Oklahoma and the 84 Nat'l Championship - Page 2 - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

jay santos · 12-06-2006, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ute4ever

Why is it in 2004, MWC champion Utah has a great 11-win season, is courted by a better bowl than the one in the conference K, and takes it.

In 2005, MWC champion TCU has a great 10-win season, is courted by a better bowl than the one in the conference K, and takes it.

In 2006, MWC champion BYU has a great 10-win season...and like in 1984, they are staying put?

Are you being serious?

BCS is a given. If you make it you go.

Nearly every other quality bowl is locked up. The TCU thing was a quirk.

What are you questioning?

Venkman · 12-06-2006, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jay santos

Are you being serious?

BCS is a given. If you make it you go.

Nearly every other quality bowl is locked up. The TCU thing was a quirk.

What are you questioning?

Well, obviously BYU is afraid to play a quality opponent in a quality bowl.

ute4ever · 12-06-2006, 08:04 PM

What I am questioning is the lack of cooperation amongst the teams at the top of the rankings in 1984. This year we have Florida and Michigan both squawking about playing Ohio State. Two years ago we had USC, Oklahoma, Auburn, and (arguably) Utah wanting in. Three years ago it was USC, LSU and Oklahoma.

I don't understand why in 1984, with the title on the line, nobody wanted to play BYU, and why BYU apparently wouldn't budge from the Motel 6 bowl or whatever the silly contract was for.

jay santos · 12-06-2006, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ute4ever

What I am questioning is the lack of cooperation amongst the teams at the top of the rankings in 1984. This year we have Florida and Michigan both squawking about playing Ohio State. Two years ago we had USC, Oklahoma, Auburn, and (arguably) Utah wanting in. Three years ago it was USC, LSU and Oklahoma.

I don't understand why in 1984, with the title on the line, nobody wanted to play BYU, and why BYU apparently wouldn't budge from the Motel 6 bowl or whatever the silly contract was for.

You were refering to the 2006 BYU team staying put in the Vegas Bowl and seemed to be implying this year's team was ducking a good opponent in a bowl game.

myboynoah · 12-06-2006, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ute4ever

What I am questioning is the lack of cooperation amongst the teams at the top of the rankings in 1984. This year we have Florida and Michigan both squawking about playing Ohio State. Two years ago we had USC, Oklahoma, Auburn, and (arguably) Utah wanting in. Three years ago it was USC, LSU and Oklahoma.

I don't understand why in 1984, with the title on the line, nobody wanted to play BYU, and why BYU apparently wouldn't budge from the Motel 6 bowl or whatever the silly contract was for.

BYU stayed put in the Holiday Bowl because as the WAC champ it was contractually obligated to do so.

As for why Oklahoma or Washington and the powers that be didn't try to resolve the situation, I don't know. I suppose it has something to do with why we now have a very exclusive BCS system.

Venkman · 12-06-2006, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by myboynoah

BYU stayed put in the Holiday Bowl because as the WAC champ it was contractually obligated to do so.

As for why Oklahoma or Washington and the powers that be didn't try to resolve the situation, I don't know. I suppose it has something to do with why we now have a very exclusive BCS system.

For all the bitching OU and UW did that year, it would've been pretty embarrassing if they ended up losing to BYU in a bowl game. They had a chance to prove their obvious superiority but didn't seem interested.

ute4ever · 12-06-2006, 09:05 PM

Okay let me rephrase this.

It seems every year there is uproar over how unfair the bowl system is. Multiple teams pleading their case for a shot at the title. Why is it then, that nobody was willing to budge in 1984? BYU was ranked #1, but nobody wanted to play them. Meanwhile, BYU was at risk of having a bigger name team leaping past them, but refused to leave San Diego.

It doesn't make sense.

myboynoah · 12-06-2006, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lisa.Kinzer

Well, I was reading a whole bunch of the AP coverage from the 1984 bowl season, and it doesn't sound like any of the teams ever even considered leaving the bowls they were obligated to.

Maybe it wasn't so much of an option.

The only thing that was in question was which non-obligated teams would consider which bowls. Orange Bowl was able to pull #4 Washington, Holiday Bowl couldn't really get anybody.

I can email you some of the articles, I think, if you want to see them.

Lisa's correct. Back then there wasn't a lot of pressure to try to put the best two teams together. Many major bowls had conference tie-ins (Big 8 - Orange, SEC - Sugar, SWC (RIP) - Cotton, PAC10 & Big10 - Rose), so it was often impossible to do so. While people lamented some confusion after the bowls (several times there were split champions), nobody seemed to get too exercised about it all. Indeed, different AP and UPI champions allowed two schools to claim national championships.

myboynoah · 12-06-2006, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ute4ever

Meanwhile, BYU was at risk of having a bigger name team leaping past them, but refused to leave San Diego.

