Dr. Saturday - NCAAF

The Doc begins the preseason program in earnest with a week devoted to the little guys, building up through the major conferences on the way to counting down the opening kick on Sept. 3. And if you're going to do mid-majors, there's no better place to start than the controversial '84 national champs, celebrated this week by the Deseret News in an eight part series commemorating their 25th anniversary.

Depending on your perspective, you can quite plausibly blame -- or perhaps I should say credit -- those Cougars with the very existence of the BCS, and for setting in motion the wheels that led to the bizarre scene of a a sitting U.S. senator calling for a Justice Department investigation into college football's postseason structure last week. That may be farfetched, depending on what you see in a team that finished No. 1 in both major polls for surviving the schedule at right.

And remember: They accomplished several of those wins in dramatic fashion, including wins over teams that were supposed to be good (Pitt started the season No. 3, Michigan rose as high as No. 2 before quarterback Jim Harbaugh broke his arm) but turned out to be mere mirages. No wonder Barry Switzer went out of his way to stump for Washington after the one-loss Huskies beat Oklahoma in the Orange Bowl.

Maybe the '84 champs' enduring influence is far-fethced, but today, it's inconceivable that a team from an historically second-tier conference could finish No. 1 without beating a single team that finished in the final polls, on the heels of a two-week-old victory in the Holiday Bowl; in fact, Utah's 13-0 run last year, which featured four wins over ranked teams, completely dwarfs the Cougars' championship resumé, and the Utes didn't get a sniff at a title in the polls or otherwise, despite a much better position re: one-loss teams from bigger conferences and a more impressive win in a marquee bowl -- and Utah came closer to the top than any other upstart since the Cougars' triumph.

Whether you think that's justice in the name of top competition or scandal on the order of a federal crime, it's a fact that teams outside of the major conferences have been more or less automatically shut out of the race for No.1 since BYU snuck behind the velvet rope a quarter-century. Which may be just a coincidence, but with the evolution of the Bowl Alliance, the Bowl Coalition and finally the Bowl Championship Series -- a more radical series of changes in 15 years than the bowls had seen in the previous 50 years of "the national championship" combined before it went to the Cougars -- no one's taking any chances.

digg delicious
more

8 Comments

Post a Comment
  1. kass0809@...
    1. Posted by kass0809@... Mon Jul 13, 2009 1:27 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    Something tells me that Baylor was solid then too. Consistently a top 20 team, or around there.
  2. kacsports
    2. Posted by kacsports Mon Jul 13, 2009 2:06 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    Jim McMahon said it best - the teams he and Steve Young were on in previous years would had easily beat the '84 team - and the Michigan team they beat despite a jillion turnovers was UM's worst team in memory before the R-Rod came to Ann Arbor. Problem is that year the #1 team went down virtually every week except for U-Dub, who just had a quality late season loss at USC. If not for the Sooner Schooner at the Orange Bowl - OU may had ended up champs this year - and look which two teams play each other in Dallas to open the year - karmic...
  3. WestOfTheDC
    3. Posted by WestOfTheDC Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:08 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    Appropos of nothing, the Bowl Coalition came before the Bowl Alliance.
  4. PurdueMatt
    4. Posted by PurdueMatt Tue Jul 14, 2009 8:48 am EDT

    Report Abuse

    A true mythical national champion.
  5. Ned
    5. Posted by Ned Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:58 am EDT

