Is the Brigham Young Cougars Football Progam An Elite Program?

The Brigham Young Cougars are officially independent in football. As of midnight last Friday, July 1, 2011, they were no longer members of the Mountain West Conference. Ever since this move was announced August 31, 2010, many perceived that BYU was making this move as a statement that it was comparable to Notre Dame. While BYU has made it clear that this was not the motive, we can still ask the question: Is the BYU football program an elite program?



The hardest part of answering this question is defining “elite.” I don’t have a good definition, but I think after looking at several aspects of college football and how excellence and respect are measured we can come to a solid conclusion.

Winning Percentage
A look back at BYU’s winning percentage the last 40 years should help in seeing where BYU sits with the rest of college football. Here are three lists: Chronological, reverse chronological, and individual five year intervals.

Last 40 Years Chronologically
1971-1975: 42nd, 0.545 (30-25-1)
1971-1980: 19th, 0.688 (80-36-1)
1971-1985: 9th, 0.743 (134-46-1)
1971-1990: 8th, 0.733 (180-65-1)
1971-1995: 8th, 0.716 (219-86-3)
1971-2000: 9th, 0.708 (262-107-3)
1971-2005: 14th, 0.682 (294-136-3)
1971-2010: 13th, 0.694 (344-151-3)

Last 40 Years Reverse Chronologically
1971-2010: 13th, 0.694 (344-151-3)
1976-2010: 10th, 0.713 (314-126-2)
1981-2010: 13th, 0.696 (264-115-2)
1986-2010: 16th, 0.666 (210-105-2)
1991-2010: 20th, 0.655 (164-86-2)
1996-2010: 22nd, 0.658 (125-65)
2001-10: 22nd, 0.651 (82-44)
2006-10: 8th, 0.769 (50-15)

Five Year Intervals
1971-1975: 42nd, 0.545 (30-25-1)
1976-1980: 6th, 0.820 (50-11)
1981-1985: 1st, 0.844 (54-10)
1986-1990: 15th, 0.708 (46-19)
1991-1995: 20th, 0.645 (39-21-2)
1996-2000: 20th , 0.672 (43-21)
2001-2005: 59th, 0.525 (32-29)
2006-2010: 8th, 0.769 (50-15)

Over the last 40 years, BYU ranks 13th in the nation in overall winning percentage. The other teams ranked 11-15 are: Florida, Miami (FL), Tennessee, and Auburn. That is pretty good company. BYU has been a consistent top 20 team over these 40 years. Except for the first five years and 2001-2005, BYU was in the top 20 of every five year interval, and in the top 10 three times.

Top 25 Finishes
Over the last 34 years, BYU has finished ranked in the major polls 50% of the time (17 times).

You can click here for all the details, I will just list the years: 1977, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1994, 1996, 2001, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009.

Since the Associated Press (AP) poll started in 1936, BYU ranks 30th in total seasons ranked in the final AP poll.

Awards
BYU players have long been recognized as the best in the nation. From BYU’s electronic media guide, I found this great tidbit:

“BYU is one of only five schools in the nation that have had a player win the Heisman Trophy for the nation’s top player, Outland Trophy for the nation’s best interior lineman, Davey O’Brien Award for the nation’s best quarterback and Doak Walker Award for the nation’s top running back, joining Texas, Ohio State, Penn State, and Iowa.”

This quote places BYU in elite territory, except the awards listed are mainly offensive awards. Except for defensive lineman Jason Buck in 1986, only offensive players have won these awards for BYU. If you added any award that is exclusive to defensive players, BYU is automatically wiped off the list. 

1,000 yard rushers/receivers
The 1,000 yard milestone has long been a standard used to separate a good year from a great year for players. BYU has had 15 seasons where wide receivers accumulated 1,000 yards receiving, and 12 seasons where running backs have reached the 1,000 yard rushing mark. How does this compare to the top schools in BCS automatic qualifying conferences?

I tallied the 1,000 yard rushing and receiving seasons since 1953 for 48 of the top football programs in the country. The results:

Number of schools with 12 or less 1,000 yard rushers: 17
(Arizona, Baylor, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas State, Miami, Missouri, Purdue, South Carolina, Stanford, Texas A&M, TCU, Texas Tech, Washington, Washington State)

Number of schools with 15 or less 1,000 yard receivers: 48
(Alabama, Arizona, Arizona State, Auburn, Baylor, Boston College, Cal, Clemson, Colorado, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas State, LSU, Miami, Michigan, Michigan State, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Oregon, Oregon State, Penn State, Pittsburgh, Purdue, South Carolina, Stanford, USC, Syracuse, Tennessee, Texas, Texas A&M, TCU, Texas Tech, UCLA, Virginia Tech, Washington, Washington State, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Arkansas)

Number of schools with 27 or less total players with 1,000 yard seasons: 42
(The six schools that had more are: Michigan, Nebraska, Ohio State, Oklahoma, USC, Texas)

BYU is equal to or better than 35% of the schools in 1,000 yard rushing seasons, 100% of the schools in 1,000 yard receiving seasons, and 88% of the schools in total 1,000 yard seasons.

