Listen, these are great debates, but its a flawed system your working with. Your going to get great teams, but one year is a LONG time in a bhangra circuit, and it hurts for many teams because you run into situations with real life and etc that tend to stop teams from competing. Colleges graduate kids, independent teams find guys working or going back to school, etc. You can't reasonably expect to get the perfect 8 man lineup for a competition because of all the outside factors.
The thing that we want from Elite 8 necessarily isn't a champion who is the best in the world(still debatable), but rather a lineup that is so packed that the amount of doubt we have about that team is minimized. I think this is where the complaint lies with last years lineup: it doesn't minimize the doubt accurately enough.
The process isn't going to be fixed. Pick teams that you think are sick, and your essentially ruining a lot of good teams chances of actually getting into elite with good performances. Sure, not every lineup is going to be stacked, nor is the judging going to be equal from competition to competition, but you have to have a sense of legitimacy with teams. Picking teams based on personal bias won't make Elite an Elite competition, because without the idea of a due process you leave out teams based on discriminatory policy. No truly elite program would want to advocate a policy where the idea of anyone can make it can't work. This same thought process is relevant in all sports, politics, and instances of higher learning. What might be different is the actual RESULT, but there is the potential that ANY team or individual can make it. That is what makes Elite elite.
Is the process 100% fair, no. It can't be. Something that is 100% fair usually detracts from the value about Elite. Teams with better resources, training, etc are going to go here because they have built themselves up. However, it is only fair to include all teams into the discussion.
For the debate about teams and Elite 8. I think all teams discussed(Fauj, UNC, JJ, etc) all are great teams, and we underestimate their adaptability for such an event. The hallmark of some of the great teams is the ability to adapt and perform at wherever they go, whether they choose to or choose not too. It is very subjective to think that one team would rip it given the opportunity. Every team will "rip" it given the opportunity, and I believe they will because they are teams that win and want to win Elite. I think what hurt a team like Empire was that it preferred to do things and maintain things there way, which showcases a unique style but doesn't conform to what Elite is.
I don't think you can go wrong with any of the teams mentioned. We could sit and argue about the breakdown of how teams should get in, but their seems to be an established methodology of getting into elite: Go to comps, and win them. I don't think there is a substantial difference in terms of overall presentation between a team like JJ and Fauj/UNC. They all have elite levels of the overall product, and what changes they do make for elite is great. Bottom line...its a good problem to have. They are great teams.
Also, for the teams that don't get in and we say "should" get in...They are still great teams. Competitions that come after Elite are always compared to Elite performances, so its great that we have that. It doesn't take away from them. Besides, Elite is a culmination of performances from one Elite to the next. It is not written in stone that the team is the best. Its more about that one performance in lieu of the competing acts that is.