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

[ktffan]

Originally Posted by Buckeyeskickbuttocks

I haven't disputed that. My point is, you're quibbling with me about 3 games even where MY data supports YOUR orginal point.

I found it humorous you are "validating" the NCAA with a "who cares?" site.

Originally Posted by Buckeyeskickbuttocks

Anyway, "official" does not require the conclusion "Error free"

Of course not, but official is official and it's what everybody who matters will accept.

Originally Posted by Buckeyeskickbuttocks

Tell me this, what is Stassen's motivation to be wrong?

I don't know that you have to be motivated to be wrong.

Originally Posted by Buckeyeskickbuttocks

Then, riddle me this, did OSU win a National Title in 1961? 1970? Why? Why not?

The NCAA calls them a consensus champion. I'd say yes.

Originally Posted by Buckeyeskickbuttocks

How about Michigan's 1901 Championship? Does it count?

In 1992, The NCAA published their record book and called them as such.

Originally Posted by Buckeyeskickbuttocks

Who did you like in 1928, Detroit, Georgia Tech or Southern Cal?

By the same source, in 1928, Georgia Tech and Southern Cal, although they do note Detroit's championship, so why not?

[ktffan]

Originally Posted by MililaniBuckeye

Wrong. It's a voluntary organization which has abosolutely no control what happened before its inception...zero, zip, zilch, nada.

You even admitted earlier that the NCAA record book has no record of game-by-game results like cfbdatawarehouse and stassen do...those site did something that the NCAA decided not to do: actual [censored]ing research.

You have no clue how the NCAA keeps their records, do you?

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I'm not validating the NCAA, dipstick, I'm supporting your damn point. What is the neuron that is failing to connect there in your skull?

Official is not "what everyone will accept" The official word is that we went in to Iraq for WMD.... Not everyone accepts that, do they. As Mili said, they simply DID NOT do the research, in fact, they got it from somewhere, and those sources are just as likely to be in error as Stassen.

I note you skipped over Yale and Harvard in my 1901 question.

<TABLE border=1><TBODY><TR><TD bgColor=#c0c0c0 colSpan=8>1901-Yale (Independent)

</TD></TR><TR><TD align=right bgColor=#00ff00>9/28</TD><TD bgColor=#00ff00>vs.</TD><TD bgColor=#00ff00>Trinity (Connecticut) (1-6-1)</TD><TD bgColor=#00ff00>W</TD><TD align=right bgColor=#00ff00>23</TD><TD align=right bgColor=#00ff00>0</TD></TR><TR><TD align=right bgColor=#00ff00>10/2</TD><TD bgColor=#00ff00>vs.</TD><TD bgColor=#00ff00>Amherst (4-6-2)</TD><TD bgColor=#00ff00>W</TD><TD align=right bgColor=#00ff00>6</TD><TD align=right bgColor=#00ff00>0</TD></TR><TR><TD align=right bgColor=#00ff00>10/5</TD><TD bgColor=#00ff00>vs.</TD><TD bgColor=#00ff00>Tufts (6-6-1)</TD><TD bgColor=#00ff00>W</TD><TD align=right bgColor=#00ff00>29</TD><TD align=right bgColor=#00ff00>5</TD></TR><TR><TD align=right bgColor=#00ff00>10/9</TD><TD bgColor=#00ff00>vs.</TD><TD bgColor=#00ff00>Wesleyan (3-6-1)</TD><TD bgColor=#00ff00>W</TD><TD align=right bgColor=#00ff00>24</TD><TD align=right bgColor=#00ff00>0</TD></TR><TR><TD align=right bgColor=#00ff00>10/12</TD><TD bgColor=#00ff00>@</TD><TD bgColor=#00ff00>Navy (6-4-1)</TD><TD bgColor=#00ff00>W</TD><TD align=right bgColor=#00ff00>24</TD><TD align=right bgColor=#00ff00>0</TD></TR><TR><TD align=right bgColor=#00ff00>10/16</TD><TD bgColor=#00ff00>vs.</TD><TD bgColor=#00ff00>Bowdoin (2-7)</TD><TD bgColor=#00ff00>W</TD><TD align=right bgColor=#00ff00>45</TD><TD align=right bgColor=#00ff00>0</TD></TR><TR><TD align=right bgColor=#00ff00>10/19</TD><TD bgColor=#00ff00>vs.</TD><TD bgColor=#00ff00>Penn State (5-3)</TD><TD bgColor=#00ff00>W</TD><TD align=right bgColor=#00ff00>22</TD><TD align=right bgColor=#00ff00>0</TD></TR><TR><TD align=right bgColor=#00ff00>10/22</TD><TD bgColor=#00ff00>vs.</TD><TD bgColor=#00ff00>Bates (3-3)</TD><TD bgColor=#00ff00>W</TD><TD align=right bgColor=#00ff00>21</TD><TD align=right bgColor=#00ff00>0</TD></TR><TR><TD align=right bgColor=#00ff00>10/26</TD><TD bgColor=#00ff00>vs.</TD><TD bgColor=#00ff00>Columbia (8-5)</TD><TD bgColor=#00ff00>W</TD><TD align=right bgColor=#00ff00>10</TD><TD align=right bgColor=#00ff00>5</TD></TR><TR><TD align=right bgColor=#00ff00>11/2</TD><TD bgColor=#00ff00>@</TD><TD bgColor=#00ff00>Army (5-1-2)</TD><TD bgColor=#00ff00>T</TD><TD align=right bgColor=#00ff00>5</TD><TD align=right bgColor=#00ff00>5</TD></TR><TR><TD align=right bgColor=#00ff00>11/9</TD><TD bgColor=#00ff00>vs.</TD><TD bgColor=#00ff00>Orange A.C. (non-IA)</TD><TD bgColor=#00ff00>W</TD><TD align=right bgColor=#00ff00>30</TD><TD align=right bgColor=#00ff00>0</TD></TR><TR><TD align=right bgColor=#00ff00>11/16</TD><TD bgColor=#00ff00>vs.</TD><TD bgColor=#00ff00>Princeton (9-1-1)</TD><TD bgColor=#00ff00>W</TD><TD align=right bgColor=#00ff00>12</TD><TD align=right bgColor=#00ff00>0</TD></TR><TR><TD align=right bgColor=#00ff00>11/23</TD><TD bgColor=#00ff00>@</TD><TD bgColor=#00ff00>Harvard (12-0)</TD><TD bgColor=#00ff00>L</TD><TD align=right bgColor=#00ff00>0</TD><TD align=right bgColor=#00ff00>22</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Looks like Yale lost to Harvard... but wait:

