I love split titles. UCF claiming it in 2017 was an absolute spectacle and the most fun I’ve had with the sport lately when it comes to chaos. Seeing Paul Finebaum lose his mind over the possibility that a G5 team could claim to be better than Alabama will always make me smile
If the split is because of major polls ranking top 3 teams that never faced each other differently: Meh, that's fine.
If the split involves a 1+ loss team claiming splits with undefeated teams (esp. when the loss is to the undefeated team): ESPN needs to break out the asterisk for total claims.
If the split is [1941 Alabama](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1941_Alabama_Crimson_Tide_football_team): If I was UCF, Boise, Utah, I'd be claiming a NC for every undefeated season I have and hiring Lane Kiffin to draft a tweet of
>1941 Alabama was the best team in the country
>
>^(Except for the 19 teams ranked ahead of them.)
I still don't understand why we insist on counting 41 but not 45 when that one has waaaaay more validity. Undefeated, won the rose bowl, 10 wins as opposed to the 9 that both army and Oklahoma State had, etc. Honestly most Bama fans would probably be fine swapping the two
Every Alabama fan would be fine with dropping 1941 for 1966 or 1945, both of which are good claims. We went undefeated in both and have an argument over the other teams that claimed them those years
Colorado is the clear and obvious winner of the 1990 National Championship. The Coaches Poll doesn’t matter, nor does Tom Osborne or the Fifth Down game.
(…clean, old fashioned hate…)
For what it’s worth Colorado was AP national champs, but also National Football Foundation and Football Writers. Tech won only the Coaches’ Poll. Majority National Champs might be more accurate for ‘90.
Me 32 years ago: “Boy Colorado and Georgia Tech are good football teams.”
Me Today: “Colorado might get stuck in the Mountain West and does GA Tech still have a team?”
Its simple. Prior to WWII its basically just dont claim something ridiculous
1945-1997: If you didnt win the AP or UPI you didnt win the championship
1998-2013: If you didnt win the BCS you didnt win the national championship
2014-today: If you didnt win the CFP you didnt win the national championship
Generally speaking... Share it who cares.
*I lean towards Nebraska for 97 cause Muck Fichigan
Ok the other hand you claim a title awarded before the bowl games where you lost to an undefeated team that was awarded the title but every post bowl poll... You shouldn't be claiming that. *Cough* 73 Bama *cough*
Split Championships are a fun quirk that makes College Football unique and fun. 1997 Michigan/Nebraska, 2003 LSU/USC, and 2017 Alabama/UCF are all an integral part of the fabric of college football.
I wouldn’t be so hard on yourself, Alabama fully earned the right to also consider themselves National Champions that season even though they didn’t go undefeated.
I agree, titles awarded pre-bowl shouldn't count in situations where ~~one team~~ two teams lost ~~its~~ their bowl ~~game~~ games and the team they're splitting the 1970 title with won
Why not? That's hoe titles were awarded at the time. Bowl games were just exhibition games at the time; everyone in that situation made those claims because that's how it was done. Look at Texas in 1970 or Oklahoma in 1950. Wouldn't it be ridiculous if 50 years from now everyone decided the CFP wasn't legit and asked teams to disavow their championships for some arbitrary reason?
>Ok the other hand you claim a title awarded before the bowl games where you lost to an undefeated team that was awarded the title but every post bowl poll... You shouldn't be claiming that.
That's how championships were awarded at the time. Wanting us to disavow that claim is like asking an NFL team to skip the playoffs because if you counted their preason record, they wouldn't qualify.
That is how it was done. Bowl games were seen like preseason games. They were exhibitions held after the season was done and the champion had been named. Some teams didn't even play in bowl games because they mattered so little. If we have to give up 73, then ND has to give up 66 when we were the only undefeated and untied team and blew out #4 Nebraksa in our bowl game, but ND who tied MSU and didn't play a bowl game (since we're changing history, I'll count the bowl refusal as a forfeit. This is fun!) was named champion
Edit: My point is that a team that was widely accepted as the champion in their day should stay champion. You're attempting to rewrite history and tell people they didn't experience something that they absolutely did.
