Talk:Washington Huskies football

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject College football (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of College football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject United States / Washington / Seattle (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Washington.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Washington - Seattle.
 

This article has comments here.


Untitled[edit]

Maybe we should list the California Golden Bears as rivals (at least an old one) since Cal was the only other big west coast school in the early part of Husky football history (early 1900's). It's also worth noting the original Washington fight song from 1924 referred to the Golden Bears in particular.

http://www.lib.washington.edu/music/bowdown.html

_mr krisp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.5.179 (talk) 07:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Notable players[edit]

Have seen this on the template for other schools and this can easily be added. Pasadena91 (talk) 20:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

recent expose[edit]

There was a series of in-depth articles in the Seattle Time about some serious issues surrounding the 2001 rose bowl championship team, one part reflecting very negatively on Curtis Williams. I think there should be some mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.54.37 (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

huskies did not win in 1990[edit]

might want to take down the "1990 national championship". Its a stretch to say they won that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.91.157 (talk) 03:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

As long as the section is clearly ref'd with the source of the "national championship" the language should stand. It's up to the reader to draw conclusions WRT validity of the claims of the university or its supporters. Abdoozy (talk) 23:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The school's official media guide states four championships. Believe context is accurately reflected in all locations. [1] Pasadena91 (talk) 13:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, if the only source for a "National Championship" claim is a line in the media guide of the same school claiming that "national championship", can this truly be considered sufficiently referenced? Regarding the "Rothman/FACT" poll, has the published existence of this 1990 poll ever been verified by an independent party? If this is/was a legitimate polling source, it's out there somewhere. (Can anyone, even UW fans, assert with a straight face that the '90 team had any legitimate claim to a national championship in 1990?) Without any independent references, an NPOV wording of this section should emphasize that Washington *claims* four national championships. (The same argument occurs at Alabama, who "claims" 13 NCs.) Abdoozy (talk) 10:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely with Abdoozy. With all due respect - and I say this as someone who enjoys Washington football - that section (or at least the section header) needs to be taken out, if this article is to salvage any appearance of legitimacy. Or at least the label "1990 National Champions" needs to be taken down. This is the kind of stuff that makes people laugh at Wikipedia. Yes, I get that Rothman/FACT declared Washington national champion (I love how the article says: "Rothman/FACT, which was also used to choose the national champs from 1968–2006..." Nice passive voice. Was used ... by whom?). As the article states, Rothman/FACT also found Miami to be national champion for that year. And yet you don't see Miami making any serious claim to the national title for that year. If someone insists on leaving some mention that Rothman/FACT found Washington to be national champ for that year, that's fine - but it shouldn't be a major section heading. Seriously trying to claim that Washington won the national title that year makes this article look like it was written by seriously biased Husky fans rather than legitimate college football experts. Harry Yelreh (talk) 01:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I am a diehard Husky fan, but the school only claims 2 National Championships not 4. 1960 and 1991 are the two that the school actually claims in their 2008 media guide. Check http://www.gohuskies.com/auto_pdf/p_hotos/s_chools/wash/sports/m-footbl/auto_pdf/10_08FBMG which is already used as a citation for the Wikipedia page on National Championships. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.35.57 (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

If you look on the Washington Huskies All-time football results their national championship recognition becomes more clear. Under 1960 they claim it and also for 1984, which is a stretch, and for 1991. But if look up Don James under player profile it only list one national championship. So either count the 1984 championship or not but they don't recognize the 1990 team for neither. sullivan9211 (talk) 07:06, 1 December 2011 (CST)

2008 anyone?[edit]

I know you're all die hard fans, but shouldn't the 2008 season still get mentioned? I agree. I love the dawgs but we need to own up to our past so we never repeat it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bark4sark (talkcontribs) 01:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

National titles dispute[edit]

Pasadena91, I have noticed that you reverted an edit by 71.33.191.178 that changes the number of claimed national titles from 4 to 2. Also within that edit, you removed the "Co-" from the sections: 1960 National Co-Champions and 1990 National Co-Champions. I reverted the edit you made but let the reversion stand although now looking at the article again, the number should actually be three and not four. I've explained my reasoning for the revert as the article body explains the national titles are split, therefore the title should read "Co-Champions" and requested an explaination if you chose to retain your edit. However, you reverted my edit without any explaination. You later reverted another edit of mine, which was referenced with two reliable sources, the governing body of the sport and a neutral database of college football statistics, also with no explaination. With no mainstream viewpoint on the subject, I would have to say the article suffers from Wikipedia:NPOV (please see the sections Undue weight and Balance). Lastly, you removed the citation template from the top of the page, which I also find puzzling. I noted that there is a huge number of claims on the article without many references to back it up and I find that to still be the case. (Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability) Please respond to my concerns when you get a chance. Thank you. Cluskillz (talk) 05:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

