The reason why the reaction has been universally negative is because this isn't about the University 'recognizing their own', it's a total PR move to take attention away from the product on the field lighten the mood around a down trodden program. The reason every poll of consequence was done prior to the all bowl games, not just the Rose Bowl, was at the time bowl games were simply exhibitions. The regular season decided the national championship. UW is obviously well aware of this making this move a total farce.

What a load of crap. Nothing like 47 years to pass and try something like this, hoping no one will notice. Minnesota got the NC for both the AP and the UPI that year, when both polls awarded NCs PRIOR to the bowl games. Unfair by today's standards, but that was the deal back then. Besides, Ole Miss had the preponderence of selectors choose them that year, so they would have a better claim than Washington.

What are selectors? One of a multitude of entities who decide who they think is the national championship for a given year. How many selectors were there in 1960? Forty-two! One out of 42 chooses Washington and you're the national champion? Only if that one was the AP or the UPI, which were the legitimate selectors back then. Today it's still the AP and the BCS polls. Your team got chosen by the Helms Foundation. Sorry, your supposed title is illegtimate.

Out of the 42 selectors in 1960, 18 chose Ole Miss, 12 chose Iowa, 8 chose Minnesota, 2 chose Missouri, and one each chose Penn state and Washington. Boy, you guys really racked that one up!

You guys are about to employ what we call the 'University of Alabama' method of claiming national championships to embellish your resume. No matter what, if even one selector chooses your team as a nation champion for a given year, no matter how illegitimate they are, you can claim it. Take the high road, have some self-respect. Don't do it. You'll look like fools to the rest of Division 1-A.

If my school, Auburn, decided to use this method to claim a national title, then we could claim eight--seven more than we actually do claim. Thankfully, we do not. There's only been two legitimate selectors every year since the polls debuted in 1934. If one of them didn't select you, you shouldn't be able to claim it!

Go to fanblogs.com and see the post "Washington Claims National Title" to see how people are ridiculing your school. I hate to see it, even though I'm one of them. Call your athletic department to stop this non-sense!

Kris: That I'm an Auburn fan isn't the point. The point is that UW is attempting to slide one by the college football community almost 50 years after the fact. It is tremendously deceptive for the school to try and boost the old resume so many years later. As a college football fan, it offends me.

Minnesota won both the AP and UPI crowns that year, although more of the lesser selectors chose Ole Miss. Most college football scholars generally agree there was a split championship that year between the two, as was common back then. Only one of 42 selectors chose Washington. How can you stack that up to the claims of Minnesota, Ole Miss, and even Iowa? Auburn went undefeated in 2004 and 1993. Some selectors chose them as national champion. In 1983, 18 selectors chose Auburn as NC, more than did recognized champion Miami. Are you willing to grant us national title for those seasons? If you are, then we are in disagreement, because there are only two legitimate selectors, and Auburn didn't have their vote those three years.

Auburn fans may be especially sensitive to the act of national title embellishment because we have to live with the inflated claims of arch-rival Alabama, who is among the worst in imaginary NCs. They claim 12, but really only have 7.

Kris: You are correct. There is no official title in Division 1-A football sanctioned by the NCAA. That's why there has been a cottage industry the last 70+ years specializing in trying to determine just that. The polls are great to start the season, but until we get an official playoff to determine the end of the season, we'll always have these issues.

I was a sophomore and played on the 1960 team. We considered it an honor to play with those seniors and for Coach Owens and his staff. We had won two Rose Bowls and were 10-1 two years in a row. What angered the fans back then was, except for USC, the Eastern sports writers acted like the other teams in the West didn't exist. In 1981 I asked a man working at a betting window in Vegas what were the odds against us for our game with Wisconsin in the 1960 Rose Bowl. He said we were 36 point underdogs. We won 44 to 8 and still we got no respect. I was on the freshman team that year as we weren't allowed to play varsity ball until we were sophomores. Thank You

Arkansas has tried this stunt with its AD and former coach Frank Broyles leading the way. Broyles claims the 1964 national championship because his Arkansas team was the only undefeated, untied team following the bowl games. While Arkansas won some of the lesser polls that voted after the bowl games were over, the AP champion for 1964 was Alabama.

I think Washington has a legitimate claim to the national title, and I could care less about any west coast team. There is a reason national championships are debated endlessly. It's because nobody can be quite sure who deserves it. As far as I'm concerned, there are about 5 or 6 teams with legitimate claims to this year's national championship before the bowl season. Ohio State hasn't beaten anyone, but has only one loss. LSU has some good wins, but has also struggled to beat teams that aren't that great and has lost to two teams in the same category. Virginia Tech got smacked down by LSU, but that was the second game of the season before Tyrod Taylor had ever taken a snap. And they have been the most impressive team in the country after September, getting wins against Clemson, Virginia, and Boston College all away from home, as well as dominating Boston College in Blacksburg for 57 minutes. Then you have Oklahoma with a win over Texas and two wins against Missouri, although they did lose to Texas Tech and Colorado, neither of which are great. What about Georgia and Kansas? Neither won their division, but both put together very solid resumes. Georgia was one of the hottest teams down the stretch and Kansas only lost to Missouri, a better loss than Ohio State claims. I'd also argue Kansas has just as impressive wins. Then Hawaii is undefeated. If they beat Georgia, they have as legitimate a claim as anyone in my opinion. USC probably has the worst argument. They've beaten ASU and that's it. They also lost to Stanford. If you look at each team's collective resume, a case can be made for all those teams as being the best. Who's to say what makes for the best season? Good wins, bad losses, strong finish? If Washington wants to claim their title, claim it. There are other instances they deserved it just as much as anyone else.

Also, Kansas beat Missouri in 1960. Missouri is only undefeated according to their records. Unlike most self-respecting schools, they claim wins they didn't actually win on the field. Kansas had an ineligible player. While other schools decided not to change their record books, Missouri was the only school who did. They have a very poor claim in my opinion.