It doesn't make sense.

Let me repeat, BYU was contractually obligated to play in the Holiday Bowl due to the WAC tie-in. It did not refuse to leave San Diego. The Holiday Bowl was not about to let the #1 ranked team in the nation out of the contract.

Believe me, had there been a way and an invitation made, BYU would have happily gone to Miami to play Oklahoma or Tempe to play Washington. It was not BYU's choice.

Goatnapper'96 · 12-07-2006, 03:24 PM

However, I warn to you to critically think before you read the rest of this post. If you hold the Utenation belief that BYU is responsible for the BCS sacred, just like the belief that your galaxy leading bowl win percentages for any team that has played in 20, ooops my baaaaad 10, bowl games is proof of your programs power, then you might want to skip this post.

I guess you chose to wade forward. God bless you even Wayne Howard would have given up by now and asked all his LDS friends how they could be Mormon and why the LDS Church had not adopted a 14th Article of Faith that "We believe we should stop trying in games where we have a big lead." But hey if lying and accusing others of being bigots is one's thing, Ndiye to ya!

In the early 1970's I believe Alabama and USC were both undefeated and yet were unable to play each other with the SEC being contractually bound for the Sugar Bowl and Pac-8 contractually bound for Rose Bowl. I believe there was a similar deal in the early 90's with Colorado and Washington, might have been Georgia Tech? Regardless, these events resulted in split National Championships. There was no move to eradicate these situations until well into the 90's when humongous TV revenues, and ladies knockers, became the rage of the land. As Miss America 1983 demonstrated a flat Scando Mormon babe can become the epitome of beautiful, 1984 clearly makes it obvious that TV revenues did not provide the cash to tell contractually bound bowl masters to piss off!

I think to evaluate 1984 it is best done with the perspective of pre huge cash payouts from TV.

12-07-2006, 03:24 PM	#20
Goatnapper'96 Recruiting Coordinator/Bosom Inspector Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,412	1984 was a lot closer to 1964 than it was 2004 or even 1994.... However, I warn to you to critically think before you read the rest of this post. If you hold the Utenation belief that BYU is responsible for the BCS sacred, just like the belief that your galaxy leading bowl win percentages for any team that has played in 20, ooops my baaaaad 10, bowl games is proof of your programs power, then you might want to skip this post. I guess you chose to wade forward. God bless you even Wayne Howard would have given up by now and asked all his LDS friends how they could be Mormon and why the LDS Church had not adopted a 14th Article of Faith that "We believe we should stop trying in games where we have a big lead." But hey if lying and accusing others of being bigots is one's thing, Ndiye to ya! In the early 1970's I believe Alabama and USC were both undefeated and yet were unable to play each other with the SEC being contractually bound for the Sugar Bowl and Pac-8 contractually bound for Rose Bowl. I believe there was a similar deal in the early 90's with Colorado and Washington, might have been Georgia Tech? Regardless, these events resulted in split National Championships. There was no move to eradicate these situations until well into the 90's when humongous TV revenues, and ladies knockers, became the rage of the land. As Miss America 1983 demonstrated a flat Scando Mormon babe can become the epitome of beautiful, 1984 clearly makes it obvious that TV revenues did not provide the cash to tell contractually bound bowl masters to piss off! I think to evaluate 1984 it is best done with the perspective of pre huge cash payouts from TV. __________________ She had a psychiatrist who said because I didn't trust the water system, the school system, the government, I was paranoid," he said. "I had a psychiatrist who said her psychiatrist was stupid."

12-06-2006, 08:04 PM	#13
ute4ever I must not tell lies Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 5,103	What I am questioning is the lack of cooperation amongst the teams at the top of the rankings in 1984. This year we have Florida and Michigan both squawking about playing Ohio State. Two years ago we had USC, Oklahoma, Auburn, and (arguably) Utah wanting in. Three years ago it was USC, LSU and Oklahoma. I don't understand why in 1984, with the title on the line, nobody wanted to play BYU, and why BYU apparently wouldn't budge from the Motel 6 bowl or whatever the silly contract was for.

12-06-2006, 09:05 PM	#17
ute4ever I must not tell lies Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 5,103	Okay let me rephrase this. It seems every year there is uproar over how unfair the bowl system is. Multiple teams pleading their case for a shot at the title. Why is it then, that nobody was willing to budge in 1984? BYU was ranked #1, but nobody wanted to play them. Meanwhile, BYU was at risk of having a bigger name team leaping past them, but refused to leave San Diego. It doesn't make sense.