About 10 years ago, or so, I attended an Daddy/Daughter event at church with my oldest daughter. One of the activities that they had was a game where they asked the dad's a question and then asked the daughter's what they thought their dad's answer would be. The only question that I can really remember was, "If your dad could have lunch with any one person in the world, who would it be?"
My daughter answered "My mom". I told everyone that she had the right answer because I would certainly have my wife come along with me as well. (Good save Anderson!) The person we would have lunch with, however would be John Wooden. Virtually all the girls said "who?", while the dads generally responded "Yeah, that would be cool!"
While a freshman at the University of Utah I attended an on campus event that was called the "Challenge Lecture Series", or something like that. One particular day John Wooden was the invited guest speaker. I knew that he was arguably the greatest college basketball coach in history at that time -- and may be so even today, but I didn't know anything else much about him. He gave a lecture that was one of the most inspirational I have ever heard. He talked about integrity, individual responsibility and other virtues. He is so much more than a great basketball coach
Well, today while on the internet I came across this video about John Wooden who now 99 years old. I have even more respect for the man today than I did at the time I answered that I would have lunch with him. For Britt and her friends who didn't understand my answer, I hope you enjoy the video clip as much as I did.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Sunday, March 29, 2009
State of the Union
I didn't actually hear the State of the Union address last night. Cody was playing basketball and, quite frankly, that was more important to me than what the President has to say. He campaigned with the slogan of "Change we can believe in." One year later "Changing what we believe in" seems more appropriate.
I agree with the main priority he set out in his speech (based on what I have read). We need to get American's working again. Unfortunately, he appears to believe that the answer is government job creation. Other than the military and other security related jobs, I don't know that government-related or created jobs are worth the effort. It seems to me that a job should create something (goods/services) that is demanded by the economy. Government should stay out of the way and let the markets determine where to allocate resources.
The President's proposal for high speed rail between Los Angeles and San Francisco is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever hear. I don't know one person who would use it. If I have to drive my car to get to a high speed train in Los Angeles and then not have a car when I get to San Francisco, I would simply rather drive myself. The government subsidy figures I have heard rumored for this project is $2.3 billion. On the other hand, the cost of that type of rail has been estimated at over $40 billion. Where will the difference come from? No private lender or enterprise is going to fund this effort because there is simply no demand.
I tend to believe that the surest way to stimulate the economy is to stimulate population growth. A growing population require goods and services. That type of demand is what drove the economic boom in the United States in the last century.
Clearly, the last thing we need in this country is more deficit government spending for projects without a hope of succeeding. The last 'stimulus' bill was replete with such projects and they haven't generated any economic recovery that I can see.
I agree with the main priority he set out in his speech (based on what I have read). We need to get American's working again. Unfortunately, he appears to believe that the answer is government job creation. Other than the military and other security related jobs, I don't know that government-related or created jobs are worth the effort. It seems to me that a job should create something (goods/services) that is demanded by the economy. Government should stay out of the way and let the markets determine where to allocate resources.
The President's proposal for high speed rail between Los Angeles and San Francisco is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever hear. I don't know one person who would use it. If I have to drive my car to get to a high speed train in Los Angeles and then not have a car when I get to San Francisco, I would simply rather drive myself. The government subsidy figures I have heard rumored for this project is $2.3 billion. On the other hand, the cost of that type of rail has been estimated at over $40 billion. Where will the difference come from? No private lender or enterprise is going to fund this effort because there is simply no demand.
I tend to believe that the surest way to stimulate the economy is to stimulate population growth. A growing population require goods and services. That type of demand is what drove the economic boom in the United States in the last century.
Clearly, the last thing we need in this country is more deficit government spending for projects without a hope of succeeding. The last 'stimulus' bill was replete with such projects and they haven't generated any economic recovery that I can see.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
My Baby Had a Baby
So, it turns out I married a grandmother. Well, she wasn't a grandmother when I married her, but she became one the other day.
It's taken a bit of time for me to be comfortable with being a grandfather. It literally seems like yesterday that Kerry and I brought Brittny home from the hospital.