To my eye, an unqualified claim of four national titles is a little squirrelly. I gather that the NCAA only recognizes one. The school itself seems to claim only 1960 and 1991, see the UW Football media guide, "Championships" here, and 1985 and 1990 weren't awarded by any of the generally recognized sources of the title (i.e., AP / Coaches / UPI / ESPN / BCS). Still it is true, and documented within the text, that *someone* in each of those years named the Huskies National Champions. So the information is appropriately included herein. I do think it's flat-out misleading to introduce the article with the plain assertion that the Huskies have "won" 4 National Championships, given how deep one has to dig to find two of them - and the looser language of "laying claim to" the four titles is designed to correct that. Probably the balance of the article could further clarification on this point as well, inasmuch as the 1985 claimed championship is buried under an "Orange Bowl" caption. JohnInDC (talk) 17:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Incidentally. My own personal view is that the term "co-champion" is most appropriate when the same awarding entity splits a title. E.g., two teams with 8-1 records who didn't play each other would be conference "co-champions". Where different entities award - or claim to award - the same title, then there are two championships and each winner can claim to be "it". Probably the better practice would be to qualify the claim (e.g., 1990 AP National Champion) but a lot of people and PR departments don't bother and I think that kind of quiet exaggeration is understood and generally accepted. JohnInDC (talk) 17:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


It doesn't seem to matter to Pasadena91 that The Huskies didn't win a National Championship in 1990 or 1984. It is arguable in 1960 at best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.160.83.100 (talk) 00:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps all parties could comment on the following suggestion:
  1. Modify the lede statement regarding national championships to use the word "claims", change "4" to "2", and wikilink the statement to the article and section NCAA Division I FBS National Football Championship#National championship claims by school (which lists "2" national championships for Washington). While one can find polls that collectively give the Huskies four different national championships, to make such an unqualified statement in the lede is misleading to the casual reader.
  2. Revise the section titles for Washington Huskies football#1960 National Champions, Washington Huskies football#1984 National Champions, and Washington Huskies football#1990 National Champions since these designations are not widely recognized.
  3. Retain the current section content, since it's sourced and my understanding is that it is not under dispute.
Myasuda (talk) 02:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Your suggestions are acceptable and reasonable Myasuda. Not even the most die-hard of Huskies consider 1984 and 1990 National Championship Teams. It is embarassing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.40.218.39 (talk) 06:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll leave this up for a week, and if there are no objections I'll proceed to make the changes enumerated above. For now, constructive comments / suggestions are welcome. — Myasuda (talk) 03:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Why are you trying to create a new standard and undo consensus language? The article to which you linked, has a National championships in the Official NCAA Division I Football Records Book section in which national champions from major selectors have been entered into the Official NCAA Records Book. There are four entries (identical years and attribution with the official UW Media Guide), hence the consensus. Pasadena91 (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I see no consensus from editors who participated in the discussion above. Instead, I only see your support for four national championships in the lede -- this is the antithesis of consensus. As noted in the lede of College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS, "Currently, two widely recognized national champions selectors are the Associated Press ... and the USA Today Coaches' Poll." I would suspect that most people are unaware that there are other polls / selectors that name a winner of the NCAA Division I national championship. As such, we need to be careful not to mislead the casual reader of this article by making unqualified statements regarding national championships. Do you object to Washington's entry in the table at NCAA Division I FBS National Football Championship#National championship claims by school? Do you disagree with the content of the footnote for Washington's entry in that table? — Myasuda (talk) 02:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

UNBELIEVABLE AND DISCREDITED! UW was "CO"-National Champions in 1991 and the ENTIRE College Football loving world witnessed it! The 1990 Season belonged to Colorado and Georgia Tech WITHOUT QUESTION and again the ENTIRE College Football loving world witnessed it! The 1984 season belonged to BYU and again, the ENTIRE College Football loving world witnessed it! I wasn't alive for the 1960 Season so I can't speak to that.

