Okay defenders of Hawaii in the BCS

[Judge Smails]

By the way, I can't believe there are still some. Talk about your smoking gun.

You guys seem to point to Illinois as evidence that Hawaii belonged in the BCS. To be fair, with the 2-team per conference limit you're scraping the barrel to come up with 10 great teams to play the 5 bowl games - if Hawaii wasn't in, you'd probably have been looking at Boston College or Arizona St. Clearly those teams were more deserving than Hawaii though.

I'm curious though, what you believe Hawaii would have accomplished with this schedule:

Missouri
W Illinois
@ Syracuse
@ Indiana
Penn St
Wisconsin
@ Iowa
Michigan
Ball St
@ Minnesota
@ Ohio St
Northwestern

Here's my guess - 5 "sure" wins - W Illinois, Syracuse, Ball St, Minnesota, Northwestern. 5 "sure" losses - Missouri, Penn St, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio St. 2 toss ups - Iowa, Indiana.

I'm saying Hawaii's ceiling against that schedule is to win the 2 toss ups, and pull a shocker against one of the "sure losses". That's 8-4, a game worse than Illinois finished. (And let's not forget Illinois beat #1 Ohio St). More likely Hawaii would finish 7-5 or 6-6 and be headed to the Champs Sports Bowl.

Seriously, Hawaii played no one this year, squeaked out wins against really awful teams, then got absolutely embarrassed by Georgia, and you people still believe they belonged? I don't get it.

By just admitting Hawaii in a BCS game was a joke it doesn't mean you're suggesting BYU or Utah or even a proven good Hawaii team shouldn't get into the BCS in the future. Hawaii just was NOT a top 25 football team any way you slice it, let alone a legitimate BCS team.

You were fooled, but so were a lot of people. Embrace it and learn from it.

[Tex]

I wonder if we'd be having this conversation if it had been Hawaii vs. Illinois.

[Judge Smails]

Originally Posted by Tex

I wonder if we'd be having this conversation if it had been Hawaii vs. Illinois.

This looks more like a monologue until now. Then again, I'm not sure what the Rainbow Warrior defenders can say.

To answer your question, I figure Hawaii would have lost by 14-17 to Illinois, and looked bad, but not atrocious, so yes we'd be having the conversation, but it probably wouldn't be such a slam dunk for the anti-Hawaii position.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Judge Smails

This looks more like a monologue until now. Then again, I'm not sure what the Rainbow Warrior defenders can say.

To answer your question, I figure Hawaii would have lost by 14-17 to Illinois, and looked bad, but not atrocious, so yes we'd be having the conversation, but it probably wouldn't be such a slam dunk for the anti-Hawaii position.

I don't think a 14-17 loss to Illinois would in any way enhance the "do they deserve to be there" question. The only reason the question is resurging is because of their abysmal performance against an obviously superior team.

By the way, I'm not a Hawaii defender. I am tickled they got embarrassed, though I hate that they inextricably smear the non-BCS crowd in the process. But given the performance of Illinois, and to a lesser degree Oklahoma, there isn't a lot to be said for the quality of the BCS selection to begin with. If you're gonna wring hands over one, you gotta do it over the other as well.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Judge Smails

Hawaii just was NOT a top 25 football team any way you slice it, let alone a legitimate BCS team.

Not a top 25 team? I can see an argument made about not top 12, but top 25 is pushing it too far. You don't go 12-0 without being at least a top 25 team, even against a crappy schedule.

[Judge Smails]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Not a top 25 team? I can see an argument made about not top 12, but top 25 is pushing it too far. You don't go 12-0 without being at least a top 25 team, even against a crappy schedule.

borderline. I'm guessing there are several teams outside the current top 25 (Michigan for one) that would almost certainly have been 12-0 against Hawaii's schedule.

[Ace Tomato Co.]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Not a top 25 team? I can see an argument made about not top 12, but top 25 is pushing it too far. You don't go 12-0 without being at least a top 25 team, even against a crappy schedule.

If your schedule is ranked dead last out of 119 other schools, and if you looked terrible in several of the wins (LaTech, Nevada, etc.), then you can absolutely go 12-0 and not be a top 25 team.

Personally, I don't think Hawaii was top 40.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Ace Tomato Co.

If your schedule is ranked dead last out of 119 other schools, and if you looked terrible in several of the wins (LaTech, Nevada, etc.), then you can absolutely go 12-0 and not be a top 25 team.

Personally, I don't think Hawaii was top 40.

Honestly, how good was BYU in 1984? Were they really a top 10 team, let alone #1?

[Judge Smails]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Honestly, how good was BYU in 1984? Were they really a top 10 team, let alone #1?

..as saying BYU in 1984 probably wasn't #1. They were certainly in the top 10 legitimately, which they proved in 1984 and surrounding seasons.

Hawaii proved absolutely ZERO this year. I'm not sure why you defend their abominable schedule and iffy results (MOV in several games).

I'm seriously baffled by it. No, really.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Judge Smails

..as saying BYU in 1984 probably wasn't #1. They were certainly in the top 10 legitimately, which they proved in 1984 and surrounding seasons.

Hawaii proved absolutely ZERO this year. I'm not sure why you defend their abominable schedule and iffy results (MOV in several games).

I'm seriously baffled by it. No, really.

What did BYU do to prove they were a top 10 team that Hawaii didn't? Don't bother me with a 3-7-1 Pitt team or a barely 0.500 Baylor team. That's no more impressive than Boise State at home or Nevada on the road.