Anyway, good job Britt & Eric. I hope little Samuel brings as much happiness to your lives as you have to mine.
Oh yeah, here is the little guy (little only relatively as he was 8 lbs 11 oz. and 21.5" long)
Other pictures can be viewed somewhere on the internet, but I can only find them on Samuel's Facebook page and you probably can't see them unless you are his friend. Maybe Brittny will post a link for more photos as a comment.
Thanks to my baby brother, Kelly, I can post the video of mom and baby from eight hours post partum. Kelly had some magical video format conversion tool that could convert a QuickTime file to wmv which Blogger seems to like much better (even if it is about 8 times larger).
It's taken a bit of time for me to be comfortable with being a grandfather. It literally seems like yesterday that Kerry and I brought Brittny home from the hospital.
Anyway, good job Britt & Eric. I hope little Samuel brings as much happiness to your lives as you have to mine.
Oh yeah, here is the little guy (little only relatively as he was 8 lbs 11 oz. and 21.5" long)
Other pictures can be viewed somewhere on the internet, but I can only find them on Samuel's Facebook page and you probably can't see them unless you are his friend. Maybe Brittny will post a link for more photos as a comment.
Thanks to my baby brother, Kelly, I can post the video of mom and baby from eight hours post partum. Kelly had some magical video format conversion tool that could convert a QuickTime file to wmv which Blogger seems to like much better (even if it is about 8 times larger).
Saturday, February 21, 2009
What's Fair?
Sorry for not getting back to your earlier with my comments on your inauguration speech, Mr. President. I've been rather busy with a few things. See, my business doesn't seem to be on the radar for a bailout, it doesn't seem to be a target for the economic stimulus plan; and my family requires more attention to guide them in the world we live in. It's not fair that I have to work this hard, but it's okay. I think that is why I am here.
That leads me to my thoughts about your inaugural address. I thought it was well written and your delivery was terrific. The substance of the speech had some very thought provoking points.
One such point was your call for 'fair play'. Having observed your actions, I believe you must have a vastly different definition of the term than I do.
Tell me how your call to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act is fair? It may be politically expedient. It caters to a special interest group that voted for you. But it certainly isn't fair to children brought into the world who have the right to have both a mother and a father. I know, some parents are pretty pathetic at caring for their kids, but don't undermine the basic building block of our society with a warped view of fairness.
Tell me how reversing the gains made in welfare reform in the past 15 years that your 'economic stimulus package' is fair. The welfare state it is creating is not stimulating. It is repressive. Repressive to those who look for a handout instead of work. Repressive to an economy that needs workers, not idlers. Repressive to future generations that will be burdened with the increased national debt.
Mr. President, government is not the answer to our nation's difficulties. For the past 20 years it has been the problem. I have heard you and your supporters blame greedy capitalists for the current financial market troubles. Actually, I believe government policies are more to blame. Take the mortgage 'crisis' for example. It was brought about in part because certain interest groups, in the interest of fairness, wanted the government to guarantee mortgages for people who couldn't afford them. Where sound financial analysis in the private sector would have quickly classified these transactions as imprudent, at best, the presence of a government guarantee lead to a false sense of security. Our government usually does well at fighting wars. Most other things are better left to the private sector.
I would pocket the fairness card for now, Mr. President. Encourage people to be fair-minded. Encourage our elected officials to be fair-minded as well. Fair-minded means to be just and impartial. Government today has shown itself incapable of being just and impartial. Reduce government involvement in the lives of the people. Enact and enforce laws that encourage and support families and hard work. That will the best and ultimately fairest economic stimulus package that could be enacted.
That leads me to my thoughts about your inaugural address. I thought it was well written and your delivery was terrific. The substance of the speech had some very thought provoking points.
One such point was your call for 'fair play'. Having observed your actions, I believe you must have a vastly different definition of the term than I do.
Tell me how your call to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act is fair? It may be politically expedient. It caters to a special interest group that voted for you. But it certainly isn't fair to children brought into the world who have the right to have both a mother and a father. I know, some parents are pretty pathetic at caring for their kids, but don't undermine the basic building block of our society with a warped view of fairness.