THE NCAA RECOGNIZES THE FOLLOWING:

1901
Harvard: Billingsley
Michigan: Helms, Houlgate, National Championship Foundation
Yale: Parke Davis

Source

See, fact is, the NCAA isnt' recongnizing anything. And that is where you're "Yeah, but this is official" bs loses any force. In other words, the NCAA didn't call Michigan the 1901 Champ.. Helms, Houlgate, National Championship Foundation Did.

[MililaniBuckeye]

Originally Posted by ktffan

You have no clue how the NCAA keeps their records, do you?

Obviously you don't. You said: "The NCAA calls them a consensus champion. I'd say yes." in reference to Buckeyeskickbuttocks' question "did OSU win a National Title in 1961? 1970? Why? Why not?" First off, the NCAA does not and never has awarded national titles in D-IA football...they do in divisions I-AA, II, and III, but not I-A. Second, neither the AP nor the then-UPI polls awarded Ohio State a title in either of those years, and those two entities are the most-widely recognized title-awarders, so if they didn't give us the titles in those years it could hardly be a "consensus". Hope you can swim, 'cuz you're sinking fast...

[ktffan]

Originally Posted by Buckeyeskickbuttocks

I'm not validating the NCAA, dipstick, I'm supporting your damn point.

Yes, we are in agreement here. Your wording was you were "confirming" the NCAA. I'm not sure I'd use a non-official source to do that.

Official is not "what everyone will accept" The official word is that we went in to Iraq for WMD.... Not everyone accepts that, do they. As Mili said, they simply DID NOT do the research, in fact, they got it from somewhere, and those sources are just as likely to be in error as Stassen.

Where do you think stassen get's his information? Come on, he's taking it from the same place, and just makes mistakes. I've sent him several corrections myself, and he's got even more errors, but that's no big deal, just why take what he does as gospel? Besides, at issue in these cases are not "mistakes", but this is strictly his opinion.

Originally Posted by Buckeyeskickbuttocks

I note you skipped over Yale and Harvard in my 1901 question.

I thought the question was about Michigan. Yes, the same NCAA sources that lists Michigan also lists Yale. Havard also gets entries in the current book.

See, fact is, the NCAA isnt' recongnizing anything. And that is where you're "Yeah, but this is official" bs loses any force. In other words, the NCAA didn't call Michigan the 1901 Champ.. Helms, Houlgate, National Championship Foundation Did.

And the NCAA followed suit and called Michigan champion because of the selectors that picked them.

[MililaniBuckeye]

Originally Posted by ktffan

Where do you think stassen get's his information?

Apparently not from the NCAA's "all encompassing" record book...