CCSLC Championship Ring Thread

[Mac the Knife]

_{Since the 2 Big XII Teams today got snubbed in the first College Football Playoff because the Big XII did not crown a true single Championship I thought I would let you all know it wasn’t always this way. The Big XII was formed in 1996 and from 1996 to 2010 they did have a Big XII Title Game. This photo I created of these player rings that I have in my personal collection represents the Championship Rings from the first 12 years of the Big XII. After teams left the Big XII leaving the conference with only 10 schools the conference stopped with the title game in 2011, I would guess the fallout of todays news the Big XII might try to add 2 more teams in the future as this was one of the main reasons why the conference stopped having a Title Game. Or I can see the conference once again have the Big XII Title Game next year even though they would have to determine a South and North division again. Experts say with 10 teams it makes having a title game a bit tough but I would guess the Big XII offices this week will be very busy with calls from angry fans, alumni and even teams wanting answers about the future of the Big XII Conference.}

There are a number of things I hate about collegiate football, too many to count actually, but a few that stick out...

- The NCAA requires 12 teams in a conference to stage a championship game. Let the conference figure out its own structure.

- The Big 10 having 14 (is it still only 14?) members, and the Big 12 having only 10. There ought to be a law against that; false advertising or something.

- The ability of 11 teams from one conference to qualify for one of the 39 different postseason Bowl games. Come to think of it, the fact that there are 39 :censored:ing Bowl games annoys me.

/getoffmylawn

Edited December 12, 2014 by LMU

[OnWis97]

Not me. I like the Roman numerals.

Same here. It gives the game a goofy sort of gravitas.

For me, as one of the minority of US sports fans that does not consider the NFL his #1 (or even top 3) sports, it drives me nuts. I remember who won every World Series in my memory, by year (and many prior to that too). For the NFL, the Roman numeral causes me to mix up the order. I don't remember which Roman numeral was, for example, Steelers over Seahawks...and I don't know what year either, since we rarely discuss Super Bowls in terms of years. Granted, the NFL is at some disadvantage in that its championship is played in a different calendar year than its regular season. I consider this year's Packers* to be the champions of 2014 and not 2015 but that would lead to some confusion.

I like the idea of 2017 Super Bowl to also be known as the 51st. That's what the Rose Bowl does (at least on anniversary years).

When I was a kid the NFL was my #1 (into the 1990s I suppose) and I was more on top of which Roman numeral was which year, but now I feel like I'd have a better grip of the last couple of decades if they did not use 'em. Further, I was definitely into adulthood before I acknowledged pro football in the pre-Super Bowl era...and while I've never thought about it, I wonder whether the Super Bowl numerals are a big part of why. I actually remember thinking that Green Bay was "titletown" because they won the first two Super Bowls...I had no idea they'd won a bunch (and I still don't know how many) pre-Super Bowl NFL titles.

And, while it was a long time ago, teams like the Browns, Eagles, and Lions have championships...most fans don't recognize that. The question is, do the Vikings? I guess not. The titles are recognized for the Browns, Eagles, and Lions...not for the Vikings. I don't know that I care either way, but technically, the Vikes won the NFL and lost an exhibition against a team from another league.

*probably them, but whoever.

[ridenlow71]

I'm totally fine with Roman Numerals what I don't like is the standard logo for all super bowls now. I liked when every super bowl had a logo and one of my favorites is super bowl 31.

[Championship Sports Rings]