Tell me how reversing the gains made in welfare reform in the past 15 years that your 'economic stimulus package' is fair. The welfare state it is creating is not stimulating. It is repressive. Repressive to those who look for a handout instead of work. Repressive to an economy that needs workers, not idlers. Repressive to future generations that will be burdened with the increased national debt.
Mr. President, government is not the answer to our nation's difficulties. For the past 20 years it has been the problem. I have heard you and your supporters blame greedy capitalists for the current financial market troubles. Actually, I believe government policies are more to blame. Take the mortgage 'crisis' for example. It was brought about in part because certain interest groups, in the interest of fairness, wanted the government to guarantee mortgages for people who couldn't afford them. Where sound financial analysis in the private sector would have quickly classified these transactions as imprudent, at best, the presence of a government guarantee lead to a false sense of security. Our government usually does well at fighting wars. Most other things are better left to the private sector.
I would pocket the fairness card for now, Mr. President. Encourage people to be fair-minded. Encourage our elected officials to be fair-minded as well. Fair-minded means to be just and impartial. Government today has shown itself incapable of being just and impartial. Reduce government involvement in the lives of the people. Enact and enforce laws that encourage and support families and hard work. That will the best and ultimately fairest economic stimulus package that could be enacted.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Defining a Landslide Victory
The 2008 presidential election in the United States was been labeled as a 'landslide victory' and a 'mandate of the people' by many. The vote breakdown from this election for the two major candidates are as follows:
Number of Votes
Barack Obama - 67,066,915 (52.6%)
John McCain - 58,421,377 (45.9%)
Others - 1,933,645 (1.5%)
States won
Barack Obama - 28 (56%)
John McCain - 22 (44%)
Others - 0
Electoral Votes
Barack Obama - 365 (67.8%)
John McCain - 173 (32.2%)
Given that 52.6% of the vote evidently represents a 'landslide' or 'mandate' in political terms, let's use that as the barometer for measuring the voice of the people as it relates to same-gender marriages in California and the United States.
California - Proposition 8
Number of votes
Yes - 6,838,107 (52.3%)
No - 6,246,463 (47.7%)
Counties won
Yes - 42 (72.4%)
No - 16 (27.6)
In the United States the president is elected via an electoral college with 538 possible electoral votes. If California ballot initiatives were decided via an electoral college, similar to the way we elect the president of the United States, with each county given relative votes based on population with at least three votes allotted per county (as with each state in the United States) then the results would have been as follows: (analysis that of the author)
'Electoral' Votes
Yes - 418 (77.7%)
No - 120 (22.3%)
By every measure used to gauge political landslides the passage of Proposition 8 in California would appear to be mandate from the voice of the people to their elected leaders. Interestingly, the issue of same-gender marriage in the United States has been the most pervasive ballot initiative that I can find. According to the research of columnist Lee Benson of the Deseret News, of the thirty (30) states that have taken the issue to a vote of the people all thirty have passed laws or constitutional amendments defining marriage as between one man and one woman.
A 30 - 0 record is further evidence of a mandate. According to Mr. Benson's research there have been 58,911,741 votes cast on this issue in the last decade with an astounding 63.9% of the people voting to define marriage as between one man and one woman. If this were a little league baseball game the mercy rule would have been invoked two innings ago.
All this makes it reprehensible that there are two non-binding resolutions under consideration in the California state legislature (SR 8 and AR 5) to "make it official state policy to invalidate Prop 8." Apparently there are some in the legislature that, along with Governor Schwarzenegger, who have forgotten that they took an oath to 'support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California.' (California Constitution Article 20, Sec.3)
That is why I am supporting the California Petition to Protect Marriage to be presented to every member of the legislature and the governor reminding them of their duty and obligation to represent the people who elected them to 'support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California.' Join me in signing the petition by going to http://unitedfamiliesca.org/default.asp?contentID=244.
