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.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Judge Smails

Somehow I didn't see the answer to this question Indy, which is amazing, since I've never seen you miss posting on anything.

Are you dodging?

I might personally think they're 20th, but is that so significantly different from the 12th that voters and computer polls have come to a relatively consistent consensus on that I'm going to start 12 different threads bitching about their inclusion in the BCS?

No.

There have been far, far, far, bigger travesties in the glorious history of the BCS than Hawaii getting in. Nebraska 2001 for starters.

[Judge Smails]

Originally Posted by jay santos

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.

Fine. If you're looking at a more equitable system for all the non-BCS teams, and a little justice, then I'm fine with Hawaii getting in, since clearly we've been getting financially screwed for years.

But if we're looking at the parameters - Hawaii gets in if they're one of the 12 best teams in the land - I assume you have to agree they weren't. I think this is where the fork in the road occurs - you and Indy say so what it's time the little boys get some, and I say they should have to meet the criteria that's set up, and they shouldn't have met it (which you agree with if you feel they're about #20 in the country).

I just hope if and when BYU gets a seat at the table we earn our way in. (and we don't get bitchslapped by the guy next to us).

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Judge Smails

Fine. If you're looking at a more equitable system for all the non-BCS teams, and a little justice, then I'm fine with Hawaii getting in, since clearly we've been getting financially screwed for years.

But if we're looking at the parameters - Hawaii gets in if they're one of the 12 best teams in the land - I assume you have to agree they weren't. I think this is where the fork in the road occurs - you and Indy say so what it's time the little boys get some, and I say they should have to meet the criteria that's set up, and they shouldn't have met it (which you agree with if you feel they're about #20 in the country).

I just hope if and when BYU gets a seat at the table we earn our way in. (and we don't get bitchslapped by the guy next to us).

By the parameters they were top 12, so what's your point?

None of us are saying we personally believed they were top 12. But the voters did. Take it up with them.

[Judge Smails]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I might personally think they're 20th, but is that so significantly different from the 12th that voters and computer polls have come to a relatively consistent consensus on that I'm going to start 12 different threads bitching about their inclusion in the BCS?

No.

There have been far, far, far, bigger travesties in the glorious history of the BCS than Hawaii getting in. Nebraska 2001 for starters.

Oh, I'm no longer bitching about their inclusion. The world's been proven to be round. I'm just trying to understand how anyone can still stand behind their stance that Hawaii belonged in the BCS, especially considering they themselves don't think they were anywhere near the 12th best team in the country.

Assuming you agree with Santos' opinion, I can deal with your desire to make things more equitable for the little guys. Not saying I agree completely, but at least that helps me see you're not a complete loon.

[Judge Smails]

Originally Posted by jay santos

By the parameters they were top 12, so what's your point?

None of us are saying we personally believed they were top 12. But the voters did. Take it up with them.

Point being, I can readily admit the voters got it wrong, and for whatever reason you can't. My personal belief about where Hawaii really stacks up is consistent with my opinion about whether they should have made the BCS. Yours doesn't.

Which is why I'm confused. Which is why I keep going on and on and on about this even though I really don't want to. I'm just too baffled to let it go. I've got to know what you're holding on to.

[Indy Coug]

Let's be clear about this one more time: I'm more concerned about the legitimacy of a "yeah, but who have they played?" argument rather than a "how did they do, given who they played?" argument.

I don't care if the 2007 New England Patriots went 16-0 against all 1-AA opponents instead of other NFL teams, IF they pummeled those 1-AA teams into oblivion.

So when you and your ilk keep the hysterical "schedule schedule schedule schedule" mantra going, I'm going to take issue with that because a poor schedule in and of itself proves nothing.

If you had started this whole rigamarole a couple of months ago with a "they haven't played well enough against such a bad schedule" tact instead, I probably wouldn't have argued with you very much.

Bad schedule aside, it's almost statistically impossible to go 12-0 against even a horrible schedule unless you're one of the top teams in the country, even if you're haggling about where specifically they fall inside a narrow 7 to 10 percentile range of the 1-A universe.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Judge Smails

Point being, I can readily admit the voters got it wrong, and for whatever reason you can't. My personal belief about where Hawaii really stacks up is consistent with my opinion about whether they should have made the BCS. Yours doesn't.

Which is why I'm confused. Which is why I keep going on and on and on about this even though I really don't want to. I'm just too baffled to let it go. I've got to know what you're holding on to.

Didn't Va Tech's 48-7 demolition at the hands of LSU (a far more embarrassing performance than Hawaii vs Georgia, IMO) show they had no business being a top 5 team? At least they lost last night to a team with the worst SOS of any other BCS conference team (in fact, worse than any MWC team).

[Judge Smails]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Let's be clear about this one more time: I'm more concerned about the legitimacy of a "yeah, but who have they played?" argument rather than a "how did they do, given who they played?" argument.

I don't care if the 2007 New England Patriots went 16-0 against all 1-AA opponents instead of other NFL teams, IF they pummeled those 1-AA teams into oblivion.

So when you and your ilk keep the hysterical "schedule schedule schedule schedule" mantra going, I'm going to take issue with that because a poor schedule in and of itself proves nothing.

If you had started this whole rigamarole a couple of months ago with a "they haven't played well enough against such a bad schedule" tact instead, I probably wouldn't have argued with you very much.

Bad schedule aside, it's almost statistically impossible to go 12-0 against even a horrible schedule unless you're one of the top teams in the country, even if you're haggling about where specifically they fall inside a narrow 7 to 10 percentile range of the 1-A universe.

Gimme a break. I've been bringing up La Tech, San Jose St, Utah St, Washington, et al all along. I've always said they were unimpressive against their crappy schedule. If they had dominated, like Utah did, they'd deserve to be top 12. Instead you and I both have them in the 20-30 range. Thus my confusion with where you believe they should have played their meaningless postseason game.

Again, if it's about fairness, let's end this conversation, because I can live with that. It's your implication that they 'earned' it that gets me riled up - they simply didn't.

[Judge Smails]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Didn't Va Tech's 48-7 demolition at the hands of LSU (a far more embarrassing performance than Hawaii vs Georgia, IMO) show they had no business being a top 5 team? At least they lost last night to a team with the worst SOS of any other BCS conference team.

Did you believe Va Tech was a top 12 team going into the bowl games. I certainly did, and I'm guessing you did. You can't say the same about Hawaii.

My persistence on this debate is much more about what's driving you than what should happen/did happen to Hawaii. They already made a BCS game and got their asses handed to them on a platter. I just want to know why your internal computer model is inconsistent with your treatment of Hawaii.