Deseret News | National champs: Cougars finished on top after going 13-0 in 1984

Reader comments
National champs: Cougars finished on top after going 13-0 in 1984

142 comments | Read story

Page:
1
2
3
Next >

Cougs | 11:24 p.m. July 11, 2009

The sleeping giant will soon be awake again

Ironic | 11:27 p.m. July 11, 2009

It's Ironic BYUs success is responsible for the bowl alliance, BCS and media bias. It's even more ironic that utah is the team that's been able to tear down the wall that BYU inadvertently helped greedy men set up.

Waiting | 1:01 a.m. July 12, 2009

Now we await the inferiority complex laiden posts from Ute fans saying their 2 BCS games are a bigger deal, or that the 84 title is "mythical", or quit living in the past, etc... News flash, last year is in the past. In life, all you have is memories and hope for the future. Both programs should revel in their respective successes and hopes for the future.

Comments continue below

Robert Bledsoe | 2:01 a.m. July 12, 2009

Jeff,

Great article about the 1984 National Championship team.

Although the 25th anniversary of the 1984 team will undoubtedly get the most attention this year, 2009 is also the 30th anniversary of the 1979 team that came within one play of an undefeated season. That team, led by QB Marc Wilson and DB Tom Holmoe among many others, is all but forgetten to most BYU football fans. I would love to see a similar article about them.

Thank you,

Robert Bledsoe
Temecula, CA

Nothin' But Victims at U | 2:06 a.m. July 12, 2009

So, once again BYU is responsible for any and all maladies in the world according to "Ironic." So, it's not surprising either that "Ironic" tags the U as the solution. When hard-core Utes point the finger of blame at the Y anymore, all I can do is laugh. Problem with local phone service? BYU is the cause. Poor decisions at the Utah legislature? Look no further than BYU. LDS church members that are imperfect? Source: BYU. War in Iraq? George Bush led by the nose to war by a clandestine, all-powerful underground quorum at BYU.

Let the brainwashing on the hill continue....

Joke | 3:29 a.m. July 12, 2009

Keep hanging your hat zoobies on this heavily disputed national championship. It makes you look like fools. If you seriously believe you could have beaten the likes of Washington, Florida, Nebraska, and Oklahoma that year, your even bigger fools. A 6-5 Michigan team. You should be very proud. Get a grip zoobs, you dominated for years in a week conference after Arizona and Arizona State left to the PAC 10. Earth to Zoobs, please return to earth, the ride has been over for some time now.

BYU! | 3:30 a.m. July 12, 2009

yawn..........This is the BCS Era. NO one cares about this dated team.

Mississippi Mormon | 5:14 a.m. July 12, 2009

Thanks for the article. Great memories of my freshman year at BYU. Go Cougs!

oh brother | 5:54 a.m. July 12, 2009

are you kidding? they will lose at least 3 this year.

ironic?? | 6:34 a.m. July 12, 2009

Actually BYU 1996 and BYU 2000 both put pressure on the Bowl Alliance/BCS to modify their at large selection requirements. Before 1996 the Bowl Alliance required a top 6 ranking to get in one of the top 4 games if you were not from one of the chosen conferences. Because of BYU's performance in 1996 they then dropped it to 12 until after 2000 when they dropped it to 16. So if it wasn't for those years from BYU the BCS Busters we know of today (Hawaii, BSU, Utah) likely wouldn't have even qualified for selection (with the possible exception of Utah 2008 which I believe was at #6 at time of game selections in the BCS poll).

BYU 1984 forced the conferences whining about their national title to create the bowl alliance/BCS. Without that their wouldn't even be this new 'mythical' accomplishment of being a BCS buster and at least 3 out of the 4 teams that have done it wouldn't even have qualified without additional years of BYU tearing down the criteria for inclusion.

ttommiejo | 6:46 a.m. July 12, 2009

My my where has the time gone? It seems like only yesterday that this team (the 1984 BYU Cougars) won the national championship. What's really funny is here where I live in the Tampa Bay Area in Florida one of the newspaper editors threw his coffee cup up against the wall. Like the rest of the country UF (University of Florida) was complainting the most. Then again that was then & this is now. I hope the state of Utah does sue the BCS & force it to change that would be good for college football if you ask me.