While you're there sign up for United Families California email alerts. It is a great way to be informed on issues that affect California families. To read the United Families California email alert on this issue click on http://unitedfamiliesca.org/default.asp?contentID=246.
Links in this post:
http://unitedfamiliesca.org/default.asp?contentID=246
http://unitedfamiliesca.org/default.asp?contentID=244
http://www.unitedfamiliesca.org
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_20
http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705267125,00.html
http://vote.sos.ca.gov/Returns/props/map190000000008.htm
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?f=0&year=2008
Number of Votes
Barack Obama - 67,066,915 (52.6%)
John McCain - 58,421,377 (45.9%)
Others - 1,933,645 (1.5%)
States won
Barack Obama - 28 (56%)
John McCain - 22 (44%)
Others - 0
Electoral Votes
Barack Obama - 365 (67.8%)
John McCain - 173 (32.2%)
Given that 52.6% of the vote evidently represents a 'landslide' or 'mandate' in political terms, let's use that as the barometer for measuring the voice of the people as it relates to same-gender marriages in California and the United States.
California - Proposition 8
Number of votes
Yes - 6,838,107 (52.3%)
No - 6,246,463 (47.7%)
Counties won
Yes - 42 (72.4%)
No - 16 (27.6)
In the United States the president is elected via an electoral college with 538 possible electoral votes. If California ballot initiatives were decided via an electoral college, similar to the way we elect the president of the United States, with each county given relative votes based on population with at least three votes allotted per county (as with each state in the United States) then the results would have been as follows: (analysis that of the author)
'Electoral' Votes
Yes - 418 (77.7%)
No - 120 (22.3%)
By every measure used to gauge political landslides the passage of Proposition 8 in California would appear to be mandate from the voice of the people to their elected leaders. Interestingly, the issue of same-gender marriage in the United States has been the most pervasive ballot initiative that I can find. According to the research of columnist Lee Benson of the Deseret News, of the thirty (30) states that have taken the issue to a vote of the people all thirty have passed laws or constitutional amendments defining marriage as between one man and one woman.
A 30 - 0 record is further evidence of a mandate. According to Mr. Benson's research there have been 58,911,741 votes cast on this issue in the last decade with an astounding 63.9% of the people voting to define marriage as between one man and one woman. If this were a little league baseball game the mercy rule would have been invoked two innings ago.
All this makes it reprehensible that there are two non-binding resolutions under consideration in the California state legislature (SR 8 and AR 5) to "make it official state policy to invalidate Prop 8." Apparently there are some in the legislature that, along with Governor Schwarzenegger, who have forgotten that they took an oath to 'support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California.' (California Constitution Article 20, Sec.3)
That is why I am supporting the California Petition to Protect Marriage to be presented to every member of the legislature and the governor reminding them of their duty and obligation to represent the people who elected them to 'support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California.' Join me in signing the petition by going to http://unitedfamiliesca.org/default.asp?contentID=244.
While you're there sign up for United Families California email alerts. It is a great way to be informed on issues that affect California families. To read the United Families California email alert on this issue click on http://unitedfamiliesca.org/default.asp?contentID=246.
Links in this post:
http://unitedfamiliesca.org/default.asp?contentID=246
http://unitedfamiliesca.org/default.asp?contentID=244
http://www.unitedfamiliesca.org
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_20
http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705267125,00.html
http://vote.sos.ca.gov/Returns/props/map190000000008.htm
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?f=0&year=2008
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Thirty Years Ago Today
Today I attended church where my nephew was speaking. He is leaving in a couple of weeks for Argentina to serve a mission for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Sitting there caused me to reminisce...
I don't really remember much about the day. I think it was cloudy. It was probably a bit chilly. I remember the week before had been very emotional.
We had dinner at my grandparents home on Thanksgiving. The next day I attended the Salt Lake temple for the first time. On Sunday I said goodbye to my brothers and girlfriend -- I would have a long term relationship with my brothers, not so the girlfriend. Wednesday I was set apart by President Jesse E. Godfrey as a missionary and said goodbye to my younger sister.
