Okay defenders of Hawaii in the BCS

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Judge Smails

So, does the 20th best team in the country deserve a BCS spot, if it's reserved for them if they finish in the top 12? This is the crux of this 5 page argument.

Tread lightly here. We may be coming to an agreement.

I'll answer for Indy.

I don't necessarily think the BCS is UNFAIR to non-BCS schools in the context of bowl history where Rose, Sugar, Orange bowls had BCS school tie-ins and NEVER invited non-BCS schools. In fact, many times they extended their invites before the season was over just to get the jump on a team like a 7-3 Notre Dame team. I see the BCS as an improvement on that old system.

But I also believe it's good for all of college football to see some non-BCS schools in there on occasion. Even one a year would seem fair, so long as they were at least top 25. Hawaii makes a reasonable argument that they had some contracts with BCS schools cancel on them, thus the weaker than normal SOS. They went undefeated. Reasonably unbiased voters voted them top 10. Computers had them around #18. That is definitely plenty good enough for me as a non-BCS to think they have earned their spot at the table.

The BCS itself has said the non-BCS-title-game BCS bowls' priority is revenue and interest first and fairness second. So especially with that priority, I think it's totally acceptable Hawaii was in. You might see a year where BYU is #5 and Hawaii is #8 in the BCS standings and Hawaii would be left out in the cold for a lower ranked BCS team as an at-large. So it can cut both ways.