Why on Earth would you claim National Championships to seasons that UW CLEARLY DID NOT win? How can you possibly feel good about that?? That's like going to UW for your Freshman year, dropping out of school and never returning, and then calling yourself an Alumnus of UW and actually feeling good about it. Your not TRULY Alumni until you walk out with a degree in hand.

These false claims to events that IN FACT DID NOT happen, makes Wikipedia look bad. Once and for all, UW is recognized by the NCAA as having ONE "CO"-National Championship and that was in the 1991 Season. I remember that team and I believe that UW could have beaten Miami that season, but it doesn't matter what I think. The NCAA only recognizes ONE season where UW was on top. http://www.ncaa.com/history/football/fbs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.28.161 (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

National Championship claim totals at College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS[edit]

There was a recent edit that changed to the number of national championships officially claimed by the University of Washington in the "National championship claims by school" table in the College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS article. Although the current media guide lists selections in four different seasons (1960, 1984, 1990, and 1991) by various selectors of national championships, it seems that the university officially claims only 1960 and 1991, as evidenced by the highlighting of only these titles in other sections of its media guide, as well as the flags and banners that are hung at Husky Stadium. Further, no public announcement of additional claims has been made by the university as was done in 2007 for the retroactive claim of the 1960 title. Since this topic is also being discussed by the editors of this article, and such editors are likely to be more familiar with the intricacies of UW athletics, any comments on this issue at Talk:College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS#Washington Husky claimed national championships would be appreciated. Thank you. CrazyPaco (talk) 06:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Pathetic to claim these National Championships....Makes Wikipedia look bad. The Cougars don't have to lock down their page because of one deluded guy. 67.40.218.118 (talk)

The legitimacy of these claims is not the issue. The only issue is whether or not Washington makes official claim to them. The Athletic Department has recently been contacted and relayed that they only have signage for 1960 and 1991 at Husky Stadium (as seen under the scoreboard in this photo). Unless the 2011 media guide has change in how the national championships are highlighted from the 2008 version (someone please confirm), this would indicate pretty conclusively that the school only claims two: 1960 and 1991. CrazyPaco (talk) 18:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Please note though, that what the University of Washington officially claims for itself can be different than the actual years awarded by various selectors of National Championships. Thus, the description of the 1984 and 1990 seasons as national championships is a different issue than what is listed as the school's actual claims, as those alternative years were selected by different independent organizations and recognition of those teams by the school itself is irrelevant to those particular organization's selections. CrazyPaco (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

In response to recent edits, I'll be quite clear here that changes which make the infobox item "Claimed national titles" inconsistent with the entry at College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS#National championship claims by school will not be tolerated. Only changes to College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS#National championship claims by school will be allowed to drive changes to the infobox item "Claimed national titles" If you have a disagreement with the number of "Claimed national titles" in this article, bring it up there first (e.g., see and participate in the discussion Talk:College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS#Washington Husky claimed national championships). — Myasuda (talk) 15:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

One co-national championship only, 1991[edit]

What's with all the Mickey Mouse polls? Only the AP and the Coach's polls count. UW has ONE co-national championship only. UW won the Coach's poll in 1991; Miami won the AP. UW has never won the AP. UW has never won a national championship outright. Those are the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor0982 (talkcontribs) 04:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Take it up with the NCAA, whose official record book lists four. http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_records/DI/2009/2009FBS.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.216.228.133 (talk) 05:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The 1960 National Championship is claimed by the school and fairly legitimate. FYI, in those days the AP Poll was conducted BEFORE the bowl games. They gave the nod to Minnesota. But in the Rose Bowl, the Huskies beat the Golden Gophers 17-7. Hense the polls conducted after the bowl games listed UW as the champions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.27.172 (talk) 03:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The 1960 title is absolutely NOT legitimate. It is not recognized by the NCAA. Washington has, at best, the 5th best claim for the national title among deserving teams in 1960. The school "awarded" the title to themselves in the middle of a winless season just to make the fans feel better. No one aside from Husky fans believe it has a shred of legitimacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.243.115 (talk) 01:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 December 2011[edit]

Please include the 2008 season as a memorable season.


The 2008 Huskies were the first 0-12 team in PAC-10 conference history and the only team in the country to finish the 2008 season without a victory.[1] The Huskies were outscored 159-463 during the losing streak.