On Thursday, November 30, 1978 I entered the Missionary Training Center in Provo, Utah with my parents in preparation to serve two years in the Michigan Dearborn Mission. My parents left after about an hour, but I stayed for five weeks. That mission doesn't exist anymore - at least by that name. It is now the Michigan Detroit Mission, but in 1978 there wasn't a mother anywhere in the Church who would willing send her son to Detroit.
It was the hardest thing I have ever done. Harder than 50 mile back pack trips. Harder than recovering from knee replacement surgery. Harder than anything I have faced in life. That's probably why I look back on those two years so fondly.
I had lots of expectations of what the missionary experience would be like. Looking back, I realize that I didn't have a clue as to what lied ahead.
I made some of the best friends I ever had. Although it seems odd to write that as I haven't really kept in touch with any of them. I have run into them at various times and places. Most have remained faithful to their testimonies. A few, sadly, have not.
Maybe it was because I was more sensitive to the workings of God at the time, but I literally saw miracles. After being in Michigan for five weeks I met a sixteen year old girl, Rose Buccaletto. In answer to prayer she had seen the Salt Lake temple in a dream, but she didn't know what the building was or what it meant. A few days later she saw a picture of the temple in a magazine and called the missionaries. For some reason they only visited her one time and never came back. When I got transferred to the area I was picking up a book and a little scrap of paper with her name and address fell out. One day while on her street I remembered seeing that little scrap of paper. We knocked on the door and when she saw us there she started crying and asked us in.
We taught her the missionary discussions and I baptized her a few weeks later. Towards the end of my two years I was invited to speak to a comparative religion class at a local high school. Several of the students in the class recognized me from a picture that Rose had shown them from the day of her baptism. They said she was always talking to them about the Church and the joy she felt. I haven't ever seen her since then, but I did receive a wedding announcement from her a few years after I had returned home. I think she was marrying a young man from a nearby ward in the Washington D.C. temple. I hope I sent her a card, but I probably didn't.
Dale and Martha Daniels had three young children. Their oldest daughter who was seven at the time had leukemia. The chemotherapy she was receiving caused her to lose all of her hair and she wore a wig most of the time. Her parents were baptized in June of 1980 and I left the area at the end of July. To this day I can remember her telling me how she knew that she was loved by the Savior. She felt His support when sick and His comfort when other kids would tease her about having no hair. Today I wonder where the family is and how they are doing.
I met some wonderful people who had a tremendous influence on me. From my mission president's, William R. Horton and Vernon A. Cooley, to bishops Kurt Mikat and Ray Hansen from Fenton and Adrian, respectively. I got to participate in organizing a regional church conference, held in Ann Arbor on September 20-21 of 1980 with some extraordinary church, business and political leaders -- George Romney, Richard Headlee, Bud Stoddard and Ed Jones, among others. They encouraged me to keep in contact with them after returning home. They offered to mentor me in my schooling and career decisions. Unfortunately, I have never spoken with any of them after leaving Michigan.
For a few years after returning home I felt as though I had 'grown up' while in Michigan. In reality, a mission was just another stepping stone along my continuing path to growing up. I made friends with other missionaries that I hoped would last a long time. In reality I have only spoken with a few after leaving Michigan. I learned a great deal about people, the Savior, the gospel of Jesus Christ, and the joy of service. Mostly, I learned about myself in a way that could not have happened at any other time or any other place.
Looking back I see how unprepared I was for the serving as a missionary. I wonder if I could have made a bigger difference in the lives of others. I wonder if my service was acceptable to the Lord. I wonder if anyone can say that meeting me helped them in any way. Ultimately, I was the biggest benefactor of my missionary service and that is not something that I am entirely comfortable with. My guess is that everyone who has ever served has felt this way.
Looking back thirty years I can still say that it was the hardest thing I have ever done. The hardest and most influential experience in my life.
Links in this post:
http://www.lds.org
http://www.mtc.byu.edu/
I don't really remember much about the day. I think it was cloudy. It was probably a bit chilly. I remember the week before had been very emotional.