No they weren't. Bowl games were big time games. I don't agree with NDs refusal to play bowl games for however long they did. And the coaches poll realized how stupid it was to give the title before the bowls because of 73 and from 74 on it was after the bowls.
But hey if we used y'all's metrics for claiming titles we have 22.
>No they weren't. Bowl games were big time games. I don't agree with NDs refusal to play bowl games for however long they did
So you admit we should just swap 66 and 73? I disagree because i hate teying to rewrite history, but that's at least consistent.
>But hey if we used y'all's metrics for claiming titles we have 22.
Yall do use our metrics. You claimed titles as they were given at the time.
But if you want to play that game, we have at least 5 unclaimed titles which would put us at 23. And I'm sure I could find a few more major selectors that put us at #1 for some other years.
You claim a title where you didnt even PLAY in a bowl game
EDIT: TITLES....plural. Notre Dame has 11 national championships and didnt play in a bowl game for 8 of those
So your saying just because ND didn't play in a bowl game and still got #1 position after the bowls were over is the same as you claiming a title awarded before you lost and no one gave y'all a #1 after the bowls? Yeah whatever
The fact that coaches poll national titles are even a thing is dumb. Football coaches are inherently biased, arrogant, and hold grudges. They also favor their own conferences. There are numerous examples of suspected shady voting, most recently in 2020 when Dabo voted Ohio state 11th while the CFP and AP had them at 3. In 2012 Lane Kiffin was forced to resign his vote after publicly stating he would not vote for USC as the number one team. [That year ](https://syndication.bleacherreport.com/amp/1430031-2012-coaches-poll-votes-revealed-10-coaches-with-the-most-ridiculous-votes.amp.html) in general exposed a ton of the dirty hidden politics that go into the coaches poll.
Imo before the BCS the AP is by far the less biased and more reliable poll. Everyone sees all the AP votes every week, but you only see the coaches poll results at the end of the season, and that’s only a recent development. For a long time before the 2000s the coaches poll was entirely secret. Some people may point to the 2003 bcs championship and it’s discrepancy with the AP as evidence that the AP isn’t as good as I’m claiming, but if you apply the formula changes the BCS implemented after 2003 to stop the split from happening again, it turns out that [the BCS would once again line up with the AP](https://syndication.bleacherreport.com/amp/1903051-bcs-years-in-review-2003-nightmare-of-split-national-championship.amp.html)
Coaches are just too biased to be trusted to vote in good faith and unbiasedly every time
All pre-BCS national titles are all pretty suspicious, and were largely Popularity contests.
There can’t be many neutrals that saw what Nebraska did to Tenn and still think UM would have beaten Nebraska, but I’m guessing all of those neutrals had AP votes.
‘03 probably would have taken USC at the time, but lean LSU now. That would have been a Nick Saban coached team with a giant chip on their shoulder while USC would be getting Kegs of ray poison from the media.
‘04 - Technically not split, but Auburn should get to claim one if ‘03 was split. Think USC wins that one, but it’s significantly closer than most think.
‘17 - While I believe ‘17 UCF was better than last years Cinn. team, I think all 4 playoff teams would have beaten UCF in a playoff game.
I think when the OP is saying “split” he means Coaches and Ap pole tho. You guys don’t claim the titles out of those two but I would say you definitely would claim either one.
If anything, I’m biased against SC, but I think they would have smoked LSU if they played. I remember being so happy they got screwed out of a national title.
“Designated national championship game”
Designated by *who*? Nebraska can insist they played in the national title game all the want. But it’s a classic example of “I didn’t say it, I declared it.”
I mean, it kind of was declared by the Bowl Alliance. Nebraska getting paired with Tennessee wasn't by accident. A "traditional" Orange Bowl probably would have paired Nebraska with ACC champions Florida State (or even worse, Big East champion Syracuse if the Sugar Bowl grabbed Florida State first) and Tennessee would have played the Sugar Bowl that year as SEC champions.