Other signs of greatness

• BYU won a national championship (1984)
• BYU had 21 former players make NFL rosters in 2010, and 79 former players have been drafted in the last 30 years.
• BYU players have been named All-American 47 times, including 12 consensus All-Americans.
• BYU’s average home attendance in 2010 ranked 27th nationally.
• BYU revolutionized the passing game, including the involvement of the tight end.

Conclusion
BYU is a very good football program, but not an elite program. It has periods when it rises up and spends some quality time with the elite group, but it also spends a little too much time in the land of mediocrity. With a little more consistency, in 10 or 15 more years BYU might make the cut as a college football elite.

I consider an elite program to be one of the top 10. BYU was 13th in winning percentage. In the national rankings, BYU is only 30th all-time, but even it we looked at the last 40 years, BYU still wouldn’t be top 10.

The difference that would move BYU from very good to elite is defense. The common thread in all of this is offense. Offensively, BYU is elite. If BYU had an elite defense, then it would be in the top 10 winning percentage and have several more seasons ranked in the final top 25. The beauty of investing in both offense and defense to make them elite is that if one has a bad year, the other unit is probably strong enough to carry the load. Not every season will be a national championship season, but it will be good enough to finish the year ranked in the top 25 by winning two or three games that you would have otherwise lost.

BYU has a great tradition and amenities that add to the luster of the program. If Bronco Mendenhall can bring the defense up to the level of the offense, then BYU will move into the category of the elite.

The Editor appreciates all feedback. He can be reached via email at bluecougarfootball@gmail.com

Comments

  1. Really interesting article. I'd have to say that its really hard to define 'elite'. Statistics are nice, but they'd be pretty far down my criteria. Fan Support, national success, major award winners and media attention are more important in my opinion. When it comes down to it though, public perception is what matters.

    Stewart Mandel of Sports Illustrated might have had the right idea when he ranked the BCS teams a few years ago which at its most basic was how the average fan nationally sees each program. So while Notre Dame has been pretty dismal for the last couple decades, they still qualify as an elite program (Well, 'King' by Mandel's list but I think we can agree its pretty much the same thing). He didn't list BYU or any of the non-BCS programs, but I imagine if he had BYU would have landed in the 'Barons' catagory along with the likes of Colorado, Washington, Auburn, etc. All teams that have a long history of general success with an occasional rise to the top and a 'brand' name that resonates at least somewhat on a national level.

    So generally I'd have to agree with the author of this article about BYU being a bit short of elite....though I might put them a bit lower on the pecking order as far as how close the program is to achieving that level. I don't know if going independent will help the program or not. It will probably come down to being able to arrange a near-BCS sort of schedule and then winning the games. The 2011 schedule isn't terrible, but honestly unless BYU goes 12-0 or maybe 11-1 and makes a BCS game I think it will struggle to get respect much like Boise State.

    I'd love to see a BYU schedule with 1 or 2 top programs (Texas, Michigan, etc) and maybe 4 or so games against good programs (those that are ranked in the top 25 as often as not like Missouri, Iowa, Clemson, and so forth) and then fill out the rest with a few bowl contenders and some bottom-feeders and perhaps a FCS/I-AA team. I imagine it might be hard to get the good to very good programs to agree to home-and-home series. But say what you will about Notre Dame's success (or lack of) they do have a reasonable impressive schedule from year to year (even if USC and Michigan are down, those games still 'move the needle', so to speak). With a lesser schedule it means you have to win all of them to really make an impression and that's hard to do no matter who you schedule.

    At any rate, sorry to ramble. I'm very curious to know how other people view the 'elite' matter.

    ReplyDelete
  2. BYU does not have a winning% vs any of the BCS conferences. Elite? Nowhere near... And not even close to the Auburn, LSU, Va Tech, Wisconsin, or Georgia tier of teams.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Remove the single national championship from nearly 30 years ago, and does anyone even have this discussion? That says enough right there. They're a solid program, that wins games they should win in the MWC, and every few years knocks a BCS program. They have a solid recruiting base. They're recognized nationally as a solid team. However, without a recent NC, and without being invited to BCS party yearly, they don't get much consideration. In their position, they have to run the tables with their regular season schedule. Until they align in a BCS conference, or totally pack their schedule with BCS opponents as an Independent, they'll never get a thought in the elite category. I think they do have USC, Texas, and ND in their upcoming future schedules, but not sure if they're all in the same seasons, plus those 3 programs are all down right now. Wonder if they have any other mid-range BCS schools in their future to pack the schedule.

    ReplyDelete
  4. BYU will finish in the top 14 and get into a BCS game.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yes, tell us what BYU's winning percentage against BCS teams or top 20 is. Hardly elite. They have been playing the bottom 25% of CF for years and winning against them. That brought their winning percentage up. Smoke and mirrors.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Sorry for not being able to rebut sooner. I will address some specific comments, and then give a general response to everyone at the end.

    Scott--Those are some great insights. Do you have a link to the Stewart Mandel piece? From what I understand, BYU is trying to create schedules similar to what you suggest. They are finding the challenge isn't getting the best teams to play them, but to avoid playing nothing but top 20 teams 12 games a year.
    -----
    Over the last 40 years (which long pre-dates the BCS), BYU is 11-9 vs. the 10 remaining Big XII teams. If you include Colorado and Nebraska (since they haven't played a down as a member of their new conferences), BYU's record improves to 13-9. From 1985 to the present, BYU's record improves to 6-2 vs. Big XII teams--7 of these 8 games were either bowl games or ranked Big XII teams.
    -----
    You got a point about removing the National Championship, but why would we remove it except for convenience? If we want to start talking "what if"; BYU would have at least one BCS/Bowl Alliance appearance IF the current rules (that are in place because of BYU) were around 15 years ago, and very possibly two appearances barring an injury to the 2001 Doak Walker award winner.