2008 Schedule

Date Opponent Site TV Result Attendance August 30 at #20 Oregon Autzen Stadium • Eugene, OR FSN L 10–44 58,778 September 6 #15 BYU* Husky Stadium • Seattle, WA FSN L 27–28 64,611 September 13 #3 Oklahoma* Husky Stadium • Seattle, WA ESPN L 14–55 67,716 September 27 Stanford Husky Stadium • Seattle, WA FSN L 28–35 61,968 October 4 at Arizona Arizona Stadium • Tucson, AZ Versus L 14–48 55,624 October 18 Oregon State Husky Stadium • Seattle, WA Versus L 13–34 63,996 October 25 Notre Dame* Husky Stadium • Seattle, WA ESPN2 L 7–33 70,437 November 1 at #6 USC Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum • Los Angeles, CA FSN L 0-56 80,216 November 8 Arizona State Husky Stadium • Seattle, WA FSN L 19-39 57,013 November 15 UCLA Husky Stadium • Seattle, WA FSN L 7-27 59,738 November 22 at Washington State Martin Stadium • Pullman, WA (Apple Cup) FSN L 13-16 2OT 32,211 December 6 at #22 California Memorial Stadium • Berkeley, CA FSN L 7-48 50,038

  • Non-conference game. Homecoming. #Rankings from Coaches' Poll released prior to game.

BFryett (talk) 15:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Not done for now: I'm not sure which section you'd want this to go in, but you'd need to write some text supported by reliable sources to indicate why the season was particularly memorable. A list of results isn't enough. Mato (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Rivals?[edit]

The current article has the following in the sidebar.

Rivals: Washington State Cougars Oregon Ducks Oregon State Beavers

Why are the Oregon State Beavers listed as a rival? This team has not been a historic or current rival. Oregon and WSU are accurate, but Oregon State is not. If entries require 3 teams, USC would be the most obvious choice due to the longstanding rivalry dating back to the AAWU days. If 3 teams are not required, Oregon State should be omitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seattle7thatwasme (talkcontribs) 06:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

My feeling is that the sidebar should not list any rivals of Washington other than those listed under List of NCAA college football rivalry games. Currently, this consists of WSU and Oregon only (so I agree with your edit). Let the article "List of NCAA college football rivalry games" drive the content of the sidebar, to ensure both consistency and general community agreement. — Myasuda (talk) 13:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Continued National titles dispute - UNBELIEVABLE CLAIMS BY HUSKY FANS[edit]

UW was "CO"-National Champions in 1991 and the ENTIRE College Football loving world witnessed it! The 1990 Season belonged to Colorado and Georgia Tech WITHOUT QUESTION and again the ENTIRE College Football loving world witnessed it! The 1984 season belonged to BYU and again, the ENTIRE College Football loving world witnessed it! I wasn't alive for the 1960 Season so I can't speak to that.

Why on Earth would you claim National Championships to seasons that UW CLEARLY DID NOT win? How can you possibly feel good about that?? That's like going to UW for your Freshman year, dropping out of school and never returning, and then calling yourself an Alumnus of UW and actually feeling good about it. Your not TRULY Alumni until you walk out with a degree in hand.

And what is the purpose of stating that the 1984 Season was "Almost" a National Championship season. When does "Almost" become note worthy? In 2008, the Huskies "Almost" didn't have an 0 - 11 Season when they "Almost" beat BYU on September 6th at Husky Stadium. But that's not what happened now did it? They LOST 27 - 28 and that loss is counted as a LOSS and not ALMOST A WIN.

Is this how people from Seattle view facts? That they can just simply change or distort truths to fit their agenda? These false claims to events that in fact DID NOT happen, makes Wikipedia look bad and discredited.

Once and for all, UW is recognized by the NCAA as having ONE "CO"-National Championship and that was in the 1991 Season. I remember that team and I believe that UW could have beaten Miami that season, but it doesn't matter what I think. The NCAA only recognizes ONE season where UW was on top. http://www.ncaa.com/history/football/fbs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.28.161 (talk) 01:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


Neutrality of key elements questioned[edit]

There is a question regarding NPOV in the context of the claim that UW has four national championships "as recognized by the NCAA." The sole attribution listed for this claim is the inclusion of a rating service listing in a NCAA publication. The NCAA does not officially "recognize" any national champions in what is now called the Football Bowl Subdivision, and has never officially designated a national champion. The listing of all these minor polls and rankings can be seen as a statistical convenience by the NCAA in the interest of historic completeness, but does not appear to even imply that the NCAA *recognizes* any national titles.

