By Wally
Actually, there’s apparently three ways to count college football national titles … and whenever a team like Alabama wins a title and claims it’s their 13th national title, you hear whispers in the crowd … like “How is that possible?” “Really … that many?” and “I thought this was only their 8th”. And of course the Michigan Skunkbears … er, uh, Wolverines are famous for quoting the 10 titles they won before 1900 when only 3 teams even played college football. Okay … I tend to exaggerate when it comes to Michigan. Anyway, what you the college football fan really needs to know is that there are indeed a number of ways to count these mythical national titles. Finally, I stumbled across a great article today in Blue & Gold Illustrated that finally spells it out for all of us. Lou Somogyi, a “CFB historian”, says there are 3 ways to count up those titles. Take a look:
https://www.blueandgold.com/content/?aid=8644
Hopefully, this will end the debate … or maybe it will narrow down the debate to which of the 3 ways is “most accurate”. At least now I know where some of these outlandish claims are coming from. Ya hear that, Michigan! You, too, Alabama … we’re all on to you now!
I don’t care what system they use, as long as ND is #1 at the end.
Seriously, the BGI article speaks to a point that has always bothered me. There is difference between polls (derived from voting) and rating systems (derived from one idiot’s interpretation and often, especially today, put into a computer program to “legitimize” it – LOL!). It’s the “rating systems” that have messed up the number of national championships accrued by any program. How could a team “voted” #20 be “rated” #1? Some genius’ computer system. Here’s the example I often cite. I think it was 1990, the season was winding down and the computer ratings were a significan factor in determining the national champion. There were 7 such “strictly factual, data-driven” ratings systems being used. 6 of them ranked Washington anywhere from 5th to 7th. The remaining system ranked Washington #1. That system happened to be administered by the Seattle Times. Obviously, their rating guru had “programmed” his syetem to give extra weight to Washington’s strengths. I had NEVER put much faith in computer ratings and that insytance confirmed that my reservations were well founde and appropriate. Somogyi is nice to recognize the three ways we can tally national champions. I always use “consensus” but would be just as happy with polls (voted). Just vote ND #1.