    Using the teams from the comment before, what if Auburn had not signed Cam Newton last year to win the National Championship. Auburn would still have One national championship, that being in 1957 (a lot earlier than 1984)

    How many national championships, combined, do VaTech, Wisconsin, and Georgia have in the last 100 years? Try 1 (Georgia 1980, again more time has elapsed since that title than BYU's).

    LSU went 45 years after winning it's first national championship before it won number 2.
    -----
    Final scores are deceiving. Read my defense of the 1984 national championship in the special features section if you want to know why the win over Michigan was impressive. Besides, national championships are given for a season long effort, not the result of the last game.
    -----
    Very few teams have a good winning percentage against ranked teams. Go to this link to see what I mean: http://espn.go.com/blog/sec/post/_/id/9443/tracking-the-sec-vs-the-final-top-25-polls

    Even the elite teams spend a fair amount of time beating up on the bottom 25% of CF, and they even go beyond to I-AA schools.
    -----
    General statement--Many of you seem to be looking beyond the final conclusion: BYU is NOT elite, but with improved defense could become elite.

    Think of the objections being raised: winning % vs. BCS AQ conferences and/or ranked teams, no BCS bowl.

    How would these two things change if BYU had an improved defense? Winning % would definitly go up, and BYU might have landed in a BCS bowl by now.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Nice article. I've been reading your posts for about a year now. You're a BYU guy but you have a balanced approach. Number 1 story on FoxSports!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Measurement of success is not only centered on W-L records but on overall program participation beyond the uniforms, especially fan base. BYU's stadium ranks as the #35th largest, placing it in the top 1/3rd and it's fan attendance history over that time span puts BYU in the top 25 among programs nationally. BYU's attendance last year was greater than 41 BCS programs. Consider BYU may not have been invited to the PAC-10, yet in financial performance and overall attendance and championships in key areas, BYU was averaging 45,000 fans per game back when Gofford Neilson was tossing pigskins in Provo (mid 70's. BYU's stadium holds about 65,000 fans. Utah has yet to sell out 45,000 seat Rice Eccles Stadium three years in a row. BYU has the third largest on-campus basketball-volleyball arena in the country (23,000). While your definition of elite might wash strictly for OTF performance, it is fairly clear that BYU would still rank as one of the top 15 football programs in the country and while that might not make them elite in YOUR mind, being 13th out of 120 FBS teams is pretty close. I would have defined Elite as grade A programs (top 10%) which puts the number at 12, not 10. At #13 since you began counting at 4 decades, it would seem BYU is clearly not Iowa State either.

    ReplyDelete
  9. By the way, if you arbitrarily pick 35 years in stead of 40, BYU ranks #10. If you pick 45 years, BYU drops down to around 20th. So I get the 4 decade thing, use it often as a definition of maturing powers for three programs (Florida State, Penn State and BYU) that all "grew up" at the exact same time under Joe Paternow, Bobby Bowden and LaVell Edwards - three other reasons those programs ALL belong in the ELITE CLASS. The fact is all three programs matured together under innovative and legendary greats, all Hall of Famers, all Bear Bryant award winners, all considered among the best that ever coached in the game....that alone should make one realize that BYU isn't just another program.

    LED
    Member FWAA 1982-Present

    ReplyDelete
  10. Sorry JoPa...typo on your name.

    LED

    ReplyDelete
  11. How many negative remarks posted are from university of utah fans? Is utah an elite program? Are they the original "U"? They seem to think they are pretty high and mighty, lets examine them under the same microscope. Utah is not even in these types of conversations and only gets pub from people like me who mention them.....and they get mention for all the wrong reasons.

    ReplyDelete
  12. If you examine UTAH over the last two decades, it has been as successful if not more-so than BYU. However it is still a maturing program and we have yet to see if it will not simply become the next Arizona State, always full of promise but rarely delivering in the PAC-12 South. ASU was right where UTAH is now back in 1977 when it was forced against it's own trustee's will to accept entrance with Arizona (the lobbying one) into the PAC-8 creating the PAC-10. ASU has never been quite the same. Utah may be in the same unenviable boat, but I actually think the two division split is going to help schools like Utah, Arizona and ASU. Winning a PAC-10 on full RR play format was difficult enough, but winning now might be a little easier if all you really need to do is get a Division title to get to a championship game. It has worked in the ACC and SEC as well as the Big-XII despite arguments to the contrary by Nebraska.

    LED-

    ReplyDelete
  13. Utah, an elite program?! Oh puhleeeeez! Utah a very good program? Puhleeeez. Utah is a good program that will join the ranks of ASU as cellar dweller PAC-12 fodder for the big boys to pick on. I think BYU remains pretty much the same from here on out...a pretty good team, but not an elite team.