    Report Abuse

    yeah, yeah. been there before, but for old times sake I'll say it again: BYU had no control over their opponents records--Pitt was #3 when BYU beat them on the road; they did what they had to, they did all they could do. They beat the teams that were scheduled years prior. Sure, it would be more convincing if they had demolished them all (actually, they had been doing that for several years previously. '84 was a rebuilding year for them after Steve Young, Gordon Hudson, & several others graduated), and it would be nice if they played in a better conference. But everyone also wants to keep regional rivalries going (hence the USU game, among others)--y'know, the tradition & pagentry of college football schtick?--and if we're totally honest, the travel costs of playing in a bigger, farther away conference like the big 12 would be something of a problem. Tried it under the old 16 team WAC, and it didn't work out too well. The PAC 10 is probably the most do-able as far as reasonable geography, but the PAC 10 isn't interested in expanding. So what. Sound and fury signifying nothing. As for '84, Washington had its shot at BYU, having been invited to play in that Holiday Bowl. They passed, as did other teams, opting for bigger cash pay-outs in higher profile bowls. I don't blame them for that, but by the same token, don't hold BYU's bowl game opponent against them. Michigan was the best the Holiday Bowl could get. Everybody was anxious to diss BYU, but few wanted to tangle with them when given the chance. Doesn't that say something? Maybe even just a little? We'll never know what the results would have been if Washington had accepted, but based on the '85 BYU-UW game results (31-3, BYU), I'd say the odds would have been decent for BYU to open a few eyes. That BYU squad had several all-Americans on both sides of the ball, was led by a Heisman contender (Bosco finished 3rd), and put around a dozen players in the NFL; they were better than many will ever give them credit for. The shame is they never got a chance to really find out how good they might have been. And neither did Utah in '04 & '08, or '06 BSU. Sure, as a whole the WAC & MTW can't compare to the 'big 6', and they know it. (Actually, the 'big 4.5'. the Big Least is no better, and the ACC of late is suspect.) But that doesn't mean that in any given year they can't field a team that could compete and deserves a fair shot at the title, no matter what their conference's record. Just because BYU, BSU or Utah was no good in 1968 doesn't mean they can't be relevant now. Or in 1984.
  6. Jeff L
    6. Posted by Jeff L Tue Jul 14, 2009 4:34 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    For those of you who subscribe to the Bryant Gumbel "Bo-Diddley Tech" school of thought (BYU didn't deserve the 1984 national championship because UW played a tougher schedule and are the REAL '84 nat'l champs), I offer the following.
    If you compare 1984 schedule to Washington's 1984 schedule, and compare the W-L records of their opponents, there is very little difference.
    Some of the highlights of the comparison:
    Average record of UW opponents - 5.4 wins, 5.8 losses
    Average record of BYU opponents - 4.7 wins, 6.5 losses
    Average UW margin of victory - 16.9 pts
    Average BYU margin of victory - 20.7 pts
    UW beat 5 teams that finished with a winning record
    BYU beat 4 teams that finished with a winning record
    BYU beat some bad teams (3-7-1 Pitt, 3-8 CSU, 2-9 UTEP, 1-10 Utah State)
    UW beat some bad teams (2-9 Northwestern, 4-7 Miami, 2-9 Oregon St., 2-9 Cal). Some will argue that a 2-9 Cal is better than a 2-9 UTEP because Cal is in the Pac-10, but both are AWFUL teams, so arguing which is worse is absolute nonsense.
    UW lost to the only good team they played (USC)
    BYU didn't lose.
    In 1984 BYU and UW had one common opponent - MICHIGAN. UW beat them at the beginning of the year by 9 points, and BYU beat them at the end of the year by 7. People who criticize BYU for struggling to beat Michigan seem to conveniently forget that UW didn't exactly beat them into the ground DURING THE SAME SEASON. The argument that MI was ranked when beaten by UW is meaningless, because Pitt was ranked #3 when BYU beat them at Pitt. Neither Michigan nor Pitt turned out to be very good, so neither UW nor BYU should get much credit for the road win against a "ranked" opponent.
    The bottom line is that UW played a slightly tougher schedule, but BYU won their games by a larger margin than did UW, which would be the expected result if BYU was as good as their record indicates (a good team should have a higher M.O.V.). If BYU was struggling to beat these "nobody" schools, then maybe the lousy schedule argument would hold water, but they didn't, and the argument is empty.
    There are two reasons UW has no claim to the 1984 National Championship:
    1) They LOST to USC
    2) They turned down the chance to prove it on the field when they chose to play OK instead of BYU in their bowl game.
  7. Steven T
    7. Posted by Steven T Wed Jul 15, 2009 2:03 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    Another interesting fact: Oklahoma was offered the chance to play BYU in one of the open the season classics in 1985. In spite of all his complaining about BYU's poor strength of schedule the prior year, Barry Switzer refused the opportunity, saying: "We already have a tough schedule, we shouldn't have to play the world"
  8. ZerO
    8. Posted by ZerO Wed Jul 22, 2009 5:12 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    I wonder which genius decided to give them a national championship, especially when all of the big time teams were either young or had a lot of injuries, so that pretty much deflates that argument for BYU.

Dr. Saturday

Add to My Yahoo! RSS

Matt Hinton

Dr. Saturday is a college football blog edited by Matt Hinton. Email him tips and feedback.

Related Photo Gallery

Y! Sports Blogs

Dr. Saturday Recent Readers