Just no man. They beat a middle of the road texas team. Iowa was 8-4-1 that year. Iowa football and national championship were not mentioned in the same sentence that year ever. BYU was awarded the trophy, that's what matters. They earned it, by beating a not so good Michigan team to go undefeated.
It wasn't entirely about Texas. I know these are difficult concepts. I'll be honest. At first I couldn't wrap my brain around it either. You have to think outside the box. I'm not saying either team independently deserves full credit. That was the problem I kept having.
this makes it sound like
You don't get to carry wins over to another season.
I think think it demonstrates a lot of things. First if all, like with most things, it would appear, it wasn't MY idea to rectify it. I told you of the condition surrounding it. I think it was a twenty year retrospective. LaVell Edwards was among the attendees. I'm sure it's still available somewhere. You have to ask yourself why ANYONE would include a touchdown scored against on a twenty year retrospective. Blaine Fowler said it should have counted. So I'm counting it!
Did a little more research. It would seem there are further evidences supporting my method. Baylor beat Louisiana St in the Liberty Bowl, following season. That suggests, again to me, something about the tenacity of Brigham Young's title claim. A more interesting part, again to me is the simple fact that Hawaii plays a pivotal role with respect to Fresno St's season, again in 1985. Applying a judicious rendering, with respect to Fresno St (taking whatever title they might otherwise have had as a result of going 11-0-1. Puts the onus on having beaten the Bulldogs.
Yeah everything I post is gibberish. Whatever. The facts of the matter are pretty clear. A Belt title carries validity with it. The national championship should convey validity in it's essence for people to want to retain it. Same with the Belt. Win the Belt you're a champion. Pretty cut and dried I'd say. I know I tweak it a lot. But it's fundamentally fairly simple to follow. It's always passed forward. The Belt is never passed backwards. My method is actually simple.Oh I think I do,,,
I'm simply trying to remedy a past mistake. Nothing more. Nobody really cares what I think. I have strong opinions but hardly anyone listens. There is a Belt. That part I won't compromise on. Alabama won a Belt in 1985. Ipso facto. It really doesn't matter whether or not anyone agrees with me. I'm just reporting what I know. Hopefully it makes sense. Fresno St nearly ran the table in 1985. Didn't, but came decidedly close. Barry Switzer mocked Brigham Young's claim to the preceding year's championship by voting Fresno St #1 in the final poll. It demonstrated his prejudice I think to the process. But Oklahoma isn't IN the NC without assistance (direct assistance) from Brigham Young. Air Force lost. Otherwise they are representing the Western Athletic Conference. Obviously that PROVES you wrong! Clearly there is a DIRECT connection year-to-year-to-year.
Actually in reference to your query you are partially correct. As best as I can tell there isn't any organization that gives more than simply lip service to the Belt. And it could be argued it never existed. But there is a problem following that train of thought. I believe strongly that in order to select a deserving national champion, particularly at the collegiate level, there needs to be a method behind the madness. Otherwise, anything goes! I would hate to think we could ever reach the point where a person, or group if people unilaterally select a titleist.
I'm not the one doing the selecting. Assuming you've read anything it should be fairly clear the championship selects itself. It's always been thst way. At least as long as I can remember, anyway. Even in 1984. What people actually wanted was a pairing between Brigham Young and Oklahoma. Obviously that's not what happened. It probably ought to have, but there were agreements in place neither could remove. The reason it wasn't binding the following year is because of Brigham Young renegotiated. But by and large the Holiday Bowl remained a bowl from which a WAC team is usually was represented. One notable exception was in 1996. That year the WAC had a tie-in with the Cotton Bowl. That was a year BYU challenged. But were beaten by Washington. Steve Sarkisian was their quarterback. They were supposed to play Alabama but rescheduled Arkansas St
Completely WRONG... Everyone knows you cannot select a national champion without considering the wrist band that team had that year.
I don't need to explain anything. You are lucky in that respect. That the proprietor is interested enough to explain a technique another might call a 'trade secret' and leave you hanging. Obviously thet isn't my style. Like I said I'm Jerry Maguire. Remember what Maguire told his top recruit. I won't rest until you are sitting in a lawn chair drinking soda marketed by me with your name in it in a commercial hawking it. And people screaming your name in a Super Bowl you are playing in and getting paid to win!
Not exactly. But in a way that's nearly impossible to explain, yes, it did! It's based upon the presumption Arizona in 1984 was a legitimate title contender. 7-4 is what they were. Unable to advance and pedestrian in most respects except for one. L.S.U. A game they probably ought to have won but didn't.