    ReplyDelete
  14. How many ranked teams did BYU play in 1984? Michigan was 6-5, tied for 5th in the Big 10 that year. The BCS system is not perfect by far, but it far exceeds the validity of those days, wow talk about a joke of a national title. Probably the weakest of all national titles in Division one.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Maybe Tulane from circe 2000 can claim a national title also (undefeated and didn't play anyone). By the way Linfield College, division NAIA, from here in McMinnville Oregon garnered a vote for national champion in 1984 from a sports writer because as he put it, "if the only criteria is to go undefeated no matter who you play, they deserve a vote also. That sums that year up quite well.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Shouldn't the weakest national championship be one of the split titles? One that everyone couldn't agree on.

    In 1984 BYU was voted national champion by ALL of the major polls--meida, coaches, Football Writers Association of America, and others.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Do you really think those New York writers looked at the body of work back then. College football is much bigger now and actually requires the voters to do a little research before they vote. Again, how many ranked teams did that 1984 BYU team play?

    ReplyDelete
  18. In case you have a case of 1984 New York sports writeritis the answer is zero. Not only were those opponents not ranked when BYU played them, but not one of those "worthy" opponents ended the season ranked as well. They would barely crack the top 10 in today's College Football world.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I could go all day with this one. I have this argument all the time with my brother, himself a converted Mormon who went to BYU law school during the Ty Detmer days. He always brings up the 1984 "championship" and we set this out like a court case. Even he came to the conclusion that it's a very difficult case explaining why and how BYU was voted the national champion. He scoffs at my notion of racism involved in some of those old timers voting, but can you really take that off of the table. BYU is lilly white now, but back in 1984 they were almost albino.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Well then you and your brother are lousy lawyers.... sorry, but that is simply the fact of the matter. The prejudice against BYU was somehow based on empirical evidence that if applied to other recent NC's of the era would have also precluded their winning (Georgia, Clemson...) The fact is you weren't there and didn't witness the way BYU played. It's a moot point as far better genius' on the subject matter voted BYU #1 while speculative fans with little real technical knowledge beyond their irrational bigotries think some other team was robbed. Washtington and Oklahoma each played very below average (weak) schedules based on results that year. Furthermore, Washinton's loss was to a 9-3 team while Oklahoima lost to 3-8 Kansas that passed for over 400 yards against the Sooners. Most of us who know the game figured BYU would have ripped Oklahoma apart, including head coaches at Pitt and Baylor who both voted BYU ahead of OU all season long. To quote Grant Teaff at Baylor, "When we played Oklahoma it was a game into the middle of the 4th quarter before we made a couple of mistakes and they pulled away. We were pummeled by BYU before the 10 minute mark of the second quarter and were thankful to get off the field by game end (a 47-6 drumming)."

    Foge Fazio said, "My team was highly ranked (#3) and expected big things with 19-20 returning starters. BYU beat us at home with one of the best defenses we faced all year and a gritty offensive player (Bosco). The next week our guys were still complaining about how BYU had defeated them in the tunnel before the OU (Oklahoma) game and so their heads were never in that one, we lost it before we ever went out. That loss set Pitt's program back more than just for the season, but for several years. We didn't realize a team from the far west could strap it up and take it to us on our own field as if they were Notre Dame. But they did. and they were the best team we faced that year."

    LED - FWAA 1982 to Present

    ReplyDelete
  21. Beg to differ buddy. The facts are Pittsburgh finished 3-7-1 that year. Baylor finished 5-6, Tulsa 6-5, and Utah State 1-10. Followed by the "tough" WAC schedule. Your examples are so selective. In big boy conferences you have to bring it every week, so to compare one opponent versus one other is a little narrow in perspective. I did watch quite a bit of football that year, especially the bowls. The Pac-10 had 3 teams in the top 7. Washington, UCLA, and USC all would have lit up BYU. Those are the facts, I hate to rain on your day in the sun 27 years ago, but BYU was and always will be the weakest national champion of all time. I believe they had this poll on ESPN last year, and BYU won by a long shot. I would go further and include them in the argument of weakest national champion in any collegiate sport. By the way, do you think race was a factor?

    ReplyDelete
  22. I too remember the Pac-10 being very good that year. If I remember correctly, Arizona, Oregon, and Arizone State also had winning records and were very tough. The Pac-10 was pretty pass savvy, I believe they would have been more than prepared for BYU's thick ankled pass attack. I agree with the above guy. The author obviously got into a tiss when the "championship" of 1984 was dismissed.

    ReplyDelete
  23. This author seems thin skinned.

    ReplyDelete
  24. 1984- Washington wound up beating Oklahoma and finished the season ranked as the #2 team in the country behind BYU. Fast forward 6 months to the opening game of the 1985 season-
    BYU 31 Washington 3.
    'Nuff said about that!

    BYU's 1984 team put 12 starters on NFL rosters! Half the team made the NFL!!! That's superb by anyone's stretch of the imagination.

    Trying to discredit the BYU national championship in 1984 makes one look foolish. The facts are what they are. That was a great football team.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Well, I WAS there in the 80's- a BYU student- I always marveled at how the WAC Champion was always pitted against a #3,4,5 team from other conferences in their bowl game. But it worked for them in 84. The WAC was a cake walk for them, they played 1-2 teams each year from other conferences with winning records- and were usually .500 against them. Big Fish- Small Pond! Talent?, yes, dangerous? you bet, elite?? Not hardly. (BTW- look at the ave. age of the starters for the teams, most players the age of BYU starters are already in the Pros!)

