We Can Move Up To 3rd In All-Time Winning Percentages This Year!

[BuckeyeRob]

Originally Posted by ktffan

I know what the word consensus means. Let's review what was said.

1. I said the NCAA called Ohio State a consensus champion. That is a fact.

2. You said I didn't know what I was talking about because, you assured me, that the NCAA would do no such thing.

3. I showed exactly where the NCAA called Ohio State a consensus champion.

4. You get rude because you were shown to be wrong.

What I said and what you claimed was wrong what that the NCAA calls Ohio State a consensus champion and that is a fact.

Im going to assume you arent old enough to have been watching OSU football in the 1960's. I was and I can tell you definatively that the only rankings that mattered in the mind of college football fans was where you were ranked in either the AP poll or the UPI (later the UP) All of those other services were meaningless.

Alabama was ranked #1 in college football in both the AP and UPI. No one outside the most blinded buckeye fan considred OSU a national champ in 1961 PERIOD. I dont give a ratz arse what the NCAA book says about OSU being ranked by the FWAA. 1970 The RECOGNIZED champs were spilt between Nebraska and Texas....

[ktffan]

Originally Posted by 3yardsandacloud

I think you missed the point. Ohio State (at least in this one case) isn't listing the correct stats. This mistake will be passed along to the NCAA (or would be if it wasn't a spring game) ... then they (the NCAA) will be listing incorrect stats. I know this isn't really a concern for you as your interest lies in 'offical' stats, not 'accurate' ones.

I didn't miss the point, I was a little baffled how someone could prove my point so thoroughly and yet an attitude as if they are proving me wrong, so I responded neutrally. You see, it doesn't matter to me or to the rest of the world that the wrong person got credited with something because the only thing that matters is what's in the books, no matter what 5 guys on a message board say amongst themselves. If a running back failed to get credit for an extra yard and then he missed a record for that year they are not going to say, "oh give it to him anyways" because how it's in the book is how it's viewed. Official is official.

I'll give you an NHL example. In 1962 Bobby Hull tied the record for most goals in a season at 50. Earlier in the season, one of his linemates got credited with the goal and after the game the player claimed it did not hit his stick but the defenseman's stick and Hull should have been credited with a goal that would have given Hull the record on his how. However, the record showed 50 goals for years and indeed 50 goals in 50 game was THE standard for years. Regardless of what was "right", only what's in the books counts.

Another angle would be the imfamous Cal-Stanford game where Cal scored on the final kickoff on 5 laterals. There are some Stanford players who claimed one guy should have been down and that one of the laterals was forward. These guys refuse to acknowledged that Cal won the game. Regardless, it's in the books as a Cal win and only a handful of people say otherwise and nobody listens to them because it's offiically a Cal win.

What gets me most here is the notion that people have that somehow these web researchers have tapped into a source totally unknown to all mankind, as if these guys did something like went to the field where the game was played and carbon dated the dirt to find out who won and therefore their perspective is somehow unique. Most researchers, Stassen included, get their information either from the team, or from a source that gets it from the team. The team records what people recognized as official. While some alter them with reasons that can be supported, since the alterations are not official and not what people will view when reviewing them, what's the point in altering them?

[ktffan]

Originally Posted by BuckeyeRob

Im going to assume you arent old enough to have been watching OSU football in the 1960's.

You assume incorrectly. Your memory does not mesh with mine, nor does it mess with the newpaper and magazine article I read from the period. The UPI poll was highly suspect due to funny coaches vote. A good example was Illinois getting voted into the UPI final poll after a 2-7 season.

[BB73]

Hack Wilson's major league RBI record was in the books at 190 for over 50 years. It's now officially listed as 191, because research convinced major league baseball that the "official" record was incorrect.

What's official does matter, but that doesn't make it correct, or even permanently "official".

p.s. - yes, I took you off 'ignore'.

[3yardsandacloud]

Originally Posted by ktffan

I was a little baffled how someone could prove my point so thoroughly and yet an attitude as if they are proving me wrong ...

Why are you baffled? I stated EXACTLY what your position is:

"your interest lies in 'offical' stats, not 'accurate' ones"

This is fine by me. I know a lot of people who share your viewpopint. They don't care about accurate or inaccurate. They don't care about right or wrong ... they only care about "official". What was shown, is that the stat is obviously wrong. You may ignore that fact.


Just a few other 'official' stats that needed to be changed (baseball):

1. RECORD: Highest Batting Average, single season
WAS: .424 (Rogers Hornsby, 1924)
NOW: .426 (Nap Lajoie, 1901)
WHY: Lajoie's BA for 1901 has been "corrected" from .422 to .426.

2. RECORD: Most consecutive league batting titles
WAS: Nine (Ty Cobb, 1907 to 1915)
NOW: FIVE (Ty Cobb, 1911-1915)
WHY: Cobb is no longer credited with winning the AL batting title in 1910. His Hits and AB totals have now been corrected. This correction also reduces his career total from 4191 to just 4190 hits, and gives Cobb 11 instead of 12 total batting crowns.

3. RECORD: First "Modern Era" Triple Crown in National League
WAS: Heinie Zimmerman, 1912
NOW: Rogers Hornsby, 1922
WHY: Zimmerman RBI total for 1912 was reduced from 103 to 99, making Honus Wagner the NL-RBI leader for 1912. Zimmerman won the BA and HR titles that year, but not a "Triple Crown".

4. RECORD: Most RBI in a single MLB season
WAS: 190 (Hack Wilson, 1930)
NOW: 191 (Hack Wilson, 1930)
WHY: Review of 1930 box scores found one more RBI.

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

And to add one thing, if "official" is just "official" even after a recognition that the "official" stats aren't actually accurate, then Stassen is as reliable a source for information as is the NCAA. Which, was part of the whole point in the first place.

Officially, I could give a rats ass.