I don't think it makes much difference, really. I don't think they are going to change the rules and make it harder for non-BCS teams to get into the games. What I think might happen is that they will continue to put the non-BCS teams up against stiffer competition than the Pittsburgh and Oklahoma teams from 2004 and 2006 respectively.

I don't think Hawaii is as bad as they played last night. Do I think that BYU could beat them? Yeah. Utah probably would to. They made absolutely zero adjustments to their blocking. I thought Brennen was going to get killed. The DL was getting there before the ball half the time. I still don't think that they are as bad as they played last night. They actually had some decent runs during the game, and should probably have called a few more because Georgia's line just had no respect for the running game.

Personally I don't think it hurts BYU's chance at a BCS bowl game. But here's the caveat, they MUST play a better schedule. If BYU beats up on some Pac-10 or other BCS conference teams I am pretty sure that people will take notice. If we lose to those teams, then there is no way we are making it into a big money game.

Hawaii, unfortunately, was exposed. They were not the best non-BCS team this year. I not only feel bad for them but for all of us non-BCS teams. Hawaii was our representative and they let us down. It may be that because of their high rating and poor showing, pollsters may be more reluctant to give "the love" to any of us next year. I hope this is not the case. Let's hope that we can beat UCLA and Washington to help our case next year.

Absolutely. Any time a Non-BCS team loses to a BCS team it perpetuates a stereotype that non-BCS teams cannot compete with BCS teams, regardless of who they are.

That being said, I could not live in a world (its just a metaphor, I am not suicidal) where Hawaii claimed the WAC was better than the MWC, had bragging rights over BYU for busting the BCS, and beat a highly ranked SEC team. Sorry, but I want BYU to be the first to do that, and to do it consistently (I know Boise State did it once already--Stupid Boise State).

Call it immature, cutting off your nose to spite your face, or whatever. But it is what it is.

I believe it does.

I have a feeling that most of the coaches' poll voters and Harris Poll voters are going to view Hawaii in the same class as BSU in '06 and Utah in '04. After seeing Hawaii get their butt kicked they are going to do some revisionist history and determine that it was all luck for BSU to beat Oklahoma and Utah was merely a beneficiary of a weak opponent in the BCS game. They might come to the conclusion that what happened to Hawaii is a more authentic experience of what might happen to a nonBCS team if they are matched up in a BCS game.

I hope I'm wrong, but I think Hawaii getting killed was a step backward for nonBCS conference teams.

cougarfan87 wrote:

Absolutely. Any time a Non-BCS team loses to a BCS team it perpetuates a stereotype that non-BCS teams cannot compete with BCS teams, regardless of who they are.

That being said, I could not live in a world (its just a metaphor, I am not suicidal) where Hawaii claimed the WAC was better than the MWC, had bragging rights over BYU for busting the BCS, and beat a highly ranked SEC team. Sorry, but I want BYU to be the first to do that, and to do it consistently (I know Boise State did it once already--Stupid Boise State).

Call it immature, cutting off your nose to spite your face, or whatever. But it is what it is.

BYU may not have busted the BCS like Boise State, Utah, and Hawaii; but you have to remember that we created ( or caused to be created ) the BCS. Our national championship in 1984 put the wheels in motion for the bowl alliance and later the BCS.