    ReplyDelete
  26. I think Utah or BYU being considered "elite" is a stretch, but for a different reason than you might guess. But they were (are) very good. They both have an advantage because of the Mormon mission that gives them a couple of years of maturity. As my son's football coach says, most high school athletes will only reach 30% to 60% of their athletic potential before they graduate. Most college football players continue to get stronger, bigger, and faster during their 4 or 5 years. Add two years and that makes a little more difference for across-the-team talent.

    They played out of the MWC and WAC, so they can't be considered "elite" because their players don't get as many perks (free meals, cars, alumni sponsored apartments, etc.) as the "elite" programs our of the SEC, Big 12, PAC 10.

    I find this discussion between the PAC 10 (12), SEC, etc. fans and the BYU fans entertaining. As a Wyoming fan, I fall in the margin between not caring for either BYU or the "elite" conference teams.

    BYU in 1984 was the national champion and should have been! When it comes to conference discussions ... let's talk 2004 Las Vegas Bowl 6-5 Wyoming (3-4 MWC) vs. 6-5 UCLA (4-4 PAC 10) ... Final score WYO 24 - UCLA 21 - I'd call that a draw.

    2008 season 4-8 Wyoming (1-7 MWC) @ 5-7 Tennessee (3-5 SEC). Final Score WYO 13 - Tenn. 7. If a bottom dwelling to middle of the pack MWC team can beat middle of the pack Pac 10 or SEC teams, it would kind of discount the argument that those teams and conferences are SO much better. I know the next response is that these are cherry-picked examples. Which is kind of true because the "elite" conferences don't want to play and likely lose to the mid-majors, so they won't schedule them regularly.

    BSU (Boise State University) should have been national champion last year!

    ReplyDelete
  27. To even begin to bring up the comparison of whether Boise State is more elite than BYU takes us back to the very beginning of the article. You can not even compare the line of statistics used to make the elite status arguement of BYU when looking at Boise State. BSU has no where near the tradition. During the last decade and a half BSU has been amazing statistically, but BSU was painful during Pokey Allen. This is not to say BSU can not become elite, much like BYU they are on the path to elite status. Just like 40 years of peaks and valleys does not make BYU elite, it does not make BSU, TCU, Utah, or any other school which carried a psuedo-elite status over the last decade and a half a legitimate elite school.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Agreed. But elite or not, I think BSU had the best football team in the nation last year. Maybe not the best players and certainly not the best talent. But talent alone doesn't always translate into wins. Teamwork is critical. I think that is where discussion of elite becomes difficult. Notre Dame was once elite ... but really there is no evidence of that now.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Totally agree that BSU did not have the best players or talent last year or any of the previous amazing years. I went to Boise State and still live in Idaho (I am not a BSU or BYU fan), the greatest similarity between BSU and BYU over the various runs of both schools is amazing coaching (Hawkins while at BSU and now Chris Peterson) and (Edwards and now Mendenhall). I have heard Chris Peterson speak and Peterson without a doubt is an Elite coach just like Urban Myers, Mendenhall much like the atricle describes BYU is on track to become an elite coach.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Washington versus BYU in 1985 you say? How about last place pac-10 team Oregon State in 1986 beating BYU AT BYU! The 1984 BYU team was a top 10 team, but National Champion? If anybody today or anyday plays a 3-7-1 Pitt team, a 6-5 Tulsa team, a 5-6 Baylor, and a 1-10 Utah State and than the WAC!!? That's a National Champion? By the way, one of the starting safeties for that 1986 Oregon State celler dweller that beat BYU was Bronco Mendenhall.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Speaking of 1980s BYU football, as a Raider fan the most hated Raider of all time in terms of performance will always be Mark Wilson. If we had a real heir to Jim Plunkett we would have won multiple Super Bowls. He was the Ryan Leaf or Jamarcus Russel of the 80s. Great quarterback school BYU?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Steve Young and who else? Don't give me Jim McMahon, he couldn't make it through one season except 1985.

    ReplyDelete
  33. It would have been funny to see Boise go through the Pac-10 last year. Best case scenario they lose 2-3 games. Stanford beating the hell out of Virginia Tech really showed me that Boise would have struggled week in and week out in the Pac. Boise needed a miracle 1984 Holiday Bowl finish to beat V-tech while Stanford played with them like they were a Red shirt practice squad.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Man you guys are clinically insane. I thought TCU fans were dellusional, but at least they have Longhorn, Tech, and Aggie rabid bans to keep their sense of reality in check. BYU and Utah fans need to get out of their little Mountain time zone and get a sense of realism. Pay close attention to Utah football over the next 10 years, for as far as I'm concerned they're the same as BYU. If Utah doesn't go to one Rose Bowl, we can put this BCS versus non-BCS sense of unfairness to bed. BYU better be rooting for Utah, as should Boise.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Another Pac-10 fan here, I too live in Oregon. My first Ducks football game that I attended was as a high school student in September of 1990. It sticks out in my mind because of this conversation. The vaunted BYU cougars with Ty Detmer came in to Autzen stadium (the smaller version mind you) ranked number four and riding high after defeating Miami. Oregon absolutely crushed BYU. The final score was something like 35-16, but it wasn't even that close. Detmer still holds the stadium record for picks thrown (5). Oregon was good that year, but mid-range in the Pac-10. It brought home the fact that BYU even in their hey day could not compete week in and week out in a big conference. Anyone can get up for one or two games a year, but week to week is another story. I'll be interested in seeing what Utah does.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Here's the URL for the SI article I mentioned before...

