Talk:Mythical national championship

Deletion

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.180.45.200 (talk) 22:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Heap of OR / POV fork

"Mythical national championship" is just a disparaging term certain sportswriters and fans use to refer to the college football championship, be it the BCS title game or the AP poll. It has no independent reality except as a rhetorical expression for unofficial (not NCAA endorsed) college football championships. I don't see why it needs it own article, when it really belongs under critiques of the college football national championship. All the other supposed uses of MNC are the author's original research, and are not widely employed by secondary sources. JoeFink (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed the deletion banner that suggested that the term is a neologism. A quick google search produced over 11,000 instances of the term, and it's well known to pretty much any college football fan. Perhaps it should be merged with another article, but it should most definitely NOT be deleted, at least for the reason listed. Zeng8r (talk) 00:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm AfD'ing it, then. If you can find valid sources that use this term, then put them in the article. It's been tagged as lacking references for fifteen months already. Mr. Darcy talk 01:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

US only?

Does this term only apply to the US? 70.55.203.112 (talk) 04:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Mythical - This is an imprecise and perjorative term

A myth by definition is: 1. a. A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth. b. Such stories considered as a group: the realm of myth.

2. A popular belief or story that has become associated with a person, institution, or occurrence, especially one considered to illustrate a cultural ideal: a star whose fame turned her into a myth; the pioneer myth of suburbia.

3. A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology.

4. A fictitious story, person, or thing: "German artillery superiority on the Western Front was a myth" Leon Wolff.

There is nothing fictious about a national championship awarded by experts, as opposed to those awarded by the NCAA. All such national championships are simply "Pre NCAA" or "Non NCAA" national championships. As others have pointed out, as it currently stands, all NCAA football national championships are awarded, therefore they are at risk of becoming "mythical" should a play-off be institiuted. This, of course, is absurd. I suggest this article be renamed or deleted.

69.230.188.14 (talk) 08:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.230.188.14 (talk) 08:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous this entry even exists

The fact that this page even exists undermines the very essence of Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is not about "opinion" it's about fact.

Just because something is a common colloquialism doesn't make it fit or suitable for a wikipedia entry. The fact that there is no neutral point of view that exists for this topic, the only purpose for this page to exist is because people disagree with the current BCS system, means this entire page should be removed, and any information that people want to add to the BCS article should be done.

Wikipedia is not a place to voice a frustration with the system that is in place.

65.96.67.105 (talk) 02:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand all the objection here. The term "Mythical National Champion" has been used for much longer than the BCS has even been in existence. It is simply used for any sport which determines their national champion based on subjectivity (opinion) and not performance on the field (tournament). This term is used in high school sports as those teams never even play common opponents, much less eachother. Hell, the BCS is a move towards a true national champion as at least the top 2 teams play eachother so I don't think this article is an indictment on it so much as FBS college football as a whole. I think the article does a pretty good job in this regard, but if you have some suggestions then clean it up. But removing this article would be foolish as the term is common/notable and readers deserve an explanation. --otduff ^t/_c 19:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree completely, the term is commonly used and deserves an explanation. As far as I can tell this article is pretty informative about what the term means and how it is used. I really see nothing opinionated about it. The term has nothing to do with the BCS system. Look at the Bo Schembechler quote on the page, it's from the linked 1989 new york times article. So it's a term that has been in use for at least two decades now. Also, the term is completely accurate to describe the situation. Just look at the wiki article for myth: "a myth can also be a collectively held belief that has no basis in fact according to the speaker." This describes the situation completely, there is a collectively held belief (amongst the poll voters) that one team is the champion while it hasn't been proven by fact (actually playing each other). Thus, the term is accurate for describing any championship that was awarded by polls. Ryan2845 (talk) 20:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a term that has been used for a lot longer than two decades. I found this reference to "mythical national championship" in the 1939 Pitt yearbook: see here CrazyPaco (talk) 07:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Dang, nice find, Crazypaco. Going way back with your research. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 01:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

One point though, the BCS is not awarded based solely on polls, which is what the entire use of this isn't exactly accurante for the BCS right now. Playoffs, as defined by the link in the first line of this article is as follow "The playoffs, postseason, or finals of a sports league are a series of games played after the regular season by the top competitors, to determine the league champion or a similar accolade." The BCS currently takes the top competitors, and puts them in a game to playoff to see who is awarded that final championship trophy. While it may not be a multi tiered tournament, it is still a playoff, and the winner still needs to win the game on the field versus being awarded solely on the basis of polls which is the very essence of the use of this term.