We had dinner at my grandparents home on Thanksgiving. The next day I attended the Salt Lake temple for the first time. On Sunday I said goodbye to my brothers and girlfriend -- I would have a long term relationship with my brothers, not so the girlfriend. Wednesday I was set apart by President Jesse E. Godfrey as a missionary and said goodbye to my younger sister.
On Thursday, November 30, 1978 I entered the Missionary Training Center in Provo, Utah with my parents in preparation to serve two years in the Michigan Dearborn Mission. My parents left after about an hour, but I stayed for five weeks. That mission doesn't exist anymore - at least by that name. It is now the Michigan Detroit Mission, but in 1978 there wasn't a mother anywhere in the Church who would willing send her son to Detroit.
It was the hardest thing I have ever done. Harder than 50 mile back pack trips. Harder than recovering from knee replacement surgery. Harder than anything I have faced in life. That's probably why I look back on those two years so fondly.
I had lots of expectations of what the missionary experience would be like. Looking back, I realize that I didn't have a clue as to what lied ahead.
I made some of the best friends I ever had. Although it seems odd to write that as I haven't really kept in touch with any of them. I have run into them at various times and places. Most have remained faithful to their testimonies. A few, sadly, have not.
Maybe it was because I was more sensitive to the workings of God at the time, but I literally saw miracles. After being in Michigan for five weeks I met a sixteen year old girl, Rose Buccaletto. In answer to prayer she had seen the Salt Lake temple in a dream, but she didn't know what the building was or what it meant. A few days later she saw a picture of the temple in a magazine and called the missionaries. For some reason they only visited her one time and never came back. When I got transferred to the area I was picking up a book and a little scrap of paper with her name and address fell out. One day while on her street I remembered seeing that little scrap of paper. We knocked on the door and when she saw us there she started crying and asked us in.
We taught her the missionary discussions and I baptized her a few weeks later. Towards the end of my two years I was invited to speak to a comparative religion class at a local high school. Several of the students in the class recognized me from a picture that Rose had shown them from the day of her baptism. They said she was always talking to them about the Church and the joy she felt. I haven't ever seen her since then, but I did receive a wedding announcement from her a few years after I had returned home. I think she was marrying a young man from a nearby ward in the Washington D.C. temple. I hope I sent her a card, but I probably didn't.
Dale and Martha Daniels had three young children. Their oldest daughter who was seven at the time had leukemia. The chemotherapy she was receiving caused her to lose all of her hair and she wore a wig most of the time. Her parents were baptized in June of 1980 and I left the area at the end of July. To this day I can remember her telling me how she knew that she was loved by the Savior. She felt His support when sick and His comfort when other kids would tease her about having no hair. Today I wonder where the family is and how they are doing.
I met some wonderful people who had a tremendous influence on me. From my mission president's, William R. Horton and Vernon A. Cooley, to bishops Kurt Mikat and Ray Hansen from Fenton and Adrian, respectively. I got to participate in organizing a regional church conference, held in Ann Arbor on September 20-21 of 1980 with some extraordinary church, business and political leaders -- George Romney, Richard Headlee, Bud Stoddard and Ed Jones, among others. They encouraged me to keep in contact with them after returning home. They offered to mentor me in my schooling and career decisions. Unfortunately, I have never spoken with any of them after leaving Michigan.
For a few years after returning home I felt as though I had 'grown up' while in Michigan. In reality, a mission was just another stepping stone along my continuing path to growing up. I made friends with other missionaries that I hoped would last a long time. In reality I have only spoken with a few after leaving Michigan. I learned a great deal about people, the Savior, the gospel of Jesus Christ, and the joy of service. Mostly, I learned about myself in a way that could not have happened at any other time or any other place.
Looking back I see how unprepared I was for the serving as a missionary. I wonder if I could have made a bigger difference in the lives of others. I wonder if my service was acceptable to the Lord. I wonder if anyone can say that meeting me helped them in any way. Ultimately, I was the biggest benefactor of my missionary service and that is not something that I am entirely comfortable with. My guess is that everyone who has ever served has felt this way.