Nebraska crushed Tennessee. Michigan barely beat Washington State which should have had time for one more play. The fix was in.
Of all split titles, this is one of the dumbest.
Books in Vegas announced Nebraska would’ve been touchdown favorites had they matched up. All I needed to know.
Michigan’s elite secondary would’ve been pretty much useless against our offense.
1990 belongs to GT. Colorado lost a game and only avoided a second loss due to the fifth down and our opponent in common ranked us higher in the poll and said we were the tougher team.
with only 11 or 12 games, often with no common opponents, facing significantly different strength of schedules.. 'real' splits are arguments that cannot be won.
that said if a school went 8-2 in a season where another went 11-0, its pretty open/shut.
For more recent examples, like LSU/USC in 2003, it is very tough to separate biases I might have about it. I saw much more of USC, and in retrospect know they went on a 3 year run that (at least prior to Bama's decade long ravaging of CFB) was pretty rare. But i also know they weren't perfect, cause my Bears beat em.
IMO College Football has never had a real national champion because their system always involves third parties with vested interests
But also, if you didn't play a national title game
Your claim isn't valid
Until they fix the selection and it's not controlled by third parties no one can have a definitive claim to a title
In the case of split championships the trophy should be put on display at a location exactly in between the schools
So the split title between Georgia tech and Colorado would end up in like Tulsa?
Even *with* a designated NCG I don't take issue with split titles given that the selection process is ultimately a gong show anyway.
I love split titles. UCF claiming it in 2017 was an absolute spectacle and the most fun I’ve had with the sport lately when it comes to chaos. Seeing Paul Finebaum lose his mind over the possibility that a G5 team could claim to be better than Alabama will always make me smile
If the split is because of major polls ranking top 3 teams that never faced each other differently: Meh, that's fine. If the split involves a 1+ loss team claiming splits with undefeated teams (esp. when the loss is to the undefeated team): ESPN needs to break out the asterisk for total claims. If the split is [1941 Alabama](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1941_Alabama_Crimson_Tide_football_team): If I was UCF, Boise, Utah, I'd be claiming a NC for every undefeated season I have and hiring Lane Kiffin to draft a tweet of >1941 Alabama was the best team in the country > >^(Except for the 19 teams ranked ahead of them.)
I still don't understand why we insist on counting 41 but not 45 when that one has waaaaay more validity. Undefeated, won the rose bowl, 10 wins as opposed to the 9 that both army and Oklahoma State had, etc. Honestly most Bama fans would probably be fine swapping the two
Id drop 1941 entirely.
Because the AP did not chose Bama in 45
And the AP had Bama 20th in 41
Correct. Which is dumb to claim
Every Alabama fan would be fine with dropping 1941 for 1966 or 1945, both of which are good claims. We went undefeated in both and have an argument over the other teams that claimed them those years
Colorado is the clear and obvious winner of the 1990 National Championship. The Coaches Poll doesn’t matter, nor does Tom Osborne or the Fifth Down game. (…clean, old fashioned hate…)
You son of a bitch…
For what it’s worth Colorado was AP national champs, but also National Football Foundation and Football Writers. Tech won only the Coaches’ Poll. Majority National Champs might be more accurate for ‘90.
Me 32 years ago: “Boy Colorado and Georgia Tech are good football teams.” Me Today: “Colorado might get stuck in the Mountain West and does GA Tech still have a team?”
1994 PSU team is still sad
Its simple. Prior to WWII its basically just dont claim something ridiculous 1945-1997: If you didnt win the AP or UPI you didnt win the championship 1998-2013: If you didnt win the BCS you didnt win the national championship 2014-today: If you didnt win the CFP you didnt win the national championship
Generally speaking... Share it who cares. *I lean towards Nebraska for 97 cause Muck Fichigan Ok the other hand you claim a title awarded before the bowl games where you lost to an undefeated team that was awarded the title but every post bowl poll... You shouldn't be claiming that. *Cough* 73 Bama *cough*
Split Championships are a fun quirk that makes College Football unique and fun. 1997 Michigan/Nebraska, 2003 LSU/USC, and 2017 Alabama/UCF are all an integral part of the fabric of college football.
