Va. Tech vs. Michigan

[GC-1]

Was an ok game like I have said earlier...both teams were not that good and certainlly not BCS worthy and the QB's were horrible IMO but I still feel that Boise State deserved to be at one these BCS games and felt they got ripped off. Fan base talks though I guess. I think Boise would have beat either Michigan or Va. Tech.

I agree that Boise had a good team. But according to BCS rules they were not eligible for a BCS bid. They A) didn't win their conference B) their conference champion wasn't eligible.

[Eamus Catuli]

Well you all must know more about officiating than the Supervisor of ACC Officials. He doesn't have a clue why it was overturned.

From roanoke.com

ACC official wants call at end of Sugar Bowl explained

From his vantage point in front of a high-definition television set in Miami, site of Wednesday night's Orange Bowl game between West Virginia and Clemson, ACC supervisor of football officials Doug Rhoads was watching intently as the Sugar Bowl went into overtime.

Virginia Tech had the ball first and appeared to score a touchdown on a pass from Logan Thomas to Danny Coale. Or, at least a touchdown was signaled.

There was a delay as the play was reviewed by a replay official assigned by the Pac-12. Rhoads doesn't know if he saw the play from every camera angle, but he saw multiple shots.

"I understood why they went to replay because it was a scoring play and it certainly met the criteria for being reviewed, but based on the replays I saw, I did not see indisputable evidence to overturn it," Rhoads said. "That's probably all I can say at this point.

"I thought the play would stand."

When the decision came down from the replay booth, the referee said the pass had been ruled incomplete because Coale did not maintain possession of the ball after hitting the ground.

Virginia Tech missed a subsequent field-goal attempt before Michigan converted a field goal for a 23-20 Wolverines' victory.

Rhoads said he emailed the Pac-12 supervisor of officials shortly after the game and expects an interpretation that first will be shared with ACC commissioner John Swofford. As of late afternoon Wednesday, Rhoads' email had not been answered.

[GC-1]

VT shouldn't be too upset, they lost in a bowl they had no business in and didn't deserve, I thought they'd get blown out of the place...but losing like that was actually funnier to see.

Now that is a stupid post. VT had as much right in the game as Michigan. Take away VT's loss in the ACCCG to make all things equal as UM didn't even make their title game and you have an 11-1 VT PLUS VT was ranked ahead of UM in the BCS. So in fact UM shit someone out of the Sugar.

While I'll readily admit that the Hokies choked the game away, they beat the dog shit out of UM all night long. 56 yards rushing and 184 totals yards by UM. Shoelaces 13 carries 13 yds. The VT coaches should apologize to the VT fans and players for giving the game to UM because the game should have been over long before OT. But this is what I've come to expect.

[R13]

To defend VT being in that game is what is stupid, they had the easiest schedule in the country, it was a complete joke...they didn't deserve to sniff a BCS game. Look at their wins - Appy State, East Carolina, Ark St., Marshall, Miami, Wake, BC, Duke, UNC, UVA - their only halfway decent win comes against an 8-5 GT team, they get embarrassed by Clemson TWICE. I never said anything about Michigan, just because another mediocre team made it doesn't mean they deserved to be there anymore. They were by far the most overrated team in a BCS game, give them a schedule that's modestly more difficult and they're struggling to make it into a bowl game period. There's no need for them to apologize, they lost a game everyone but VT fans were expecting them to lose. For them to have the numbers they did against Michigan, yet still lose shows how sorry they are. It's not like they led the whole game and just pissed it away at the end. They lead 6-0 at the end of the first, they're losing 10-6 at halftime, losing 17-9 at the end of the 3rd, they manage to tie it up twice in the 4th to lose in OT. VT had better numbers, but Michigan controlled most of the game on the scoreboard and finished it. VT didn't give anything way, they just played exactly like the sorry team they are the whole game.

[GC-1]

To defend VT being in that game is what is stupid, they had the easiest schedule in the country, it was a complete joke...they didn't deserve to sniff a BCS game. Look at their wins - Appy State, East Carolina, Ark St., Marshall, Miami, Wake, BC, Duke, UNC, UVA - their only halfway decent win comes against an 8-5 GT team, they get embarrassed by Clemson TWICE. I never said anything about Michigan, just because another mediocre team made it doesn't mean they deserved to be there anymore. They were by far the most overrated team in a BCS game, give them a schedule that's modestly more difficult and they're struggling to make it into a bowl game period. There's no need for them to apologize, they lost a game everyone but VT fans were expecting them to lose. For them to have the numbers they did against Michigan, yet still lose shows how sorry they are. It's not like they led the whole game and just pissed it away at the end. They lead 6-0 at the end of the first, they're losing 10-6 at halftime, losing 17-9 at the end of the 3rd, they manage to tie it up twice in the 4th to lose in OT. VT had better numbers, but Michigan controlled most of the game on the scoreboard and finished it. VT didn't give anything way, they just played exactly like the sorry team they are the whole game.

