User talk:192.67.109.85
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Why did you remove this information? I replaced it. If you want to remove it - please justify why it should be removed on the Article talk page. Johntex\talk 14:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- I removed it because there is no AP national championship. There is an AP poll, in which they were ranked #1, but no championship.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.67.109.85 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 2006 June 14 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. I think that is splitting hairs. The NCAA does not recognize a Division I-A football championship at all, officially. However, they list the winner of the AP poll on the their website alongside the BCS winners. Johntex\talk 15:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- I see you made an attempt to reword the statement.[1] I am not opposed to your new wording, however, it is inconsistent with the wording on the page with regards to other championships. For example, immediately above the USC entry, there are two other teams listed as being the AP national championship. There are also teams listed as the UPI championship. I think leaving them all called championships is cleanest - but if you want to change them it seems they should all be changed. What do you think? Johntex\talk 15:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- I see what you mean. It certainly flows better. I won't object if you change it back. I may do a little research to see how other universities make similar claims. That particular year weighs heavily on me because I'm, admittedly, an LSU fan and I got tired of all the claims of a split national championship because there's no such thing. Even though the NCAA does not recognize a champion, USC signed up to play by the same rules as other schools so that a champion could be crowned, and they were not it that year. I digress, though, and I'll agree to your wording until I do a little more research. Thanks for the civilized discussion. Browsing the history of this particular article, it seems this is a rare occurrence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.67.109.85 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 2006 June 14 (UTC)
- Thanks - I know what you mean. I am no huge fan of the BCS. Don't get me wrong, it was better than the old system where the top two teams only met rarely and then by random chance alone. However, it is so inferior to a true play-off system. Even if the play-off system only includes 4 or 8 teams, you would have a much greater chance that the "true" top 2 teams would be in the mix. We could still have all the other bowls played before hand and they would be no more nor less meaningful than they are today. I agree with your point that USC signed up to play under the BCS rules and I have made that point myself on many occassions. On the other hand, the AP notably did not agree to play by those rules, and I think the AP would still consider their poll to be a championship. I will continue to consider all these championships to be somewhat "mythical" until there is a play-off. The only exception would be in the rare years that the system gets lucky and there are exactly 2 unbeaten teams. I do consider the 2005 Texas Longhorn football team to be the legitimate champions, and I think that is a NPOV statement even considering my affiliations. Johntex\talk 19:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- I see what you mean. It certainly flows better. I won't object if you change it back. I may do a little research to see how other universities make similar claims. That particular year weighs heavily on me because I'm, admittedly, an LSU fan and I got tired of all the claims of a split national championship because there's no such thing. Even though the NCAA does not recognize a champion, USC signed up to play by the same rules as other schools so that a champion could be crowned, and they were not it that year. I digress, though, and I'll agree to your wording until I do a little more research. Thanks for the civilized discussion. Browsing the history of this particular article, it seems this is a rare occurrence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.67.109.85 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 2006 June 14 (UTC)
- I see you made an attempt to reword the statement.[1] I am not opposed to your new wording, however, it is inconsistent with the wording on the page with regards to other championships. For example, immediately above the USC entry, there are two other teams listed as being the AP national championship. There are also teams listed as the UPI championship. I think leaving them all called championships is cleanest - but if you want to change them it seems they should all be changed. What do you think? Johntex\talk 15:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. I think that is splitting hairs. The NCAA does not recognize a Division I-A football championship at all, officially. However, they list the winner of the AP poll on the their website alongside the BCS winners. Johntex\talk 15:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
By the way, if you want to do so, you can type ~~~~ at the end of your talk page messages and your Username (or IP if you have no user name) and date/time stamp will automatically be included. It is not a policy but it is general practice. It makes it easier to follow discussions. Getting a username also helps. Although Wikipedia is officially just as open to IP address users as to users with usernames - human nature is to place more trust in someone who has a nickname that is easier to remember. It also ensures all edits are known to be yours, even if you switch computers or IP addresses. Otherwise, editors can never be sure if it is the same person, or a new person who just happened to be randomly assigned the same IP address. I look forward to working with you on more articles! Johntex\talk 19:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 | This is the discussion page for an anonymous user, identified by the user's numerical IP address. Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users. Registering also hides your IP address. [IP info · Traceroute · WHOIS · Abuse · City · RDNS] · [RIRs: America · Europe · Africa · Asia-Pacific · Latin America/Caribbean] |