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/stewart_mandel/08/08/cfb.bag/

    He pretty much says its a judgement call on his part based on how he thinks the programs are perceived nationally.

    Looking at the teams in each category I doubt even the most passionate BYU fan would really believe BYU should be listed with Alabama, Nebraska, Texas, USC, etc. I don't think there's anyone that would realistically put BYU in with Iowa State, Baylor, Vanderbilt and the 'Peasants' either.

    That leaves Barons or Knights for BYU and you can make a pretty good case either way. For me they'd be somewhere in between and the debate would be pretty interesting (If BYU's national championship is 'iffy' you can certainly knock CU and their 5th down play against Missouri and so forth).

    I do have to agree with the author's comments about BYU needing to improve defensively, though not simply to be a more well-rounded team (there's a reason for that 'defense wins championships' thing), but because teams with a great offensive and a suspect defense (Hello Texas Tech) are perceived as 2nd rate. They might be fun to watch but I think we've all been conditioned to some extent to revere strong, physical defenses. I imagine we've all seen the almost reverent treatment towards big hits and great defense on those NFL Films documentaries (can you hear...or at least imagine the narrator extolling the play of Dick Butkus as he takes out a ball carrier...in slow motion, of course).

    One more item I wanted to bring up again is the future scheduling. If BYU can pull off BCS-caliber schedules then I think they will have made a very good choice in becoming a football independent...particularly if they are able to get home and home deals with major opponents so as to be televised on ESPN. The revenue and the exposure should go a long way towards raising BYU's profile. The Mountain West was a decent conference (though with a few too many bottom-feeders) but even for the better teams the television exposure was rather embarrassing. Though if BYU (and TCU, for that matter) had stayed along with the new additions I would have liked the conferences chances to achieve BCS status and get a decent TV deal set up with either Fox or ESPN.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Pac 10 fan, you leave out some important details. Even without the win over number one miami, Detmer was public enemy number one in eugene after he led a 19 point comeback win over Oregon in 1989 toasting the ducks all american cornerback for 470 yards.

    Bad form to judge Ty and BYU on one game. I bet Ty also set the record for most pass attempts (57) and passing yards (442) in autzen

    Yes Oregon played a great game and BYU was way over confident, but you can't make your conclusion based off of one game. I guess that Tim Tebow guy and Florida aren't that great since they let a 9-4 ole miss team beat them at home in 2008

    ReplyDelete
  38. Also in BYU vs. Oregon game in 90, Detmer was recovering from 2 dislocated shoulders from the Miami game.

    ReplyDelete
  39. To all who think WA should have been the NC in 84, they only have their own team to blame. WA was invited to play BYU in the bowl but turned it down for one main reason. Money. That said, we will never know WA could have one, plus WA didn't even win the pac that yr.

    ReplyDelete
  40. What a bunch of hot air the BCS crowd puts out. First, they say because you don't play against our teams day in and day out your wins don't count. Next, they say if you don't win against us every time it shows that you can't compete as well as our lower tier teams. If that doesn't work then you throw out the "your success (take 1984 BYU)" was not really success because the voting system that said you were NC was flawed. What the current system isn't? Come on guys have a little integrity. How many complainers in 1984 wanted an NC enough to come to the Holiday Bowl? Answer none wanted an NC enough to forgoe their New Year's Day bowl paychecks. A weak bowl game opponent had never happened before 1984? Give me a break. The NC has been and will be a popularity contest until it is based on a playoff. The BCS has reduced the popularity component but did not eliminate it from the NC. Take the SEC's current arguement: "Our girls are so pretty that if you win in our pagents week in and week out you must be the prettiest." What great justification for keeping the unpopular girls off the stage because they can't compete. Exactly "they can't compete and until they can you can't say the girls on stage are the prettiest."

    No one outside of the power conference cliques other than BYU has won an NC (since it became such a lucretive popularity contest). The BCS crowns a NC but if you want to discuss the best team of each year without each team playing 119 games you have to stick to an honest statistical analysis. Even then you'll get all kinds of idiots making scoreboard irrelevant with talk about "if so-and-so wasn't injured we'd have won so that result should be ignored." Or they'll throw in weather, officiating, altitude, last weeks game, next week's game, off field issues as the excuse. Blah, blah blah.... Everything to rationalize away the results on the scoreboard so they can keep selling whatever is in the best interest of their ego, network or conference. Parity was predicted over 30 years ago and it is here. Stop being a bunch of beauty queens bickering over who's the fairest in the land (ie best team.) We won't ever know that even with a playoff. So stop trying to build your teams up by tearing or keeping others down. It reflects the reasoning of the fearful, insane and uncivil.

