The SEC Forum at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

If it wasn't a concept at the time, then the team didn't "earn it."

Lots of teams had undefeated seasons or very good seasons and were never recognized for it.  Just the way it is.

I think a method that's mostly agreed upon and mostly recognized by most parties involved, is good enough.  For decades that was the AP and coaches' polls.  Then the BCS, then the CFP.  

None are perfect, but for the most part since the 1940s, folks have known what it takes to win one.  It might not have been overly fair or egalitarian, as the old quote goes, about how a team can win the national championship-- "First, Notre Dame has to lose."  But at least you knew what you were up against.

I guess it's a derivative of "dropping it on a dime" which would imply dropping the pass into a very small space?  Just a guess.

Last year we had Penix play the game of his career against us, making impossible throws even under heavy pressure, and then a week later he crapped out against Michigan.  Here's hoping that THIS time, the previous games are the ones where the QB played out of his mind, and against us he regresses to the mean.

Anyway, Texas is very familiar with this QB, having beaten him 3 out of 3 times while he was at Kansas State.  It's true he didn't have the same surrounding cast, but if any defense can be ready for him, it'll be the Horns.

Bad matchup for Texas, good matchup for Georgia.  That's just the way it works out sometimes.

Last year I think if Texas gets matched against Alabama or Michigan in the first round of the CFP, and Michigan or Alabama gets matched up against Washington, then Washington loses in the first round, Texas wins both rounds, and wins the NC.  U-Dub's tremendous strength in its QB and receivers, just ended up being too much for Texas' biggest weakness in our terrible secondary.  But Michigan and Alabama didn't struggle as much in that area and I think would have beaten Washington. Michigan obviously DID beat Washington the next week.

And on our side, Texas obviously matched up just fine against Alabama, having beaten them already by double digits in their own stadium.  And I believe Texas matched up very well against Michigan too, and would have had an excellent chance at beating them.  The one team Texas DIDN'T match up well against, was Washington, and we saw how that turned out.

The NCAA doesn't actually "recognize" any D1-A/FBS football championships.  It just lists all of the various ones available-- including the rando "100 years after the fact computer algorithms"-- on its website.

They recognize major-for-the-time lists of champions, and that's more or less recognizing a champion while not awarding a championship yourself.  

Caspar Whitney was considered a major selector as early as 1905.  Wikipedia says so, so it has to be true.  If the NCAA recognizes selectors, they de facto recognize champions.  Just that nobody picked A&M that year.  

I'd have zero qualms about LSU claiming the 1908 NC, especially considering the dumbness with Auburn that screwed them out of the SIAA title.  They don't, and likely never will.  But it's listed on the NCAA's website, so that also has to be true

All anything is is lists, really.  

I don't really care for the Decades-After-The-Fact polls that retroactively look at who they would've awarded NCs to if they'd been around.  But if an organization in that time awarded a title and the NCAA recognizes it--because they don't recognize many such things--I don't see anything wrong or desperate about a school claiming a title. 

The NCAA has no football championship for D1-A/FBS.  It never has.  It doesn't "recognize" anything.  It puts a list on a website of a variety of rando organizations/publications that claim to award national championships.  Feel free to claim or endorse whichever of those you like.  I'll continue to endorse the AP Poll, the Coaches' Poll, the BCS, and the CFP.

By the way, the AP could still theoretically select a different champion than the BCS or CFP tournament winner, and IMO it would be no more nor less valid than it ever has been. Because the CFP tournament itself already doesn't necessarily get the selection or seeding right, I don't view the outcome of that tournament as necessarily correct, to the exclusion of a differing AP Poll champion.