Introduction

All this BCS bungling of the MNC got me thinking (a novel concept, to be sure) about the MNCs over the years. I don’t even bother with the pre-1936 stuff, when Harvard, Yale and Princeton were winning “MNCs”. That’s just not connected to modern college football at all. When the AP “title” was awarded in 1936, it was really the beginning of the systems we have now have in place today.

Over the years, a lot of highly debatable MNCs were awarded. This laughable web site (http://www.ncaa.org/champadmin/ia_football_past_champs.html) is just the beginning of the madness, though, since we all know the NCAA doesn’t sanction a true big-time college football champion. The AP title, however, is a good place to start, since it’s been in place the longest and most consistently.

But it has its problems, of course: whether it was the awarding of MNCs prior to bowl games for 30+ years or the recent issues (2003’s BCS disagreement, 2004’s BCS corruption or 2007’s BCS bandwagoning), the AP poll is also severely flawed.

What will follow is one attempt to rectify the ills of the past by revising MNCs from 1936 through 2007, using different criteria. It’s not scientific, I don’t claim it to be “right”, and I don’t think my perspective is universal. But I know there are mistakes in the process, which I attempted to rectify with what follows. But these “McMNCs”, if you will, are better than the real MNCs in many ways.

I am re-ranking the Top 5 teams every year from 1936 to 2007, based on the following offered in no firm order:

• Overall record: In the end, wins and losses are concrete. Student-athletes themselves have no control over the schedule they play. Athletic departments solidify schedules in advance. You cannot penalize the student-athlete for something they are not responsible for. If you do, you don’t understand the concepts of amateur athletics at all, and you clearly never played a collegiate sport yourself. All the kids can do is beat who is put on the field in front of them. In some cases, a half-game difference (in the era of ties) is negotiable depending on the situation, but generally teams with more losses than other legitimate teams will not beat those teams out for the McMNC. Using the term “legitimate” is, of course, subjective, but as all RSFCkers know, some teams are not created equally.
• Bowl performance: Reality is that teams which compete in and win bowl games deserve more credit than teams that did not play in bowl games. While this mostly applies to the past, it also applies to teams on probation or teams which lost their bowl games. Yes, I know some teams couldn’t play in bowl games, and that jibes with what I wrote above – it’s not fair to the kids. But in some close cases, if Team B went out and beat the crap out of Team C in the Rose Bowl while Team A didn’t play in a bowl game at all, you have to give some love to Team B for performing with all the marbles on the line. MOV and opponent will be taken into consideration in situations where multiple qualified teams won bowl games. Basically, ending the season with strong momentum matters.
• Probation: More of a problem in the past, but no team on probation will win an McMNC, period.
• Quality of conference play: In some years, there are closely-matched teams. Depending on which team played in a tougher conference that year (based on AP standings of conference foes, for example), an edge might be given. This hurts independents, of course, and some schedule research will be undertaken to determine the quality of opponents for relevant independent teams over the years (Notre Dame, Penn State, Miami-FL, etc.). Also, it’s not just about today’s BCS conferences, of course; it’s about the ol’ SWC, the Big Eight, and other defunct conferences. It does matter if Podunk State goes 12-0 against the Weenie League, while Money U. goes 11-1 against the big boys.
• Winning your conference: This is important, since there are some strange cases in the past, especially with the playing of unbalanced schedules over the years. Needless to say, winning your conference – especially if it’s a good one – will help you, while not winning it – or if it’s a weak one – won’t help you.
• H2H consideration: This is one of those crazy things about the polls, especially in recent years like 2000. If two teams are matched evenly, if one of the has the edge against the other H2H, you know what that means in the McMNC race.
• Connective scores: This is a game some RSFCkers like, and others despise it. But it does matter: if Team A beat Team C, and Team C beat Team B, but Team A didn’t play Team B, I’m going to give the edge to Team A. That’s just the way it is. The McMNC focuses a lot on the finish, but to be in position to win the race, you have to have a decent start and strong middle drive, too.
• MNC consideration from others: In extremely close cases, I will consult the list provided above at the NCAA site to break close ties. It does help to know how other people see things, although when Harris still gives their 2005 MNC to USC over Texas, you have to wonder. Any way, this is a last-gasp resort to sort out tougher seasons.

And that’s it. Over the next few months (until the offseason ends around August 18), I will be awarding the McMNCs retroactively based on these thoughts. Some teams will lose out, some teams will benefit, and some teams won’t be affected at all (that means you, Stanford, because you suck). But at least the record will finally be set straight, and future generations will know my version of the truth.