Quote Originally Posted by CoeburnCane View Post
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.