Hilarious | 7:10 a.m. July 12, 2009

I still remember BYU "claiming" the National Championship title 25 years ago, I still laugh at the banner at the end zone in BYU's stadium. While they did go 13 - 0 their schedule was weak in comparison.

BYU will never see another chance towards a "National Championship" so keep the highlight films readily available so that you can cherish the one and only glorified moment in BYU Football History (even though it was a fraud).

P.S. Have you guys quit playing that Danny Ainge dribble against ND back in the days???? Or do you still run the play over and over again in the Marriott Center during your devotions, gymnastic, volleyball and basketball games during the half time ice cream social????

Jim | 7:30 a.m. July 12, 2009

I remember as a freshman sitting in a intro to investments class and going over who needed to lose the next week, it was amazing that all those teams in front of BYU kept losing. It was a great year.

Good Stuff! | 7:39 a.m. July 12, 2009

I think any logical fan knows that what happened in 1984 wouldn't happen today.

As Utah, Boise State, and Hawaii have proven, undefeated in a non-BCS conference is no longer sufficient even with two or three wins against teams from BCS conferences. As a die hard cougar fan it's easy for me to say what Utah accomplished last year was on par with BYU's NC (higher quality wins but still no consensus NC). If Michigan had been ranked 3rd to begin the season in 2008 then I believe Utah would have made it to the title game. Luck was on the Y's side in '84, but luck also played no small factor in the U's 2008 undefeated season.

I think we as BYU fans take ourselves a little too seriously if we think the only reason for the BCS was to prevent another 1984, but I'm sure that was on Washington's mind. I'd rather take credit for innovations contributing to the West Coast Offense and the multitude of future NFL coaches and players out of BYU during those years than think the BCS was created only to prevent another 1984.

It's Really Slow | 7:49 a.m. July 12, 2009

on the sports desk-------so write about something that has nothing to do with nothing.........

Oh, and very interesting all the YBU'ers who started right out with negatives about the Utes (the article is about byu and 84)???????? Just tells ya where the mind set is! Always looking over your shoulders blue boys!

Time to be in the present... | 7:53 a.m. July 12, 2009

and work for the future.

13-0 with a weak schedule was not NC material.

SoCalUtahFan

scoreboard | 7:59 a.m. July 12, 2009

byu received the ultimate gift in 84: an unearned championship....they were good but with a schedule full of patsies such as colo st, utah, utah st, utep, wyoming, new mexico, and of course the 6-5 michigan how could a decent team not go undefeated?...you got scoreboard on all the D1 teams that year cougs...count your blessings because it was a freebie, a gift you clearly did not earn...the champion was washington that year i believe....

Honest and Serious | 8:02 a.m. July 12, 2009

What was Michigan's record at the end of he year and where they even ranked in the top 20 when they played YBU? Coug fans, please be honest and quit using the excuse that "we were crowned NC by the media" when you know, if you have any common sense, that you beat a terrible team. This would not happen in today's game.

BYU's 1984 Milestone | 8:39 a.m. July 12, 2009

Once again, a vision of a past history acts as an invitation for a smorgasbord of replies.

There are the myriad of BYU "haters" spreading their venom; the Naysayers offering their best impression of Bryant Gumble's BYU played "Bo Diddley Tech".

Still, the milestone was set. The improbable occurred. Small steps by "unknown" stars led to BYU being the 1984 National Champion.

No one can take away the 1984 National Championship. Whether that occurance led to the many gyrations and versions of exclusion for the "have not" NCAA schools or not is immaterial. History bears out that the "BIG" schools did not proceed to monopolize until after BYU wins the National Championship.