Well, since you are the genius, who would you have put in the game to play the mighty, all deserving UM team? Who did they beat that left them so deserving? 9-4 Nebraska? Or Notre Dame? Or maybe it was the Western Michigan win that got them over the top? Eastern Michigan, or SDSU? Michigan wasn't any more impressive than VT.

[CoeburnCane]

I agree that Boise had a good team. But according to BCS rules they were not eligible for a BCS bid. They A) didn't win their conference B) their conference champion wasn't eligible.

Yeah, but Kansas State was eligible. And I think K-State would have beaten either VT or Michigan pretty badly. They're heavily underrated...Bill Snyder coming back to the head coaching spot for them turned them into a winner quicker than anyone else thought.

[GC-1]

Yeah, but Kansas State was eligible. And I think K-State would have beaten either VT or Michigan pretty badly. They're heavily underrated...Bill Snyder coming back to the head coaching spot for them turned them into a winner quicker than anyone else thought.

True, KSU did have a pretty good team. They played OSU close, but their wins are no better than UM/VT and the only comparison is they and VT both played the Canes with similar results.

[CoeburnCane]

True, KSU did have a pretty good team. They played OSU close, but their wins are no better than UM/VT and the only comparison is they and VT both played the Canes with similar results.

After K-State beat the Canes, I followed them pretty closely for the rest of the season...and while VT was limping towards the end of their season (save for the UVA beatdown), K-State only seemed to get stronger. They only had one bad loss on the year, and that was at home against Oklahoma before they took a nose dive (58-17 was the score on that one). Their only other loss was on the road that next week to Okla State, and that was only by a TD in a shootout.

Just face it--the reason why Kansas State didn't get the nod over VT or Michigan for the Sugar Bowl was because of the fanbases and anticipated TV revenues. VT/Michigan was a sexier matchup for those two reasons than either VT/Michigan vs. K-State, and that's why VT and Michigan got into the game over them.

But, then again, VT and Michigan getting into BCS eligibility only because K-State wasn't a good enough draw, Boise didn't win their conference on a missed last second FG, and Arkansas not being eligible due to 2 SEC teams in the BCS title game...that's what I kind of have to call backing into a BCS payday due to a series of technicalities. Neither team truly deserved to be there, if you go by what teams were ranked ahead of them, and what most folks eyeballs will tell you are better teams.

[GC-1]

After K-State beat the Canes, I followed them pretty closely for the rest of the season...and while VT was limping towards the end of their season (save for the UVA beatdown), K-State only seemed to get stronger. They only had one bad loss on the year, and that was at home against Oklahoma before they took a nose dive (58-17 was the score on that one). Their only other loss was on the road that next week to Okla State, and that was only by a TD in a shootout.

Just face it--the reason why Kansas State didn't get the nod over VT or Michigan for the Sugar Bowl was because of the fanbases and anticipated TV revenues. VT/Michigan was a sexier matchup for those two reasons than either VT/Michigan vs. K-State, and that's why VT and Michigan got into the game over them.

But, then again, VT and Michigan getting into BCS eligibility only because K-State wasn't a good enough draw, Boise didn't win their conference on a missed last second FG, and Arkansas not being eligible due to 2 SEC teams in the BCS title game...that's what I kind of have to call backing into a BCS payday due to a series of technicalities. Neither team truly deserved to be there, if you go by what teams were ranked ahead of them, and what most folks eyeballs will tell you are better teams.

Oh, I don't disagree at all as to why VT/UM got the Sugar. The bowls are about TV and bringing in the cash. I was surprised as heck VT got the bid fully expecting the Chick. We both back into the Sugar for all the reasons above. IMO there could have been other matchups but for stipulations keeping them out. But who's gonna turn down millions? What's really needed is a playoff 8 or 16 teams. 16 preferred.

[collegetrumpet2010]

VT didn't give anything way, they just played exactly like the sorry team they are the whole game.

I hope you don't consider this an unbiased statement. That is about the single dumbest comment I have read about the game. Yeah, move the ball well most drives and convert on third and long all night and when you get to the 5 yard line your coach decides to do conservative play calling having to settle for field goals and make a comment like that.

Goodness you have to be one the most biased people on here.