This is what passes for journalism these days

[UgaBlows]

We get NO respect anywhere

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Guys, they are talking about AP National Championships. We finished SECOND in the AP vote that year (to a team that got 5 downs to win...). Why would you expect an AP writer to recognize the existence of the coach's poll? You know, the poll where the voters know a thing or two about football?

It's like drinking a Pepsi in the Coke building...or sending a Fedex to UPS.

/

So you're saying Pitt has 4 AP titles?

 

[johncu]

I was equally annoyed with Tech's omission from the teams that might even dream of competing with FSU:
"And while schools such as Clemson, Miami, Duke, Louisville and North Carolina certainly have the wherewithal to challenge for the conference title, the rest of the teams, including other ACC newcomers Syracuse and Pittsburgh, are looking to crash the part at the top."

Despite the fact that, you know, we have finished in the top half of the ACC for something like 20 straight years, have beaten FSU 2 of the last 3 and played them tight in the ACC championship game just a couple of years ago.

Even worse, they included Duke and friggin' UNC in that group. What a joke.

 

[GTRX7]

So you're saying Pitt has 4 AP titles?

According to Wiki, Pitt has two AP recognized national championships in 1937 and 1976.
LINK

Pitt actually claims 9 National Titles in its media guides: 1915, 1916, 1918, 1929, 1931, 1934, 1936, 1937, 1976.
LINK

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

According to Wiki, Pitt has two AP recognized national championships in 1937 and 1976.
LINK

Pitt actually claims 9 National Titles in its media guides: 1915, 1916, 1918, 1929, 1931, 1934, 1936, 1937, 1976.
LINK

So even though they only have TWO AP championships, an AP ARTICLE claims they have a total of FOUR. That alone should indicate that the writers were totally in the dark.

 

[GTRX7]

So even though they only have TWO AP championships, an AP ARTICLE claims they have a total of FOUR. That alone should indicate that the writers were totally in the dark.

To be fair, there is a ridiculous amount of disagreement regarding who won the national championship in most years, because there is no one single recognized arbiter. The Wiki on the subject does a pretty good summary: LINK

That said, nothing about the statement in the article regarding Tech makes sense. First, the article says our national championship was in 1928, which is before the AP was ranking national champions (started in '36). So, the author is not relying on that metric. Second, Georgia Tech appears to have been unanimous in 1917, so I am not sure why we aren't given credit for that.

According to Wiki, Georgia Tech has been named national champion by at least one "major selector" in 6 years (UGA 5).

Tech claims four of them (1917, 1928, 1952, 1990). UGA claims up to five in certain publications, though only two in others.

College Football Data Warehouse tried to break all the mess down and award one "recognized champion" for each year (though two in some years like 1990).
They give Pitt 9, Tech 4, and UGA 2.

 

[GT Man]