The 1984 BYU National Championship was a catalysisic occurence that set up a chain of monopolistic events that led to the monopoly known as the BCS. Twenty-five years later, there are continous rumblings and eruptions as the BCS continues to try to "corner the market" on college football.

true blue | 8:43 a.m. July 12, 2009

To all you doubters, BYU didn't vote themselves natn'l champs. BYU had a great season and were rewarded. I bet BYU could've played with anyone that year, maybe not beat them, but hang. No matter what the haters say the record books will always have BYU as the 1984 national champs. This season sets up well for BYU to do it again.

Let's go get OU.

Who Else? | 8:44 a.m. July 12, 2009

The funny thing about the 1984 National Championship debate is that no one can ever come up with a legitimate team of who should have won the national title. The argument is that it just should not have been BYU. Well, then who?

No. 2 Washington -- Just simply look at which bowl they were playing in, the Orange Bowl, which obviously is a great bowl. However, Pac-10 champions play in the Rose Bowl, not the Orange Bowl. It's difficult to crown a 'national title' to a team who cannot even win a 'conference title.' One loss. (Pac-10 Champ USC had three losses).

No. 3 Florida -- Team was on probation. One loss, one tie.

No. 4 Nebraska -- As noted with Washington, Washington's opponent in the Orange Bowl was the Big Eight champion, Oklahoma, not Nebraska. Nebraska was not a conference champion and therefore played in the Sugar Bowl. So the same principle applies, it's difficult to crown a 'national title' to a team who cannot even win a 'conference title.' Two losses. (Big Eight champion Oklahoma had two losses and one tie).

No. 5 Boston College -- Independent team, so no conference ties. However, two losses.

Oh good grief | 8:49 a.m. July 12, 2009

Utah had a much better season last year than BYU did in 1984. If it hadn't been for the BCS, Utah would have at least been a split national champion last year.

DN, stop dwelling on this old story from BYU's long past "glory" days. Perhaps start focusing on the here and now, and that's the Utes!

Seriously!? | 8:55 a.m. July 12, 2009

I sincerely thought that this would never raise its ugly head again. I guess this is to be expected when your program is reduced to "memories and hope for the future." Good luck Cougs. Here's to hoping you have something better in your future.

Wondering | 8:55 a.m. July 12, 2009

How about an article on what the players are doing today. Whave have the players accomplished in there lives.

Anonymous | 9:10 a.m. July 12, 2009

This is ridiculous. Utah fans quit bringing byu down...utah did deserve a national championship opportunity last year and in 2004. in response to 'joke' i guarantee that utah would have beaten florida and usc last year (utah deserved to be in the nc game but i still think usc and florida would have won) even as good as they were...and for byu to have a completely terrible game against michigan (1984) and come back from 6 turnovers with an injured qb to win does deserve some respect! even if they werent a nc quality team...thats why you play the games. we dont know until they play. byu finished their season right...the others didnt. the other teams shouldnt have lost! thats why you get the george masons and villanovas and other cinderellas. it makes it exciting and makes you realize to never take a game for granted. the best teams dont always win. but the best teams shouldnt have lostin 1984!

and in response to 'hilarious' which is also ridiculous...of course they are going to show the amazing plays that happen. it would be dumb to not to! thats what people remember and love to see!!

WSU Cougar | 9:28 a.m. July 12, 2009

Although I am a Utah Fan, the boys in 1984 at BYU played the teams that were scheduled for them, beat them, were undefeated and did in fact WIN the NC.

The appropriate response from anyone with any social grace and class is to say "Congratulations, good job!"

By the way, the same comment applies to the 2008 Utah Team.

ironic - 1996 | 9:29 a.m. July 12, 2009

Before 1996, there WAS no Bowl Alliance requirement of reaching a Top-6 ranking to get into one of the top 4 games. Those Bowl games were tied to specific conferences, none of which were the WAC. When the cougars finished the 1996 regular season, they were ranked #5, and earned a date in the Cotton Bowl. Upon edging Kansas St, they remained #5.

