton Bowl to complete a 9-2 season. The Houlgate System chose the Tide as its champion. The NCAA recognizes Minnesota (8-0) as the champion, as did 11 entities that season. Texas (8-1-1) was the choice of two other organizations.
• 1934 — Defeated Stanford 29-13 in the Rose Bowl to complete a 10-0 season. Five entities awarded the national title to Alabama, but another eight favored 8-0 Minnesota. The NCAA recognizes Minnesota as champion.
• 1930 — Defeated Washington State 24-0 in the Rose Bowl to complete a 10-0 season. Four entities awarded the national title to Alabama, but another eight favored 10-0 Notre Dame. The NCAA recognizes the Irish as champion.
• 1926 — Tied Stanford 7-7 in the Rose Bowl to complete a 9-0-1 season. Six entities awarded the national title to Alabama, but another four favored 10-0-1 Stanford. To add to the confusion, Navy (9-0-1), Michigan (7-1) and Lafayette (9-0) can also claim titles.

So, we could be like Alabama and claim a total of 14 National Titles, but of those other 9 they aren't worth claiming.  That's the point.

[4skers89]

Let Alabama have their 14 titles. I haven’t been there but from what I can gather they don’t have much else going for them.