Okay defenders of Hawaii in the BCS

[Ace Tomato Co.]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

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

Point?

[Judge Smails]

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.

probably close to 25-30, but how do we know. They've proven to be better than several bottom 20 teams, a couple of 1-AA teams, and that they can beat teams in the 30-70 range at home. They've also proven they are not a top 5 team.

So I'm gonna guess 25-30. I know they're not as good as June Jones claimed they were.

[Ace Tomato Co.]

Originally Posted by Judge Smails

probably close to 25-30, but how do we know. They've proven to be better than several bottom 20 teams, a couple of 1-AA teams, and that they can beat teams in the 30-70 range at home. They've also proven they are not a top 5 team.

So I'm gonna guess 25-30. I know they're not as good as June Jones claimed they were.

I'm going to guess 40+, and I'm going to state absolutely that they should not have been considered for a major bowl game.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Ace Tomato Co.

Point?

The point is you change a couple of names and you just described 1984 BYU. I'm just curious what distinguishes one from the other. There must be some logical line of demarcation you have.

[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.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Ace Tomato Co.

Point?

I think Indy's point is that BYU was grossly overrated in 1984, but no BYU fans are willing to admit it because BYU benefitted from it.

Ok, I added my 2 cents (everything after 1984) but I do believe that Indy's saying that if Hawaii didn't deserve the love this year, BYU didn't deserve it in '84.

[Judge Smails]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

The point is you change a couple of names and you just described 1984 BYU. I'm just curious what distinguishes one from the other. There must be some logical line of demarcation you have.

Beating 6-5 Michigan >>> Soiling yourself against Georgia.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

I think Indy's point is that BYU was grossly overrated in 1984, but no BYU fans are willing to admit it because BYU benefitted from it.

Ok, I added my 2 cents (everything after 1984) but I do believe that Indy's saying that if Hawaii didn't deserve the love this year, BYU didn't deserve it in '84.

I want some intellectual honesty from my fellow BYU fans.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Judge Smails

Beating 6-5 Michigan >>> Soiling yourself against Georgia.

That's the best you can come up with?

[Ace Tomato Co.]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

The point is you change a couple of names and you just described 1984 BYU. I'm just curious what distinguishes one from the other. There must be some logical line of demarcation you have.

I know that you are intelligent enough to distinguish between BYU's football program in '84 and Hawaii's in '07, and between our '84 schedule vs. Hawaii's '07 schedule. So quit distorting to try and prove a point.

That being said, of course BYU did not "win" or "deserve" a national championship in 1984. The only people who don't chuckle when our '84 championship is mentioned are BYU fans. We deserved a spot in a playoff, and Hawaii did this year as well.