ironic - 1997 | 9:30 a.m. July 12, 2009

The BCS doesn’t manifest itself until after the 1997 season when many felt Michigan should have been crowned the consensus Nat’l Champion, but had to share that title with Nebraska, which was deemed by many as a retirement gift to outgoing NU Head Coach Tom Osborne. The BCS was born in 1998 to avoid that split NC. At THAT time, the 4 major bowls: Rose, Sugar, Orange, and Fiesta were tied to the conference champs of the Big 10/PAC 10, SEC, ACC, and Big XII. Neither Notre Dame nor the Big East had any bowl tie in, but were included amongst the Automatic Qualifiers thanks to BCS/Big East Commissioner Mike Tranghrese. Non-AQ schools were THEN thrown the AQ bone if they could finish in the Top-6. The Top-12 requirement only applied as an At Large selection; not AQ.

ironic - 2001 | 9:30 a.m. July 12, 2009

In 2001 BYU ranked #8 in the BCS polls before losing to Hawai’i in their season finale. Losing to Hawai’i didn’t help their case for a BCS bowl bid, but they hadn’t qualified for an AQ ANYWAY. Had they beaten the Warriors, they STILL would not have qualified as an AQ as none of the teams ahead of them lost. They WOULD have qualified as an At Large, but just ask TCU and Boise St. what happens when the BCS isn’t contractually obligated to accept a non-BCS team. Nevertheless, after Hawai’i, BYU lost all merit. They proved how unworthy they were AGAIN in their subsequent game, the Liberty Bowl vs. Louisville.

ironic - 2004 | 9:31 a.m. July 12, 2009

In 2004, the AQ requirement of Top-6 was still in effect. Utah finished their regular season ranked #6, thus qualifying them for a bid. Despite being ranked higher than Va. Tech and Pittsburgh, they were selected last, and fell to the Fiesta Bowl to face the Panthers.

ironic - 2005 | 9:31 a.m. July 12, 2009

In 2005, TCU finished ranked #14 in the final BCS standings, higher than the 22nd ranked ACC Champion, Florida St, but the Top-6 requirement was still in effect, and thus fell to the Houston Bowl to face Iowa St. Following THAT year, the requirement was lowered to a Top-12 ranking for an AQ, or a Top-16 ranking if finishing higher than the conference champion of an AQ school.

McFly? | 9:33 a.m. July 12, 2009

Did Ravell Call really take that picture back in 1984?

ironic - 2006 thru 2008 | 9:33 a.m. July 12, 2009

In 2006, Boise St. finished ranked #9 in the BCS standings. That WOULDN’T have been sufficient in prior years, but under the new guidelines, the qualified as an AQ and faced Oklahoma in the Fiesta. Hawai’i played their way into the Sugar Bowl the following year with a final BCS ranking of #10.

In 2008, the Utes’ final BCS ranking of #6 qualified them for the Sugar Bowl under the old standard. Boise St. and TCU qualified under the new standard, but due to the Utes earning the AQ, fell to an At Large standing, passed over for Ohio St, and falling ultimately to the Poinsettia Bowl.

This concludes my history lesson. Unless the moderators have censored any of my previous posts.

new players ,coaches | 9:40 a.m. July 12, 2009

new game....that team was not the nations best and those that know football knew it. another paper tiger, paper tiger that's all u ever been to me! now some of those players are coaches , some very good ones though so i have to give em a high five on that..giving back to their community has been a good plus..so high five. so any kind of recognition is good.

re: Good Stuff | 9:41 a.m. July 12, 2009

Of course any "logical fan" knows that what happened in 1984 wouldn't happen today.

That is the sole purpose of the monopolistic manipulations of the "power elites" in the media and in the BCS schools. They have chosen to "corner" the college football market.

STOP the BYUs, Boise States, Utahs and the other schools of "nonbcs" "serfdom"; stop them NOW! The BCS wants to keep the aspiring serfs in their place. Their regal highness' do not understand why the surfs will not accept their crumbs.

Dear Ironic and Hilarious | 9:54 a.m. July 12, 2009

Get a life. The BCS IS in existence because of BYU. Don't kid yourself. Barry Switzer started this talk way back then and continued behind the scenes and the "so called big conferences" figured out how to ensure that this will never, ever happen again. The gutless NCAA went right along.