    ReplyDelete
  41. I don't think even a playoff will satisfy some people. The notion that Team A didn't play as tough of a schedule as Team B, therefore, they are still fresh, have less injuries, etc. come playoff time will still be the calling card for some.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Having read many more of the negative comments about BYU's national title, I am as a football writer thatcovered the WAC, BYU and that era, even more convinced of what horses-&*%^$ some fans are. They actually believe they are smarter than the coaches that faced all three candidate teams that year. They actually believe the myths and fallicies that surrounded the leagues those teams played in. The BIG-8 was one of the weakest leagues in the country, with only Nebraska and Oklahoma amounting to much of anything while six teams on schedule were pushovers just like much of the WAC and in no way better than those WAC programs. In fact some would argue that Air Force, Wyoming and SDSU were better than Iowa State, Missouri, Kansasa State and Kansas back then. I get discusted when numnutz make these ridiculous bigoted comments about this team or that. Look at OU and Washington's schedules...they were pretty pathetic and no, the PAC-10 was terrible that year.

    As for the things that we do know for sure about that season is that Oklahoma lost so badly to a significantly below average Kansas team it had no basis for claiming anything. Worse yet, it lost because the Jayhaks passed for over 400 yards and 4 TD's against them and OU only made a game of it in losing 28-11 by scoring a TD and 2 point conversion at the end of regulation in the 4th quarter. We who reson and watched the sport professionally knew what BYU would have done to an OU team that had a #2 ranked defense in the nation built ENTIRELY on short-clock games against 10 running opponents that threw about as many total passes in the entire season as BYU (and Kansas) tossed in a typical game. OU would have gotten the heck beat out of them. Coaches that faced both OU AND Washington observed the same. Don James' team defeated Michigan 20-11 while BYU defeated Michigan 24-17 after turning the ball over 5 times and outgaining the Wolverines 401 to 202 yards...the worst statistical pasting the mighty Michigan defense had taken all year.

    LED
    FWAA 1982-Present

    ReplyDelete
  43. Look some of you will forever find reasons to discount BYU's 1984 NC. I am just a writer who supported their claim, along with a majority of coaches and writers in the other major polls. 27 of BYU's players on the roster that season actually went on to play in one of three professional FB leagues (12 in the NFL) which by any moder standard is huge. Your claims are scoffed at by coaches that faced those teams and so why not just admit maybe as fans you just really aren't that knowledgeable about the racts. You were not there. You loved a team that didn't win, maybe OU or Washington. You make ridiculous claims that somehow BYU ducked playing a bigger named opponent in the HB. BYU was contractually obligated to play in the Holiday Bowl against whomever it arranged...totally out of BYU's hands. Washingtonh was invited having LOST THE PAC-10 CHAMPIONSHIP TO 9-3 USC. uw COULD HAVE BEEN THERE, BUT WANTED MORE MONEY FROM THE ORANGE BOWL. UW forfeited the right to it by losing to USC and then skipping the HB for OU. UW then USED the KANSAS JAYHAWK gameplan to beat OU...something BYU would have done as well. Since UW skipped the game that could have earned it the title, it skipped the title, simple as that. It will never be awarded to UW in hindsight and beetching about it just makes UW fans look like poor sportsman and loosers.

    I have always had the utmost respect for the actual people at UW. I loved Don James and thought he was a great coach and fine program leader. I love the rivalry that later developed after BYU and Washington began to play one another. But UW fans - I have to tell you, they rank right there with some of the most pathetiq, winny bunch of grape eaters on the planet. In the PAC-10, the best fans are from UCLA and ASU, worst ones from Washington and UTAH, most arrogant and obnoxious from USC. Great programs, great schools, great coaches every one...but the fans...give me UCLA any day and UW...BYU 31-3 to open the following year - scoreboard.

    By the way, for the poster that complained PITT finished their season 3-7-1, you apparently did not get the Foge Fazio reality check...BYU destroyed that team's confidence and season. Pitt was independent (no conference then). Pitt was ranked #3 and at home, a two TD favorite over BYU which had finished the prior year ranked #7 and entered the season on an 11 game winning streak as I recall. Pitt had finished ranked in the top 5 as well...and 19 players came back which is why everyone was so high on PITT. I doubt the fans criticising BYU's purportedly weak schedule realized just how much was expected of PITT that year and how disappointed they were after the BYU loss...it tanked their enitre season. Like Penn State (also an Independent back then) one loss in the "weak east" was considered a death nail for a NC hope. PITT took years to recover. PSu eventually decided it needs a conference in order to make sure it's players had something to shoot for...and so did PITT. when the Big-TEN and BIG-EAST came calling, they moved on those opportunities knowing a road to a NC would be tougher, but a loss would not likely result in the spiral PITT had gone into after the first game of the 1984 season. DO NOT BLAME BYU for PITT's mental collapse after that game. Blame PITT.

    BYU was the most worthy NC contender in 1984. Live with it or don't but stop complaining about it because you have absolutely no arguments of merit to the contrary for most of us who professionaly analyzed these thangs and helped make them happen back then.

    Member
    Football Writers Association of America

    ReplyDelete
  44. Sorry about the typos...too much arthritis in my old age.

    LED
    FWAA 1982-Presnet

    ReplyDelete
  45. I like the beauty pagent analogy....

    The fact is, in those days there were the following conferences.

