National Champions: Schools That Least Deserve Their College Football Title

College Football, unfortunately, is a game in which the best team is too often the team that cheats the most. As fans, this takes away from the experience of the game as a whole.

Here's a look at the previous National Champions with the greatest controversy surrounding their title run. The NCAA chose not to strip these titles, but that doesn't mean that the fans cannot discredit them.

(Click links for full NCAA reports)

Oklahoma: 1974

The Sooners went a perfect 11-0 in 1974, winning the National Championship, but how can the National Champion only play 11 games?

The Sooners only competed in 11 games due to a bowl ban implemented by the NCAA the year before in response to violations that occurred during the early part of the '70s.

If a school is ineligible for the postseason, how can it be eligible for a National Title?

Clemson: 1981

In 1981, Clemson celebrated its only national championship in college football and the school’s first of any type. But should that title still stand? 

Less than one year later, the NCAA found Clemson in violation of a multitude of NCAA rules; ranging from improper benefits to recruiting violations.

The NCAA came down harshly on Clemson, as the Tigers received a two-year postseason ban, two years probation and a two-year TV ban.

Clemson, however, retained its National Championship.

Oklahoma: 1985

The 11-1 Sooners did have one loss, but they still walked away with a consensus National Championship, but maybe it should have been No. 2 Michigan that received the title. 

In December 1988, the NCAA found Oklahoma responsible for many violations involving the 1985 season. Some of the players on the 1985 National Championship received improper benefits, while many recruiting violations occurred in the same time period.

The NCAA slapped OU with three years probation, a two-year postseason ban and a one-year TV ban, but no forfeitures.

Washington: 1991

The 1991 Huskies rolled Michigan in the Rose Bowl and completed a perfect season at 12-0. They would end up with a share of the National Championship (Miami, also questionable), but should they have? 

In 1994, Washington received a harsh punishment from the NCAA; it included a two-year postseason ban, two years probation, and a one-year television ban, but again, no forfeitures.

The Pac-10 also required the Huskies to return their 1993 TV revenue. The largest of the infractions was committed during the 1992 season, but some of the players on the 1991 team received payment for jobs they did not really do.

Also, multiple recruiting violations occurred in the years leading up to 1991.

Miami: 1991

The Hurricanes went 12-0 and were given a share of the 1991 National Championship (Washington). The Huskies championship was somewhat tainted by future NCAA sanctions, so did Miami deserve the outright championship? 

Only a year after its 1991 co-champion received a hefty penalty from the NCAA, so did Miami. The Canes were put on three years probation and were given a one-year postseason ban.

In 1991, 45 football players received $86,000 (1,900 per player) in excess financial aid, to which the university cited a miscalculation (this was in addition to multiple miscalculations in other years).

Additionally, the player who recorded the best tackle in each game was awarded a cash prize. Surprisingly, Miami wasn’t force to vacate any wins.

Alabama: 1992

The Tide took the 1993 Sugar Bowl title in a dominant performance against Miami and finished the year 13-0. They rightfully deserved the 1992 National Championship they were awarded, right? 

In 1995 the NCAA hit Alabama with a one year postseason ban, two years probation, and the forfeiture of the whole ’93 season.

Although most of the listed violations occurred in the years before and after 1992, the violations put a slight damper on the validity of the ’92 title.

Florida State: 1993

After winning the 1994 Orange Bowl vs. Nebraska, Florida State finished the season 12-1 with the only loss coming at Notre Dame. Almost all publications voted the Seminoles as National Champions, but do they really deserve it?    

In 1996 the NCAA reported that during the ’93 season, players were given over $50,000 worth of loans from agents. Additionally, agents rewarded players with thousands of dollars worth of gifts during the 1993 season.

The improper agent relations only prompted a one-year probation from the NCAA, but USC fans will probably cringe upon reading this, as a similar situation (agent relations) cost the Trojans much more.

Auburn: 2010?

Hopefully, nothing is ever proven in regards to Auburn, as it is never good publicity to have the champion undergo sanctions. The NCAA has not hit Auburn with any penalties related to the 2010 season, this line from an ESPN article leads one to believe that Cam Newton not only knew about the money his dad was soliciting, but that he actually received it.

It said an "emotional Cam Newton phoned another recruiter to express regret that he wouldn't be going to Mississippi State, stating that his father, Cecil, had chosen Auburn for him because 'the money was too much.'"

At the time it may have not been expected, but it might turn out being a good thing Auburn won, as Oregon may be the team in more hot water shortly.

Summary

In an ideal world, no one would cheat and everyone would follow every rule. This will never happen. The NCAA can only do so much to police the actions of every school.

Although none of these teams have actually been forced to vacate games from its title season, each of them violated many rules. These rules also involved improper benefits to players on the title team.

This is grounds for ineligibility and forfeiture of games in which ineligible players play can occur. Just because the NCAA sees these teams as champions, it does not mean everyone has to agree.

Thank you, BYU and Penn State, for being the only champions never to have committed major violations.