Then when congress started having hearings they changed it to 12 then 16 teams, but still no big dance, even for undefeated Utah.

Dear Hilarious, what a joke. This was the way they decided who was champion. That was a fact of life, pure and simple. You simply went out and played and let the media vote. Start griping about them.

Utahs wins also were in the past, so I don't want to hear about them anymore, never, ever, because as you point out they were inthe past. Quit living on your past laurels, because they are gone.

Someone else from Utah said that conference was weak then. I don't believe their Utah was in the upper half if my memory serves me correct. SO they must have been really bad.

aj arizona | 9:55 a.m. July 12, 2009

To the critics of 1984,
"16 players played pro ball"!

Let that resonate.

How many teams have had 16 players from a given year, ultimately collect paychecks in the pros?

BYU won 24 straight games over two years, for that Championship. They beat #3 Pitt early on which got the ball rolling.

Auburn and Washington would not accept an invitation to play in the Holiday Bowl, BYU was bound by contract, they were not, who ducked who?.

Washington chose the Orange instead. Then petitoined for the trophy, after beating Oklahoma, who had 3 losses and a tie. 1985, BYU 31-Washington 3.

Sorry bitter Utes, all BYU did was play the games in front of them. No ducking. They played the system at the time, and Won.

When doing team by team comparisons of who beat whom, one article had (with humor) Navy, as National Champs.

And the article then concluded, in 1984,
"Nobody ever beat Anybody, who beat BYU".

It was a big deal, and only those chomping on "Sour Grapes" could dismiss it.

History is history. BYU was a Consensus National Champion in Football, record books and trophy cases prove it.

Jealousy can be an ugly thing...

Colorado Cougar | 9:59 a.m. July 12, 2009

Re: scoreboard - You're yapping about how Washinton was so much better than the Y in '84, but didn't the Y turn around and beat Washington at the beginning of the next season? Yes, they beat them 31 - 3.

Another point for all you naysayers: If I recall correctly, all of the mighty one-loss teams fromt the '84 season had either lost to a very inferior team or lost to a team that had been beated by a very inferior team. (By inferior I mean D-II or sub-par WAC-type team.) End of the day, it was a season where there was no dominating team and BYU was the only team good/lucky enough to go undefeated. And yes, BYU could have beaten any collegiate team from that season. Would have they??? Don't know. Just like we'll never know if the U would have beated Florida last year.

Nice article!! Commemorating the past does not mean you're living in it.

UTE ALUM | 10:11 a.m. July 12, 2009

Oh will you please publish an article about when I was in high school in 1972 and Viewmont won the state football championship?
This article is just as bad a watching reruns of Lawrence Welk on KBYU and classic football games on that stupid other BYU channel.
Boring Article, lets get on with life.
True -a more interesting article would be what these guys are doing with their lives today - especially, who is he ? hmmmm Lennie Gommes, I can't recall anymore, it is such boring history.

Brad | 10:17 a.m. July 12, 2009

Peculiar timing of this story... why not write it in Mid December while we're all tuned into college football and eagerly awaiting the BCS bowl games?

That BYU team was great... didn't they win something like 25 games in a row over 2 seasons. That said... I don't know if BYU could ever accomplish it again. Their offensive scheme was SOOO ahead of it's era... that it compensated for the teams inferior speed and athletic talent. Now days... the rest of college football has figured out the scheme... and BYU won't ever be able to recruit the defensive speed to compete for a national title (unless they get rid of the honor code). So BYU's national title... was probably a once in a lifetime event.

Ernest T. Bass | 10:18 a.m. July 12, 2009

25 years is a long long long long (did I mention long) time. When I read the title of the article I first thought that it was about BYU basketball's last Tournament win, but then I read the fine print.

The Real Legacy | 10:30 a.m. July 12, 2009

An undeserving BYU team is awarded a "championship" leading to formation of the BCS which colludes to keep two deserving UTAH teams from contending for such a "championship."

