Talk:1945 college football season

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.appollarchive.com/football/ap/seasons.cfm?appollid=74
  • In 1945 college football season on 2011-05-25 03:19:03, 404 Not Found
  • In 1945 college football season on 2011-06-04 16:33:17, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

All major selectors in 1945 (AP, Boand, Devold, Dunkel, Helms, Houlgate, Litkenhous, Poling, Williamson) named Army #1

For any given college football season in the AP-Poll era, the national champion listed in the college football season infobox is the team(s) that was contemporaneously selected at the end of the season. By any yardstick, Army was the overwhelming consensus selection for the 1945 title. All nine major selectors that existed in 1945 (AP, Boand, Devold, Dunkel, Helms, Houlgate, Litkenhous, Poling, Williamson) selected Army. Unanimous consensus happened in 1945; it cannot then un-happen (especially not 71 years later and especially not by self-selection, as Oklahoma State did in 2016). There was no vote in 2016 by the AFCA membership; the AFCA essentially began passing out candy upon request. According to the AFCA under its program, any school with a spider-thread claim between 1922 and 1949 can apply and receive an AFCA trophy.

Reality: There was never any contemporary doubt about the national champion in 1945, especially with the overwhelming superiority demonstrated by one team, Army, which has been called the greatest college football team of all-time. Jeff in CA (talk) 05:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Again, deleting and suppressing quotes from the AFCA itself in order to push an opinion article with unsourced claims that support your personal opinion is bad faith editing and edit warring. An AFCA quote explaining why a national championship was given to Oklahoma A&M should not be repeatedly suppressed due to it not supporting your personal opinion. 72.214.239.30 (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

To add on to 72.214.239.30's argument, the source you cite has multiple unsourced claims, is not accurate (Texas A&M and TCU have both claimed retroactive AFCA championships, and comes across as heavily biased. In Wikipedia, biased opinion articles that are not factually accurate are not encouraged over source able quotes that are much more relevant and useful to the discussion at hand. 137.48.255.225 (talk) 12:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

(1) The Oklahoman is the largest daily newspaper in Oklahoma and is the only regional daily that covers the Greater Oklahoma City area. It most definitely is a reliable source (WP:RS). You are being persistently disruptive (WP:DE) by deleting this 2017 citation time and time again because you don’t like its explanatory content regarding the team of which you are a fan.

(2) The passage copied from the CBS Sports website, of which you are apparently very fond, is never deleted. It merely appears in the citations, where all the other copied passages from cited sources in this article also appear.

(3) IP sockpuppets, like your other socks, are subject to WP:SOCK, Jeff in CA (talk) 14:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Oklahoma State section needs to be rewritten

https://rpr-ratings.com/bonus-content/afca-brc/ Blocked sock of DylanPuma20. Dcheagle • talk • contribs 03:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Someone that did a deeper dive into the AFCA BRC came to the conclusion through communication with the AFCA and Todd Berry himself that the AFCA *did* in fact come up with a list of champions from 1922-1949.

“The BRC already compiled the list of teams that would receive retroactive titles from that window. There are 21 years where a single team was named champion, and 7 years where co-champions were named.”

Claiming that Oklahoma State needed to apply to be named champions is completely inaccurate. The application process was simply to claim the trophy after being selected. WizdomT (talk) 18:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

First the link is most likely not a Reliable Source and in the above link you provided it also clearly states That it was up to the schools to submit their claim to AFCA to either be awarded a trophy or to claim a trophy if they were named champion by the BRC, much like the 1950-1985 retroactive trophies. and there is clear evidence that can be backed up by reliable sources that OSU did in fact apply for consideration which was accepted. The only person that seems to want to ignore that fact is you.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 21:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Submitting an application to collect a trophy is *much* different than submitting an application to be selected champion. Anyone with any critical thinking skills would know that. WizdomT (talk) 21:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

No, it’s not. And please don’t denigrate other editors. Claiming the national championship trophy is the same thing as claiming a national championship. Jeff in CA (talk) 22:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

That is simply false. Applying to receive a trophy after being selected is absolutely not the same as applying to be considered for a championship. WizdomT (talk) 22:27, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Anyone with critical thinking skills can see that the AFCA didn't name any champions till after the schools had applied for it. If the AFCA wanted to simply name champions for the pre poll years, they would have done it. The clear fact remains that the AFCA at this time isn't awarded championships and trophies without the school first applying for it. Dcheagle • talk • contribs 22:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? Because my source that includes quotes from the AFCA directly disputes that. The team may not get the trophy, but the source that I included plainly states that champions were selected for each year regardless of application. WizdomT (talk) 22:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I believe an IP editor provided one on the Oklahoma State football talk page. Dcheagle • talk • contribs 00:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Your sockpuppet added one you mean. That still doesn’t explain why the AFCA director stated that they selected national champions for each year regardless of application status WizdomT (talk) 00:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I have told you this over and over quit accusing me of something I didn't do, and if the AFCA selected all these national champions, why haven't they released them then why sit back and hide them. The plain and simple fact that you want to clearly ignore is that OSU did in fact apply, as did TCU and Texas A&M for the ones they received. Dcheagle • talk • contribs 00:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

You have a history of doing it, and considering the IP address matches where you live, matches your writing style, and matches your opinion, it’s quite clear.

That being said, you still fail to explain why the AFCA director himself, when interviewed, said that the AFCA BRC did indeed crown a champion for each year regardless of application. WizdomT (talk) 00:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm just going to ignore the bassless accusation. The website you provided is not a reliable news source, for all we know the person who made that site made it all up find a reliable source that backs up your so-called "source" then we'll talk. Dcheagle • talk • contribs 00:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

It’s not baseless. It was laughably obvious. WizdomT (talk) 01:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

You would have an argument against my “unreliable sources”, however you simultaneously defend a Barry Tramel opinion article that makes repeated unsourced claims. Why? WizdomT (talk) 01:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Where Tramel got his sources is not up to me, but it still is a Reliable source whereas yours is not per RS. Dcheagle • talk • contribs 01:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

How? What exactly makes it a reliable source? It is an opinion article that does not source anything WizdomT (talk) 01:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

The Daily Oklahoman newspaper is a reliable source. If an article appears in that newspaper, it’s content is considered reliable.Jeff in CA (talk) 22:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Fascinating. So if someone writes that the sky is green, as long as it’s in “The Daily Oklahoman”, you would defend it as “reliable”?

Can you explain why? I’ve never considered opinion articles without any sources as reliable, so I’m baffled. WizdomT (talk) 23:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)