![]() Sometimes a dominant team in one state would defeat a dominant team in a neighboring state after the regular season and then would self-claim the national championship. Informal intersectional games deemed as "national championship games" by the two participating schools were also, on occasion, sometimes played. I try to look for dominant teams in an area who have a good track record." As for Huff, he too had his own unique way of determining champions: "I try to put credibility in the listings by making them consistent with local and state rankings. ![]() Notably, Florida had a relatively sizable number of repeat champions in Johlfs' rating system but saw a significant drop in its number of champions under Sollenberger. He further acknowledged factoring in teams' past histories and their success in the larger population centers of the day when considering teams for his poll-usually including three teams from California and two teams each from Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas in his rankings. Sollenberger, on the other hand, primarily determined champions by attending prominent games in person, while also consulting college football coaching staffs. He was also known to keep a champion as the top-ranked team indefinitely in subsequent seasons' rankings as long as another team had not beaten them yet this ended up allowing multiple teams to repeat as champions, drawing some criticism to Johlfs. Johlfs said that his picks initially tended to be midwestern schools but shifted southward, because southern schools tended to play more games and were also allowed to compete in postseason playoffs. ![]() Johlfs, for his part, described how he arrived at choosing a champion: he accepted input from Minnesota college and professional coaches, reviewed game statistics, films, and press clippings, and considered the school's enrollment size. : 44–45 It is not immediately clear if these discrepancies are due to poor record-keeping, or if Sollenberger or Huff adjusted the list of champions over the years as new information came to light-or if they simply just disagreed with Johlfs' picks. An early compilation listing of NSNS champions does not necessarily match a more recent listing. ![]() Tennis apparently retaining the rights to it. Douglas "Doug" Huff's year-old, competing FAB 50 poll starting in 2000 -which in turn continued on through 2014 with Mark J. The NSNS poll then remained under Sollenberger's management through 1999 (along the way he also retroactively picked back as far as 1910, although at least one source has the NSNS even making a 1904 selection as well : xv ). Paul of Santa Fe Springs, California over Annandale of Virginia), Johlfs apparently still respected the way that Sollenberger actively ran his southwest office-enough so that he turned the NSNS rankings over to him, starting in 1979. Despite Sollenberger publicly disagreeing with Johlfs' choice for champion in 1978 (siding with St. Sollenberger was the facilitator of a similar poll for Joe Namath's National Prep Sports magazine in 19, before that publication was discontinued (its Hertz Trophy was awarded each year to Moeller of Cincinnati, which also happened to be both of the top picks of the NSNS). One of those hobbyists was Barrett Conley "Barry" Sollenberger, representing the NSNS' Southwest Sports News Service regional office. "Art" Johlfs-who originally started naming champions informally in 1927 as a 21 year old high school coach and official, but did so more formally starting in 1959 after enlarging his network of supporting hobbyists to receive reports from six separate areas of the country. ![]() The oldest of the rating systems, the National Sports News Service, was begun by Arthur H. There have also been some efforts over the years at organizing a single-game playoff for the national championship. The High School Football National Championship is a national championship honor awarded to the best high school football team(s) in the United States of America based on rankings from prep experts and analysts in the media, such as USA Today, and algorithmic rankings. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |