I write articles for a small-time blog in my free time. Thought my piece this week may be more timely over here, with some of the discussion going on about BYU’s struggles...

For yet another year, the best quarterback at Brigham Young University will lose multiple games to injury. For yet another year, the ceiling of this proud program will remain unknown, and the greatest extension this season may be just one phrase: “What if?”

In their most recent game, BYU had an opportunity to turn the corner, and to escape their opening five-game gauntlet with a winning record. Instead, the Cougars slinked out of Ohio with a losing record, and more significant injuries than wins. The most crucial of these injuries was to their heralded quarterback, Zach Wilson. He will miss at least 6-8 weeks, or most of the remaining schedule. The story of this season will now center around the latest injury at quarterback.

The quarterback injury is not just the story of the week for BYU football. The quarterback injury is the story of the past decade. It is a crucial reason for why the program has stagnated since departing the Mountain West conference. Quarterback injuries have crippled the football team.

BYU has typically needed exceptional quarterback play in order to succeed at the highest level. As a private religious university, the school does not often land the high-caliber athletes needed to thrive with an electric ground game, or to out-muscle opponents with show-stopper defense. At some point, the depth in those units erodes and the team slows down. What they can recruit are intelligent receivers to run precise, accurate routes; they can recruit big men on the offensive line to protect the signal-caller; they can also recruit intuitive quarterbacks which win by dissecting defenses and making correct reads. These recruiting strengths require a very good quarterback to maximize the players they can ably recruit, and require that player to stay healthy. BYU’s struggles have centered around the failure to meet this healthy QB requirement.

From 2006-2009, Brigham Young University had a strong claim as the most consistently successful football program outside of the BCS conferences. They were a top 25 team with double-digit wins to close each season, and had multiple marquee wins over strong teams such as TCU, Utah, UCLA, Oregon, Oregon State, Arizona, and Oklahoma. The double-digit wins were secured before the bowl game each of those four years. The same quarterback also started at least 12 games each of those years, and only two starting quarterbacks were featured in the span of four successful seasons. Since 2009, BYU has never again secured 10 wins before postseason play, and only finished two seasons where one quarterback started 12 games before bowl season. In seven of those years, multiple quarterbacks started multiple games. None played anything close to two full seasons in a row. It feels as if the only instances more consistent than a BYU quarterback carousel are death and taxes. Cougar fans are often unsure which they’d prefer.

For further detail, the past decade has included 10 different starting quarterbacks in Provo. Those stints included 19 quarterback changes, including in-game switches. Of those 19 instances, 12 were due to injury. Of those 12 injuries, 8 were season ending. To recap, that’s 19 QB changes, 10 different starting quarterbacks, 12 injuries, and 8 season-enders… all in the span of just 10 years. The cadence of that statement reads like a popular Christmas carol.

Most football aficionados would have difficulty naming any other program to cycle through as many quarterback issues in one decade. Even fewer could name such a program to have any degree of success. For their part, BYU has managed to stay afloat despite the stated obstacles behind center. Bronco Mendenhall still won 7-10 games each season and never suffered through a losing season, despite 5 season-ending quarterback injuries in 6 years. Kalani Sitake has not had the same luck, with fewer wins and BYU’s worst season in decades, but 3 season-enders in just over three seasons (and a fourth this year which should manage to avoid the “season-ender” tag). Bronco never coached a losing team, but also never endured a season with four separate quarterback injuries like Kalani’s 2017. This is not to excuse either coach for their shortcomings, but certainly does provide much-needed context for blame distribution.

Each of the past two coaches have shared credit among fans for the downturn of BYU football (as well as the program’s Independent status sharing some blame). It may well be debated that the current staff must shoulder more blame for their inconsistencies, but there should not be debate whether each coach has been dealt a very difficult hand in a high-stakes game. The program has clearly taken a noticeable downturn since averaging double-digit wins for multiple years before 2010. It has also sustained disastrous setbacks to the quarterback position. While many signal-callers are allowed a sophomore slump, Brigham Young’s quarterbacks can scarcely make it so far before injuries force their development out a year. Sophomore slumps marred by injury turn into junior jitters and senior stinks. While athleticism wears down over long seasons, the depth chart slowly depletes. BYU’s historic advantage at quarterback has turned into a hindrance as the team continues turning the keys over to new and older faces at the position. While strong QB play has often been the winning recipe in Provo, BYU trudges along without the most vital ingredient.

It is imperative that the Cougars maintain a healthy quarterback in order to have sustained success. They have had little recent success after a mid-season quarterback injury, and conversely have shown to be a very good team with health and consistency at the position… two items which have been rare over the past decade. There will be time over the coming weeks for discussion on how to maintain health behind center. For now, as complaints mount regarding program stagnation and coaching regression, the recent injuries at quarterback must be a strong footnote in the discussion. If not the main title.