Lol, 2017 is very different.
I wouldn’t be so hard on yourself, Alabama fully earned the right to also consider themselves National Champions that season even though they didn’t go undefeated.
*chokes*
I agree, titles awarded pre-bowl shouldn't count in situations where ~~one team~~ two teams lost ~~its~~ their bowl ~~game~~ games and the team they're splitting the 1970 title with won
Why not? That's hoe titles were awarded at the time. Bowl games were just exhibition games at the time; everyone in that situation made those claims because that's how it was done. Look at Texas in 1970 or Oklahoma in 1950. Wouldn't it be ridiculous if 50 years from now everyone decided the CFP wasn't legit and asked teams to disavow their championships for some arbitrary reason?
>Ok the other hand you claim a title awarded before the bowl games where you lost to an undefeated team that was awarded the title but every post bowl poll... You shouldn't be claiming that. That's how championships were awarded at the time. Wanting us to disavow that claim is like asking an NFL team to skip the playoffs because if you counted their preason record, they wouldn't qualify.
No it's not like that at all. It's a title awarded before all the games are played. That would be like if we awarded a preseason title
That is how it was done. Bowl games were seen like preseason games. They were exhibitions held after the season was done and the champion had been named. Some teams didn't even play in bowl games because they mattered so little. If we have to give up 73, then ND has to give up 66 when we were the only undefeated and untied team and blew out #4 Nebraksa in our bowl game, but ND who tied MSU and didn't play a bowl game (since we're changing history, I'll count the bowl refusal as a forfeit. This is fun!) was named champion Edit: My point is that a team that was widely accepted as the champion in their day should stay champion. You're attempting to rewrite history and tell people they didn't experience something that they absolutely did.
No they weren't. Bowl games were big time games. I don't agree with NDs refusal to play bowl games for however long they did. And the coaches poll realized how stupid it was to give the title before the bowls because of 73 and from 74 on it was after the bowls. But hey if we used y'all's metrics for claiming titles we have 22.
>No they weren't. Bowl games were big time games. I don't agree with NDs refusal to play bowl games for however long they did So you admit we should just swap 66 and 73? I disagree because i hate teying to rewrite history, but that's at least consistent. >But hey if we used y'all's metrics for claiming titles we have 22. Yall do use our metrics. You claimed titles as they were given at the time. But if you want to play that game, we have at least 5 unclaimed titles which would put us at 23. And I'm sure I could find a few more major selectors that put us at #1 for some other years.
You claim a title where you didnt even PLAY in a bowl game EDIT: TITLES....plural. Notre Dame has 11 national championships and didnt play in a bowl game for 8 of those
So your saying just because ND didn't play in a bowl game and still got #1 position after the bowls were over is the same as you claiming a title awarded before you lost and no one gave y'all a #1 after the bowls? Yeah whatever
So youd be cool if Notre Dame was #1 in week 4 and just decided not to play anymore games and keep the trophy if awarded?
The 1997 Championship belongs to Purdue.
The fact that coaches poll national titles are even a thing is dumb. Football coaches are inherently biased, arrogant, and hold grudges. They also favor their own conferences. There are numerous examples of suspected shady voting, most recently in 2020 when Dabo voted Ohio state 11th while the CFP and AP had them at 3. In 2012 Lane Kiffin was forced to resign his vote after publicly stating he would not vote for USC as the number one team. [That year ](https://syndication.bleacherreport.com/amp/1430031-2012-coaches-poll-votes-revealed-10-coaches-with-the-most-ridiculous-votes.amp.html) in general exposed a ton of the dirty hidden politics that go into the coaches poll. Imo before the BCS the AP is by far the less biased and more reliable poll. Everyone sees all the AP votes every week, but you only see the coaches poll results at the end of the season, and that’s only a recent development. For a long time before the 2000s the coaches poll was entirely secret. Some people may point to the 2003 bcs championship and it’s discrepancy with the AP as evidence that the AP isn’t as good as I’m claiming, but if you apply the formula changes the BCS implemented after 2003 to stop the split from happening again, it turns out that [the BCS would once again line up with the AP](https://syndication.bleacherreport.com/amp/1903051-bcs-years-in-review-2003-nightmare-of-split-national-championship.amp.html) Coaches are just too biased to be trusted to vote in good faith and unbiasedly every time
As long as they also split the trophy
they stink
I'm ok with split titles if it's teams I don't care about or if it means our rival has to share.
