Talk:Mythical national championship

This article was proposed for deletion on 4 December 2006. I posted the following message on the user page of the individual (User:IanManka) that proposed this page for deletion:

"You proposed that the Mythical National Championship page deleted because it lacks sources and sounds like original research. I'll concede that it lacks sources, that is something that needs to be fixed, however, it is not original research. I think that it would have been better if you had simply tagged it with a "this article needs sources" tag. Could you please reconsider so that this valuable information doesn't get deleted. It is of great value to the college football community. Thanks."

Obviously, I don't think that this page should be deleted. It is valuable and has been rated as "Mid-importance" by Wikipedia:WikiProject College football.

Thanks. Seancp 22:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move

See Talk:NCAA_Division_I-A_national_football_championship#The_new_proposal. This article was created in good faith but without reference to WP:WINAD in order to define a term in current use on Usenet and similar fora. However, the article now contains useful list content that should be clearly identified as such per WP naming standards. - PhilipR 03:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Meh, obviously no one really cares enough to comment except me and Seancp so I'm withdrawing my suggestion. Maybe my understanding of WP:WINAD and naming standards for lists is deficient or something. I'm not crazy about how redundant this article is, but as long as I'm not the one maintaining it doesn't matter. Regards, PhilipR 00:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Move?

This article is an absolute disgrace to Wikipedia. The high school football and college basketball sections are both meaningless. As for the college football section, what little of it is useful can be added to the BCS article. Funny, I didn't hear anyone calling Texas a mythical national champion after they beat USC in the Rose Bowl. Sounds like the haters like to bring out this term when there isn't a unanimous choice. This article seems like the anger of a jilted fan expressed through a very poor article! Hey buddy...better a "mythical national championship" than no championship at all! 68.184.158.155 03:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I have my own problems with the article, but it's unlikely the motivation is as you surmise. It's a somewhat frequently-used term, and the so-called championship is "mythical" because the NCAA doesn't recognize a I-A football championship. That's an objective fact. But I agree it doesn't need a separate article from BCS or the others on the topic. Regards, PhilipR 04:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I had a long, diplomatic response all typed up but I lost it, so you'll have to settle for an angry rant. Dude, you're an idiot. "Mythical national championship" is a widely used term by both the American sports media (Example) and by football fans. And yes, Texas is referred to as mythical national champions because their championship is not officially recognized by the NCAA. Plain and simple, that's all the term is saying. And as for the high school football and college basketball sections, both are facts. High schools do claim championships based on polls, and they are referred to as MNC. And some colleges claim championship prior to 1939 when the NCAA sanctioned the tournament. Get over your insecurity. It's a legitimate term and a very useful Wikipedia article. Yes, it needs to be expanded, but so do many articles on this site, that doesn't mean they are a disgrace. It is my contention that this concept deserves its own article and does not need to be merged into any other articles. Seancp 05:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Seancp. This is a very common, non-biased term used in many US sports. I like that it has its own article because "BCS" is only a small part of what MNC means and has meant over the years. --SuperNova |T|C| 08:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh no sir I do not intend to offend you! I'm sorry, I was feeling so insecure that I came on Wikipedia to offer my opinion about an article that is a waste of internet space. Let me address the other two sections before getting to the football section. Anyone who knows ANYTHING about high school sports knows that there are no national champions. And one only needs a small knowledge of NCAA basketball history to understand that there weren't champions before 1939. As for football, I don't know how this merits an article. All the stuff in the current article is just history of the BCS. This article offers nothing that can't be added to NCAA Division 1-A National Football Championship. Those champions are what this term is referring to anyway. 68.184.158.155 15:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

So let's apply your logic of basketball mythical national champions to football. Prior to 1939, the NCAA did not sanction basketball championships. Just as in football, schools still claim national championships based on polls from this era. So now, let's say in the year 2011 the NCAA finally decides to go to a playoff for Division I-A football and officially recognize a champion, by your logic, there would be no football national champions before 2011. So all the past 130 years of college football would mean nothing. Of course, that's just ridiculous. To say that schools can't claim basketball championships prior to 1939 is just stupid too. Now for high schools, you may or may not like it, but the fact is that they do claim national championship and they do have polls that rank them. What's wrong with an article mentioning that? It's not saying that it's an official championship...it's saying it's MYTHICAL....there is no sanctioning body or tournament to determine it, so people can brag about a championship won by Southlake Carroll High School outside of Dallas, Texas but we all know that there is no way to tell who the real true national champion is. Furthermore, drop the issue. This article has survived deletion proposals and merger proposals, with the result being to leave it as is. It is a part of the Wikipedia College Football Project and has been given a ranking of "Mid-Importance." And here you come, Mr. Johnny Come Lately, and you're going to save Wikipedia 500 bytes of storage space on an article. There's more constructive things to do on Wikipedia than complain about a valid article. Seancp 16:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your Wikipedia tutorial, o wise one. Do you really think I care what level of importance this ranks? What an absolutely meaningless assessment. I will drop the issue when you present to me a good reason why this requires a SEPARATE article. Clearly in my last post I should have chosen my words more carefully. I didn't mean that schools can't claim national championships. Rather, there was no system in place to try to determine a champion ON THE FIELD. I never said that basketball was meaningless before champions were sanctioned by the NCAA. I don't know where you got that idea. Since this term is clearly a synonym for NCAA Division 1-A national football championship, it should be added to that article. And just out of curiosity, is ANYONE looking for information about high school sports going to come here before they go to a high school Wikipedia page? Again, thanks for your guide to Wikipedia. 68.184.158.155 13:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

While everyone is free to edit Wikipedia, we do ask that people follow some basic rules. In this case, I believe you should read over the WP:CIVIL policy as your comments are over the line. Talk about the issue, not about the user. --MECU≈talk 15:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

There's something wrong here

MNC is not "a national championship that is won without a tournament to determine an undisputed national champion". Rather, "MNC" is a term that is used to mock "a national championship that is won without a tournament ...". No school, team, or organization self-identifies their championship as an "MNC". No television schedule lists the "MNC" game. This article makes it sound like the term is somehow an official or recognized designation, when really it is an informal slang term.--BigΔT 22:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I've followed football at all levels since I was just a kid and I have NEVER until this article seen or heard reference to the AP football poll as a "mythical national championship". However, I have ALWAYS heard the national high school rankings referred to as a mythical national championship. High school teams play for state championships and some national media organizations like to publish a national ranking most likely as simply a semi-interesting point of discussion. There are not enough interstate high school games to establish any credibility to it and football fans know that. Hauk1net 20:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

What all these comments point to is that the article needs some sourcing to show how the term is actually used in the media.