Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site busch.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mgnetp!we53!busch!dcm
From: dcm@busch.UUCP (Craig Miller)
Newsgroups: net.sport.football
Subject: Re: BYU - Michigan Game
Message-ID: <360@busch.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 27-Dec-84 15:01:51 EST
Article-I.D.: busch.360
Posted: Thu Dec 27 15:01:51 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 28-Dec-84 06:03:29 EST
References: <1623@sdcrdcf.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Anheuser-Busch Companies - St. Louis Missouri
Lines: 69

[]
(sorry, but I had to respond to this one...  I guess you were probably
expecting it anyway)

>      The saddest thing about BYU's victory over Michigan in the Holiday Bowl,
> is that people who don't know much about football, or who did not see the
> game will say, "See, they had a tough time against Michigan."

	I totally agree, Tony.  Maybe the sports writers will see it that
	way too.  Unfortunately (for BYU) it's true.

>      The adversity which BYU faced and still came out victorious is amazing.

	Well, that's debatable.

> They had 6 turnovers, while Michigan only had one on the game's second to
> last play.  A field goal was blocked.

	Against a team that was 5-6 (or something close to that) at the
	time, those things don't look good...

> 					 Their quarterback was injured, forcing
> them into a shotgun, which forced them to throw out half of their offense,
> along with the fact that Bosco was not at 100%.

	I'll have to admit I thought he did a pretty good job, considering
	his situation. (even though on some of the plays I would swear he
	wasn't hurt..  but I guess he wouldn't be faking it...)

>      The other teams in the nation, who would claim the number # 1 spot, were
> not able to overcome the adversities when they lost their games; i.e. OU lost
> there quarterback against Kansas, and then lost the game.

	There's not much I can say about this, it's true.  Personally I think
	OU just sat back for one game, and got surprised.  Call it a fluke,
	or whatever you want.  But I realize that's a weak argument.  But,
	my argument about OU's record being tougher still stands.

>      The BYU offense moved at will in the game, except when they stopped
> themselves.  .......
> .
> .
> one-sided without the turnovers.  Also, only two of the turnovers could be

	It *should* have been one-sided, considering the caliber of team
	they were playing...

>      I don't think that any other team in the nation could have beat Michigan
> after having so many turnovers.

	You haven't seen many OU games in the past, have you?  OU has
	*probably* fumbled more times than anyone.  And they still blow
	alot of teams out.

Oh, well.  I was impressed with the BYU quarterback (Bosco?), but that
was it.  It's too bad that they can't come up with playoffs or something
so that there wouldn't be any, or at least not as much, question about
who's the best...  But I still don't think the argument about no losses
has any substance to it.  I know some junior colleges who can say that...
But, then again, I guess they aren't in the same division... (but they
probably have tougher schedules than BYU...  :-)

See you Jan 1.
-- 
Craig Miller
..!ihnp4!we53!busch!dcm
The Anheuser Busch Companies; St. Louis, Mo.

"Unix(tm): it's not just a job, it's fun."