Since the discussion has moved to Roman Numerals for the super bowls and this is a forum regarding Championship Rings here is my personal view. As it relates to a certain super bowl its prob mostly mentioned with the Roman Numerals and even though if I thought about it I prob could figure out which ones they are by looking at the letters what I have a problem with is when selling rings I don’t ever use the roman numerals to signify a certain team or title. I ALWAYS prefer to call them by the year of the title season and I think most do too. So if someone tells me they are looking for a Super Bowl XXXVIII Ring I know that the roman numbers say 38 but off hand I can’t tell you which super bowl year it was. Now even if you tell me you want a super bowl 38 ring I have no clue what your talking about and would have to Google it to be sure. Now super bowl XX and XXX are easy ones at least to me and XXV is one I can’t forget as its super bowl 25 or the 25^th Super Bowl game and this was the one with my Buffalo Bills vs. the Giants played in Tampa during the Gulf War so it’s easy for me to recall that. Other than that I can’t recall instantly what super bowl you’re talking about if you give me just the roman numerals or even the number of the super bowl. I deal in rings so I always mention the team name and the year of the NFL season. So that if someone asked if I had Super Bowl XXXVIII ring I would rather they ask me if I have a 2003 New England Pats Super Bowl Ring instead. And by the way I own 3 of those rings. It’s a much better way to tell someone what you want or tell someone which ring you’re talking about. Now others might have a different way at looking at it.

Another example why I always mention a ring by the team name and season of the title or football season is if you’re say your want a National Championship Ring from the 84 Orange Bowl game you would be better off saying you want a Miami 1983 National Championship Ring instead. In the BCS era it made all kinds of people ask questions. A good example is the 2004 USC BCS Championship Ring on the side of the ring its says 2005 BCS Champions because the title game was played in January 2005 but it was from the 2004 Season. So it could be called the 2005 BCS Championship Ring but some might think you’re talking about the Texas Championship Ring as they won the National Championship in the 2005 Football season. So by saying the USC 2004 BCS Championship Ring even though ring says 2005 BCS it’s the best way to call the ring. As a side note those 2004 USC BCS Rings are now kind of a collectors item for other reason because USC was stripped of their 2004 BCS Title and is now vacant but the players who were given those rings never had to give them back so if they do still have their rings they now represent a title that they had to give back. Now some collectors ask for them but not many and I still regard the Regular or “School Ring” USC got in 2004 as the more desirable ring than the BCS Ring.

One more reason why you should always call a ring by the team name and football season year is that most of the super bowl rings have the Year of the football season on it NOT the year they won the super bowl on it. A good example would be the 5^th and last 49ers super bowl ring has 1994 on the top of the ring. It does have the super bowl XXIX logo on the side of the rings but it's NOT called the 1995 Super Bowl Ring as the 49ers won the January 1995 super bowl game. So if someone mentions the 1994 Super Bowl Ring most would think it’s the San Francisco ring even though the super bowl was won in January 1995.

[Gothamite]

True enough - the team that wins the Super Bowl in February 2015 will be the 2014 world champs.

[ridenlow71]

Jostens just announced that they've been selected to make the championship ring for the new playoffs in college football. Here's what they put on their Facebook page. This might be replacing the one the ncaa gives to all teams. Not the team designed ring. I like it better than the old one of that's the case.

[Mac the Knife]

Apparently the winning team will have little input on what appears on the CFB playoff championship rings...

Jostens just announced that they've been selected to make the championship ring for the new playoffs in college football. Here's what they put on their Facebook page. This might be replacing the one the ncaa gives to all teams. Not the team designed ring. I like it better than the old one of that's the case.

Simulpost!

[ridenlow71]

Here's the old design

Apparently the winning team will have little input on what appears on the CFB playoff championship rings...

Jostens just announced that they've been selected to make the championship ring for the new playoffs in college football. Here's what they put on their Facebook page. This might be replacing the one the ncaa gives to all teams. Not the team designed ring. I like it better than the old one of that's the case.

Simulpost!

Haha!! Gotta be faster man lol

[Mac the Knife]

I like the design. It's busy without being TOO busy. Maybe some customization could be had by changing the stones surrounding "National Champions" with stones reflecting team colors, but otherwise pretty solid.

[infrared41]

Apparently the winning team will have little input on what appears on the CFB playoff championship rings...

Jostens just announced that they've been selected to make the championship ring for the new playoffs in college football. Here's what they put on their Facebook page. This might be replacing the one the ncaa gives to all teams. Not the team designed ring. I like it better than the old one of that's the case.

Simulpost!

Very nice ring, but it reminds me a lot of this one...

[ridenlow71]

Apparently the winning team will have little input on what appears on the CFB playoff championship rings...

Jostens just announced that they've been selected to make the championship ring for the new playoffs in college football. Here's what they put on their Facebook page. This might be replacing the one the ncaa gives to all teams. Not the team designed ring. I like it better than the old one of that's the case.

Simulpost!

Very nice ring, but it reminds me a lot of this one...

Yeah it does look like that one. It's a far better design than the old one. I hated the old one.

[Gothamite]

That happens to be one of my favorite World Series rings, so I approve of the new National Championship ring.

[Championship Sports Rings]

I am not surprised that Jostens is creating the new College Football Playoff National Championship Ring. After all Jostens has been producing the Official BCS National Championship Ring since 2002. From 2002 to 2004 the overall size of the BCS White Gold Ring was the same but in 2005 the ring got a bit super sized and continued till the last one that was given out to FSU in 2013. The rings from 2007 to 2013 were not made of 10K White Gold. I would imagine that the 3 other teams who made it to the college football playoff will get a special ring called the "College Football Playoff Ring" much like Jostens makes now for the final 4 teams who get there. The winner of the National Championship for basketball gets a NCAA Champions Ring instead of the final four ring but they all look the same as they are given out by the NCAA so the top of the winners ring says NCAA Champions and the 3 that don’t win their rings just say Final Four on top.

The ring that the other 3 football teams will get for making it to the playoffs will prob look the same as the winners ring but it will prob just have CZ stones where it says National Champions this way they don’t have to make whole new design. The new College Football Playoff National Champs ring that was just released is overall the same typical design as the 2012 FSU ACC Champs Ring and others. Not a real drastic new design except for the center Football logo. I don’t see any place where the winning team can customize the ring as on the BCS Rings the winning team was only able to change the stone color on top from 2006 to 2013. I imagine you will see a few of these rings hit the market when the players get the rings in April/May of 2015.

Now for those of you know don’t know all 4 schools who make it to the playoffs will prob have separate rings designed for them by the schools. Since all of the 4 teams won their conference the 3 loosing teams will prob get their own school version of the conference title ring plus the bonus NCAA College Playoff Ring that will look similar to the winning ring. The National Championship Team will of course make their own school version of the National Championship Ring plus they will get this special NCAA College Playoff National Champs ring and in most cases they can get a 3^rd ring and they will usually give the players a conference ring. So this will certainly keep Jostens and the other ring makers busy considering that there are 39 official bowl games and nearly 80 different schools there will be lots of rings to be made from this 2014 College Football Season.

[infrared41]

That happens to be one of my favorite World Series rings, so I approve of the new National Championship ring.

Same here. In fact, it may be the #1 WS Champs ring on my list. My favorite World Series* ring is actually an AL Champs ring.

*I guess it's technically a World Series ring.

[dralec]

I like it.

Obviously a popular design by Jostens. Reminds me of the SB rings of late 1990's to early 2000, they use the same design over and over, see how long it will last.

[LMU]

With the recent blowup in this thread, it has been decided that this thread will only be for the discussion of the design of championship rings. Any posts about the sale of rings, listing of eBay auctions, etc will be deleted.

[charger77]

One of my students brought in his mom's employee ring from the 2002 Red Wings. I'll try to post a pic later on today.

[ravens12]

With the recent blowup in this thread, it has been decided that this thread will only be for the discussion of the design of championship rings. Any posts about the sale of rings, listing of eBay auctions, etc will be deleted.

good deal.

[BC985]

I came across this on Twitter. Supposedly these were ring designs that the SF Giants rejected in 2010 and 2012.

[dralec]

Those SF rings are pretty cool man, thanks for posting them.

I had seen a picture of bottom left one, I had heard it was made by Balfour, but obviously don't know if that is true. I think both bottom rings look better than the Tiffany one they went with.

I'd really like to see the shanks, they look pretty good. TIffany shanks are the simplest shanks I have ever seen, there is practically nothing on them. What they put on the shanks which is score of the post season games are information that Jostens puts inside the shanks.