Okay defenders of Hawaii in the BCS
 

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.

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

Conversation?
 

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.

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.

I'm calling it
 

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.

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.

Hawaii's schedule this year was no weaker than BYU's schedule in '84.

I have no problem with Hawaii getting a BCS game, but I do think they got hosed. Just like when BYU was awarded the title in '84 for being the only undefeated team in the country, Hawaii should have at least had a shot at the title.

Why do I think this? Because the BCS is corrupt and unfair to any team that isn't a member of a BCS conference. It's all crap. So any time one of the so-called little guys can get in, it's a good thing.

Yes it was. Significantly so.

Listen there's no doubt they belong in a playoff
 

and I'm all for that. Just like C Connecticut St gets in the NCAA Bball tourney if they win their conference. They just didn't belong in the current format. The disemboweling they took only proved it.

Look, I understand by the way (not necessarily directed at you IPU) that Illinois and Oklahoma got boat raced in their bowl games. They were both dominated, but you're in denial if you think they were somehow equally inept with Hawaii. Hawaii didn't look like they could tie their shoes. Illinois and OU at least resembled football teams. Hawaii could have lost by 60. They seriously sucked royally, as predicted.

Does anyone really think Illinois played as bad as Hawaii did in their bowl game? Sure they both lost by 31, but Hawaii was UNLV awful.

I understand what you're saying - but I hate the BCS more than anything else in college athletics. Anytime the BCS can be proven to be a sham, it is a good thing. Hawaii not deserving to be there only strengthens the BCS argument that only BCS teams should be in BCS bowl games.