Looking back thirty years I can still say that it was the hardest thing I have ever done. The hardest and most influential experience in my life.
Links in this post:
http://www.lds.org
http://www.mtc.byu.edu/
Friday, November 21, 2008
The Day I Defended the Indefensible
I moved from Utah to New York in December of 1984. My wife, Kerry, had accepted a job at WROC-TV in Rochester as the weekday meteorologist. We arrived in Rochester on Friday, the 14th of December and she began working the following Monday.
Three days later I went to the TV station between the 6:00 and 11:00 news broadcasts and met some of the people that she worked with. I remember vividly meeting the sports anchor and discussing college football with him. Eventually our conversation moved to the Holiday Bowl that was being played the following night in San Diego between #1 rated BYU (11-0) and Michigan (6-5).
It was his opinion that even if BYU beat Michigan they should not be awarded the 'mythical' national championship as they 'hadn't played anyone'. It was true. They were the first, and remain to this day, the only college football team to be ranked #1 at the end of the regular season without having played even one team ranked in the top 25 in any major poll. I was as ticked off as anyone that BYU was playing for a 'national championship', but I felt obliged to defend them.
I maintained that it really wasn't their fault that their schedule wasn't very strong. As schedules are booked several years in advance it is virtually impossible to know who will be good in any particular year. In their defense, I pointed out that they had played at Pittsburgh (1984 record of 3-7-1) the first game of the season and won. When that game was originally scheduled, Pittsburgh was coming off of a national championship season themselves (1976) and had back-to-back-to-back one loss seasons from 1979 - 1981.
Further, I argued that if anyone was particularly interested in proving that BYU wasn't the best team in the nation they should arrange to play them in a bowl game. BYU, by virtue of being WAC champions, was committed to play in the Holiday Bowl , and nobody (not even BYU, as I recall) was willing to discuss a buyout of that commitment so that BYU could have played a top ranked team in a bowl game.
There were a number of teams that could have accepted an invitation to play BYU, including third ranked Washington (10-1), but they all decided to take a larger payout and hope that Michigan beat BYU. For their part Washington accepted an invitation to play #2 Oklahoma (10-1) in the Orange Bowl. BYU ended up beating Michigan in a very unconvincing manner 24-17, while Washington beat #2 Oklahoma 28-17 in the infamous Sooner Schooner penalty game.
BYU was voted the 'mythical' national championship at the end of the season. I guess they deserved it for the most part. They were the only undefeated team in the nation. No team could claim that they were better by proving it on the field. I think BYU was certainly a top 10 team that year - maybe even a top 5, but most assuredly were not the best. In my opinion the BYU 1983 team was better.
There was minor outrage at the end of the season that BYU had been awarded the championship. It seemed for a while that this incident would lead to a true national championship game. Instead, eight years later in an even bigger money grab, the six largest football conferences and Notre Dame developed the Bowl Championship Series (BCS). Sorry, the BCS is even too indefensible for me to try mounting a defense.
Tomorrow in Salt Lake City, the University of Utah (11-0) will play BYU (10-1) for the Mountain West Conference championship. If, as expected Utah (the good guys, wearing the red hats) beats BYU (booooooooo!) they will have a far stronger claim for consideration of the national championship than BYU did in 1984. They will have beaten five teams that had been ranked in the top 25 during the year (Michigan - okay they didn't deserve it, but they were ranked at the time, Oregon State, Air Force, TCU and BYU). They will likely receive a big bowl game payout from one of the BCS bowls, but should be a given a chance to PLAY for a title.
Utah went undefeated in 2004 and became the first team from outside the BCS structure to be awarded a berth in a big payout BCS game. Unfortunately, they were invited play an extremely undermatched, Big East Conference champion, Pittsburgh team in the Fiesta Bowl who they beat 35-7. I wouldn't for one minute claim that Utah was the best team in the nation that year. They probably would have put up a better fight against USC, however, than Oklahoma did in the Orange Bowl (final score 55-7).
Our newly elected president of the United States, Barack Obama, has indicated that he thinks that college football should have an end of season tournament to determine a national champion. It is maybe the only thing he has said that makes sense to me. It may not happen in my lifetime, however. The money for the six BCS conferences is just too big and the rest of the country doesn't have the clout (or television viewing populations) to unseat it at this time.
Three days later I went to the TV station between the 6:00 and 11:00 news broadcasts and met some of the people that she worked with. I remember vividly meeting the sports anchor and discussing college football with him. Eventually our conversation moved to the Holiday Bowl that was being played the following night in San Diego between #1 rated BYU (11-0) and Michigan (6-5).
It was his opinion that even if BYU beat Michigan they should not be awarded the 'mythical' national championship as they 'hadn't played anyone'. It was true. They were the first, and remain to this day, the only college football team to be ranked #1 at the end of the regular season without having played even one team ranked in the top 25 in any major poll. I was as ticked off as anyone that BYU was playing for a 'national championship', but I felt obliged to defend them.
I maintained that it really wasn't their fault that their schedule wasn't very strong. As schedules are booked several years in advance it is virtually impossible to know who will be good in any particular year. In their defense, I pointed out that they had played at Pittsburgh (1984 record of 3-7-1) the first game of the season and won. When that game was originally scheduled, Pittsburgh was coming off of a national championship season themselves (1976) and had back-to-back-to-back one loss seasons from 1979 - 1981.
Further, I argued that if anyone was particularly interested in proving that BYU wasn't the best team in the nation they should arrange to play them in a bowl game. BYU, by virtue of being WAC champions, was committed to play in the Holiday Bowl , and nobody (not even BYU, as I recall) was willing to discuss a buyout of that commitment so that BYU could have played a top ranked team in a bowl game.
There were a number of teams that could have accepted an invitation to play BYU, including third ranked Washington (10-1), but they all decided to take a larger payout and hope that Michigan beat BYU. For their part Washington accepted an invitation to play #2 Oklahoma (10-1) in the Orange Bowl. BYU ended up beating Michigan in a very unconvincing manner 24-17, while Washington beat #2 Oklahoma 28-17 in the infamous Sooner Schooner penalty game.
BYU was voted the 'mythical' national championship at the end of the season. I guess they deserved it for the most part. They were the only undefeated team in the nation. No team could claim that they were better by proving it on the field. I think BYU was certainly a top 10 team that year - maybe even a top 5, but most assuredly were not the best. In my opinion the BYU 1983 team was better.
There was minor outrage at the end of the season that BYU had been awarded the championship. It seemed for a while that this incident would lead to a true national championship game. Instead, eight years later in an even bigger money grab, the six largest football conferences and Notre Dame developed the Bowl Championship Series (BCS). Sorry, the BCS is even too indefensible for me to try mounting a defense.
Tomorrow in Salt Lake City, the University of Utah (11-0) will play BYU (10-1) for the Mountain West Conference championship. If, as expected Utah (the good guys, wearing the red hats) beats BYU (booooooooo!) they will have a far stronger claim for consideration of the national championship than BYU did in 1984. They will have beaten five teams that had been ranked in the top 25 during the year (Michigan - okay they didn't deserve it, but they were ranked at the time, Oregon State, Air Force, TCU and BYU). They will likely receive a big bowl game payout from one of the BCS bowls, but should be a given a chance to PLAY for a title.
Utah went undefeated in 2004 and became the first team from outside the BCS structure to be awarded a berth in a big payout BCS game. Unfortunately, they were invited play an extremely undermatched, Big East Conference champion, Pittsburgh team in the Fiesta Bowl who they beat 35-7. I wouldn't for one minute claim that Utah was the best team in the nation that year. They probably would have put up a better fight against USC, however, than Oklahoma did in the Orange Bowl (final score 55-7).
Our newly elected president of the United States, Barack Obama, has indicated that he thinks that college football should have an end of season tournament to determine a national champion. It is maybe the only thing he has said that makes sense to me. It may not happen in my lifetime, however. The money for the six BCS conferences is just too big and the rest of the country doesn't have the clout (or television viewing populations) to unseat it at this time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)