The worst part? BYU sits back and accepts the unjust system while UTAH works to tear it down through proving itself on the field and working for legislative and judicial reformation of the system.

Bob Wilson | 10:39 a.m. July 12, 2009

How about an article on the 81-0 loss of BYU to Tintic Hugh School in 1919? That was before the Y began an intercollegiate schedule but the team was still called BYU.

pj alabama | 10:44 a.m. July 12, 2009

Well, one thing is for sure Ute fan, you will never have to find shelf space for a National Championship trophy in Football.

That '84 BYU team had many players who actually drew paychecks in the NFL. For guys who never earned a High School letter, you're quite the experts, aren't you?

We're also quite sure that at Utah we'll never see a Heisman trophy, 2 Outland's, 4 Davey O'Brien's, 8 Sammy Baugh's or Doak Walker trophies. Or 55 All-Americans, with 11 being Consensus.

I doubt we will ever see several College Hall of Famers from Utah, let alone 6 of them, soon to be 7, with Detmer.

Nor will we ever see a Super Bowl MVP or a 2-Time NFL MVP, etc. Most of these came after 1984, no resting here.

Your insults of BYU's achievements, shows your utter ignorance, with a touch of 3rd grade petulance.

BYU was the "Consensus" Number One, by AP, UPI, and many others.

"COLLEGE FOOTBALL CHAMPIONS-IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD NINETEEN HUNDRED AND EIGHTY FOUR"!

Try getting that out of your mind, rather haunting for a Ute fan, eh!

SDCougar | 10:57 a.m. July 12, 2009

Every Div-1 team should have a right to aspire to a national championship...Utah included. Utah should have a chance to play for the championship twice now. But the same unfair BCS conceived by college elite in the wake of BYU's NC have kept them out and half the other Div-1 college teams. 1984 stands as a reminder that every team should have a chance to be a champion.

Re: Colorado Cougar | 10:59 a.m. July 12, 2009

"You're yapping about how Washinton was so much better than the Y in '84, but didn't the Y turn around and beat Washington at the beginning of the next season? Yes, they beat them 31 - 3."

You're yapping about how the "why?" beat Washington in '85, but didn't that same tdS team also lose to UTEP that year? Yes, they provided the Miners their ONLY WIN OF THAT SEASON.

The tdS lost 3 games in '85, proving once again, the '84 team was a bunch of pretenders.

Henry Drummond | 11:49 a.m. July 12, 2009

College Football is the only sport where athletes don't determine who the champion is. Let's get a playoff already. Until we do there will be endless arguments that BYU didn't deserve a national championship 25 years ago and that the "U" deserved to play for one this year.

I prefer the present | 11:53 a.m. July 12, 2009

I just called and switched to the Trib.

12 Pack | 11:57 a.m. July 12, 2009

What a joke. Beat a 6-5 Michigan team and they didn't defeat a single team ranked in the Final top 20. Washington had the best team that year; no doubt. BYU won the NC by default. I would rather go 13-0, beat 4 teams in the top 25, knock of Alabama in the Sugar Bowl and finish ranked between #2-#5 then win the NC the way BYU did............Pathetic!

Sunshine | 12:22 p.m. July 12, 2009

I for one am a long time Cougar Fan. I've watched the Miracle Bowl, and 1984 Championship, as well as the basketball championship in which Danny Ainge was a player, many years ago. I'm proud of the Cougars. LaVell was a man of great integrity, and he influenced his teams to become not only great players, but also great men. Perfect? Of course not. But don't negate the accomplishments of these players with insults and negative comments. Is it so hard to enjoy someone's success? I wish Bronco and his teams the same success. He seems to also be a man of integrity and determination.

I'm also VERY proud of the Utes' accomplishment last year, and felt they were cheated out of a chance at the national championship by a very biased BCS system. Kyle is a great coach (who by the way, played for BYU).

So, to both great Utah schools (and USU, Weber, and the rest) Good Luck this coming school year, and may the best teams win!

Page:
1
2
3
Next >

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.