The NPOV question revolves around the insistence of some editors to include more national championships in the UW Football entry than the school itself claims to have won, and to imply "national championships" awarded by obscure agencies are as valid as the widely followed national polls.

An accurate, if clumsy, entry on this subject would say something like "the UW officially recognizes two NCs; two others have been awarded by rating services not widely followed."

Given the level of discussion over the last few years on this subject, it appears that those editors insisting on including disputed titles, without acknowledgement of their disputed status or obscure origins, are making these edits without regard for neutrality. The resulting lack of objectivity is more appropriate for a fansite than an encyclopedia. Abdoozy (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

A suggestion of how minor national championship claims can be dealt with can be found on the Alabama Crimson Tide football National Championships section. The editors have managed to include all claims without levels of ambiguity or assertions of "NCAA recognition", and specifically state "Since World War II, Alabama only claims national championships awarded by the final AP Poll or the final Coaches' Poll. This policy is consistent with other FBS football programs with numerous national title claims, including Notre Dame, USC, and Oklahoma." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdoozy (talkcontribs) 22:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


The use of the terms "minor" "obscured" "not widely followed" and "disputed" are very POV assertions, some in direct opposition with how the official NCAA record book characterizes the nature of the four national championships and each of the associated major selectors. Explicitly, have a strong presumption of good faith here, just clarifying that these terms are a personal characterization before any pile-on occurs.
The official NCAA record book lists 38 selectors, which it defines as Major Selectors and states the NCAA's criteria for designation as a major selector. See 2012 NCAA Record Book under "National Champion Major Selectors (1869 to Present)." Clearly there are minor selectors outside of the NCAA's criteria and whose national championship selections do not appear in the official NCAA record book, but that is not the case here. The NCAA explicitly deems ALL of these selectors to be within their designation of Major Selector.
As expected, each of these four national championships from these major selectors are reflected in our relevant national article, Total championship selections from major selectors by school, using the same criteria as applied to all other schools. Both the existence of all four and their origination from major selectors are not in dispute.
The school's 2012 Football Media Guide references each of the four national championships and cites the relevant major selector(s) for each. See 2012 Football Media Guide
Agreed that there is some ambiguity about claimed vs unclaimed within the school's presentation in the media guide. The school's labelling is (intentionally?) nebulous. While arguably original research, some have pointed to 1960 and 1991 signage in Husky Stadium (which may or may not currently exist, pending completion of the ongoing remodel). Reasonable arguments can be made for both 4 claimed and 2/2 claimed/unclaimed, with the later currently the consensus College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS#National championship claims by school with a callout noting this particular abiguity. That consensus is reflected in the Infobox, which currently reads "Claimed: 1960, 1991 and Unclaimed: 1984, 1990" (don't believe there is a new dispute originating here). The Infobox supports both "claimed" and "unclaimed" labels for this type of scenario.
As noted in the above discussions, since the four championships declared by major selectors are not in dispute, is there clarity and detail appropriately within each of the four callout sections. Broadly, is the major selector(s) accurately identified for each of the four years, are the selector's co-champion peer(s) (if any) also identified, and any similarly clarity provided. That is currently the case and observed in the section heading and four subsections.
Regarding the article summary/lede, the point that the NCAA does not currently "award" a national championship in football, at all, is entirely valid. However, the exact language here states "...recognized by the NCAA." These major national championship *selectors* are explicitly recognized/identified/validated by the NCAA using their chosen criteria. If the statement included any claim from a non-major selector ("Joe and Bob's basement poll") unrecognized/unidentified/unvetted by the NCAA, agreed that some substantial qualification, delineation, or removal might be necessary.
Three change options for "...recognized by the NCAA." text within the summary appear to be:
1) Leave the text as is: These are major selectors identified ("recognized") by the NCAA.
2) Remove the text entirely: The four national championships from major selectors stand on their own, with both further season-year and major selector-specific detail provided (as expected) in the article's full sections.
3) Modify the text in some other manner with unspecified language. UW Dawgs (talk) 02:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)