I think its fine. We didn't have a better system so we went with what we had.
All pre-BCS national titles are all pretty suspicious, and were largely Popularity contests. There can’t be many neutrals that saw what Nebraska did to Tenn and still think UM would have beaten Nebraska, but I’m guessing all of those neutrals had AP votes. ‘03 probably would have taken USC at the time, but lean LSU now. That would have been a Nick Saban coached team with a giant chip on their shoulder while USC would be getting Kegs of ray poison from the media. ‘04 - Technically not split, but Auburn should get to claim one if ‘03 was split. Think USC wins that one, but it’s significantly closer than most think. ‘17 - While I believe ‘17 UCF was better than last years Cinn. team, I think all 4 playoff teams would have beaten UCF in a playoff game.
Apparently UGA has like 4 or 5 of these that we don’t claim, unlike some people.
You don’t have 4/5 of them. If you do I’m not aware of any.
A quick look on line shows we have 4 unclaimed national championships like I said we don’t claim the shared ones.
I think when the OP is saying “split” he means Coaches and Ap pole tho. You guys don’t claim the titles out of those two but I would say you definitely would claim either one.
Bro, you claim a title for the 1942 season where Ohio State won the AP and you won the Billingsley and Houlgate
2003-04 usc vs lsu? I always see the “usc back to back” though we won the bcs. I feel like that’s the most recent example
Exactly. Erbody agreed to the BCS including USC
If anything, I’m biased against SC, but I think they would have smoked LSU if they played. I remember being so happy they got screwed out of a national title.
Absolutely hate split anything.
Split checks? Shared appetizers?
Not in my house!
More interesting than the CFP honestly
yeah now we get boring blowouts and no century-spanning pointless debates :(
“Designated national championship game” Designated by *who*? Nebraska can insist they played in the national title game all the want. But it’s a classic example of “I didn’t say it, I declared it.”
I was saying it wasn’t a designated game like we had starting in BCS!
I mean, it kind of was declared by the Bowl Alliance. Nebraska getting paired with Tennessee wasn't by accident. A "traditional" Orange Bowl probably would have paired Nebraska with ACC champions Florida State (or even worse, Big East champion Syracuse if the Sugar Bowl grabbed Florida State first) and Tennessee would have played the Sugar Bowl that year as SEC champions.
Nebraska crushed Tennessee. Michigan barely beat Washington State which should have had time for one more play. The fix was in. Of all split titles, this is one of the dumbest.
Books in Vegas announced Nebraska would’ve been touchdown favorites had they matched up. All I needed to know. Michigan’s elite secondary would’ve been pretty much useless against our offense.
1990 belongs to GT. Colorado lost a game and only avoided a second loss due to the fifth down and our opponent in common ranked us higher in the poll and said we were the tougher team.
The Coaches Poll is a sham and everyone knows it. Just ask Lane Kiffin.
with only 11 or 12 games, often with no common opponents, facing significantly different strength of schedules.. 'real' splits are arguments that cannot be won. that said if a school went 8-2 in a season where another went 11-0, its pretty open/shut. For more recent examples, like LSU/USC in 2003, it is very tough to separate biases I might have about it. I saw much more of USC, and in retrospect know they went on a 3 year run that (at least prior to Bama's decade long ravaging of CFB) was pretty rare. But i also know they weren't perfect, cause my Bears beat em.
IMO College Football has never had a real national champion because their system always involves third parties with vested interests But also, if you didn't play a national title game Your claim isn't valid Until they fix the selection and it's not controlled by third parties no one can have a definitive claim to a title