    Big-8 (8 Teams,only 2 real powers, Nebraska and Oklahoma)

    Big-TEN (10 Teams,only 2 real powers Ohio State and Michigan, only one of which was any good that year)

    SEC (10 teams) only 3 real powers (Georgia, Alabama and Tennessee) However there was a lot more middle tier parity among god programs from LSU, Auburn and MSU.

    SWC (8 Teams, only real powers were Arkansas, Texas and Texas A&M)

    PAC-10 (USC and UCLA were the only significant powers as ASU had declined a great deal)

    WAC (BYU was riding roughshod over most teams, but Wyoming was actually pretty good back then as well - Utah sucked).

    The ACC I believe included 8 teams.

    Among the powerful independent ranks were Pitt, Penn State, Notre Dame, Florida State, Boston College, Miami and Syracuse.

    Virginia Tech had yet to become a power under Frank Beemer and prominant programs at louisville, UConn, Rutgers, Temple, South Florida and much of what now constitutes C-USA were either not in existance or barely breathing on life support while waiting for basketball every year.

    If you are trying to look at that era and base your irrational arguments on the basis of what you see and know today - forget it. You're wrong (VERY WRONG). BYU had already been recognized as a regular top 25 participant for nearly a decade and had finished the 1983 season ranked #7 in both polls. It had already earned the right to be considered a power and now, over 3 decades since LaVell Edwards began the winning tradition in Provo, BYU has long since proven it can win big games against other name teams.

    BYU finished the 1984 season having won I believe 23 consecutive games.... simply a feat that few teams ever accomplish without being considered for a National Title at some point.

    Stop bellyaching over BYU in 1984. The won. They deserved to win and arguments against it hold no validity. What would you critics do, name a bunch of teams co 2nd place finishers? Sorry, most of us just didn't buy into that and we knew BYU was worthy having watched them play and having listened to (interviewed) the coaches that made them #1 after playing them.

    LED
    FWAA 1982-Present

    ReplyDelete
  46. LED,

    Thank you for all of your great contributions. You are welcome here at BlueCougarFootball.com anytime.

    The Editor

    ReplyDelete
  47. Wow, I just about spit my coffee all over the screen, pretty funny stuff. But also pretty valid points from the Pac-10's JV. I actually had to go back and check some things to make sure my memory wasn't doing me in. I always remember 1984 and 2000 as being some of the strongest years for the Pac-10 in terms of elite level of play by the programs in big bowls. I'll give you some bad losses at the beginning of the year by the teams, but winning the Rose Bowl, the Orange Bowl and the Fiesta Bowl in one year isn't too shabby no matter what era you're talking about. Plus that USC 20-11 win over Michigan was "at" Michigan not way out on the West Coast like BYU's win in 1984. Little different playing in front of 100,000 hostile fans instead of 50,000 cozy neutral bowl fans.

    As for Washington passing up the Holiday Bowl in 1984, are you kidding? I remember ESPN back than as a total novelty, most people on my block didn't even have cable. Let's see, playing in front of 80,000 in the Orange Bowl against a big power like Oklahoma on National TV (ABC), or 50,000 against the WAC champion that nobody respected on some random cable station called ESPN. Remember, to use your logic Mr. Editor, 1984 was a lot different in terms of the social media, television coverage, and perception than now. I'd argue BYU has more exposure now than back than. Mid level Pac-10 teams laughed at BYU in 1984, let alone the average fan in the midwest or South. Thanks for playing though, it's nice to finally meet some BYU fans that will try to defend 1984. Nobody out here in Pac-10 country even dares to. They always complain that they can't get African-American players, just old 3 star recruits with vanishing hair lines.

    ReplyDelete
  48. "I'll give you some bad losses at the beginning of the year by the teams"

    By that, do you mean USC losing at home on November 24 to a bad 7-5 Notre Dame team?

    "As for Washington passing up the Holiday Bowl in 1984, are you kidding?"

    No. The question is are you kidding? Say what you want to downgrade the Holiday Bowl and ESPN at that time. It was a chance to play the number one team in the country. Miami was #5 going into the bowls in 1983--just one year earlier--but finished they year #1. Why? Because they beat the number one team in their bowl game. No one is trying to say the Holiday Bowl was a great bowl. Washington just looks really juvenile when they complain that they are not number 1 after skipping the chance to play the number one team.

    "the WAC champion that nobody respected"

    Hence the #1 ranking? If nobody respected BYU in 1984, there is no way BYU would have been number one, they would have been ranked much lower, just like the undefeated 2007 WAC Champion Hawaii.

    "Remember, to use your logic ... Mid level Pac-10 teams laughed at BYU in 1984."

    Here is my logic. 1983 Pac 10 CHAMPION UCLA wasn't laughing after BYU beat them in Los Angeles (at the Rose Bowl) that year. A ranked Washington State team wasn't laughing after BYU beat them in the Holiday Bowl in 1981.

    You really should read my complete defense of the 1984 National Championship here:

    http://www.bluecougarfootball.com/2010/07/defending-1984-national-championship.html

    In particular, pay attention to number 6 and see that the Pac-10 wasn't that great in 1984, otherwise, Washington would not have been a distant 3rd in a non-biased formula that makes adjustments for a team's strength of schedule.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment