They might be right in that there's a legitimate claim to the title, but the timing makes the credibility dubious.

I was living in Texas in 1984, and I remember -- with no inkling than that I would ever move to the Northwest -- thinking that Washington was the more deserving national champion that season.

However, you're right in the timing.

Frankly, if we didn't get recognized then, why do it now? 40 years later? 20 years later? What's the point? It's almost embarrassing.

Turner's answer is in the final paragraph above.

However, a lot of UW fans -- and of course UW non-fans -- certainly agree with you.

As I wrote when the 1960 team was recognized, I blame the NCAA's absurd system of deciding football champions by opinion rather than on the field.

I think this is nuts instead of worrying about what happened 20 years ago why don't they concern themselves with the team right now and put a winning team on the field!!!

Well, recognizing an old champion is certainly easier than creating a new one. But, in fairness, it's really not an either/or thing.

The UW answer would be that honoring the 1984 team does nothing to detract from current rebuilding efforts and could even help if some potential recruit is more eager to join a three-time-champion program than a one-time champion.

I remember that game soooo well, I was incredibly depressed at half-time only to watch that monster second half.....and that was also the first time the concept of "East Coast Bias" entered into my brain.

Wow, while we are at it we might as well make the 2001 team National Champions, too. The fact that we can even discuss this is all that's wrong with college football. I am a die hard Husky but c'mon, they are grasping at straws here. Quit living in the past.

Playoff, playoff, playoff, playoff, playoff!

Im with you on the playoffs, F.

What separates the 1960, 1984 and 1991 teams from the 2001 team is that no recognized group named the 2001 team national champions. The 1991 team was recognized by the coaches' poll, which no one challenges as legit. The 1960 team was Helms, which was minor but had the advantage of being conducted after the bowls, which gives it some BCS-plus-one-like appeal these days. And, of course, the 1984 team was recognized by a few minor polls. So UW isn't simply declaring itself champion, it's simply belatedly acknowledging honors bestowed by others.

If UW recognizes the 1984 team, the only other team with any external claim would be the 1990 team, which was one of several teams belated recognized by a computer-based group called FACT. However, that claim would be far more suspect because no legit organization bestowed its recognition to UW and UW alone.

The 1984 team is my favorite Husky team, but...

1. They weren't even Pac-10 champs.

2. The offense struggled and there were quite a few games where the defense carried the team through nailbiters.

3. People often mention BYU's schedule, but the strength of the Husky schedule was rather weak that year (65-70-1). Also, the Huskies were 1-1 against the only two decent teams (USC and Oklahoma) they played.

Let's recognize that the 1984 team was an all-time great UW team, but do not diminish their accomplishments by making a weak claim to the national title.

a team can play for a national title without being conference champ...see Oklahoma and Nebraska in recent years...so one would assume they would be allowed to WIN it.

Also, Michigan may not have had an awesome team that year, but to not consider a road win in the Big House "decent" seems to be selling UW short, IMO.
Just for comparison purposes:
BYU's opponents that year? 61-85-3
Nebraska's (another team mentioned by Don) opponents that year? 66-67-6

Hey Don -- if you are in favor of a playoff, how would you do it? Personally, I'd go with 20 teams - 11 conference champions and 9 at-large bids, pair off the lowest 8 teams to get to 16 and play it out from there. If Boise State or TCU or North Texas can build a team good enough to go 12-0 they should have a legit shot at the championship, and for all of the whining about how the student-athlete would be imposed on by a playoff like that, you are only talking about eight schools that would play more than one or two additional games (not to mention that they have playoffs at every other level of NCAA and NAIA football).

I'd much rather be arguing about which 9-3 or 8-4 team got left out than which 11-1 team is going to be denied a chance at the title. Who remembers the best team that didn't make the basketball tourney? We all remember Auburn not getting a shot despite being undefeated though.

JJ, I liked your question so much I moved it up into its own blog entry above.

As they say, "timing is everything" I have always had respect for the Huskies. I am a BYU fan and I have to say that its alitte late to be hanging out a 1984 National Championship banner. UW did have a good year. BYU had to have a perfect year in 84, a previous perfect year in 83 and beat Michigan to win the 84 Title. Not alot of talk at this point will change anything.

Remember you are playing BYU this year and BYU is back on track and 11-2 the last two years with wins over over the Oregon ducks and UCLA in their last two bowl games. If your administration is going to be hanging out 84 Champion banners, they better wait until after the BYU game. No need to give ammo to the opposing team which this really would do. It is just about being smart.