We make no apologies for being selected by the Sugar Bowl, and fuck you for implying that we should.
The criteria for at-large selections by BCS bowls are very clear. The teams eligible for selection after all automatic bids are filled must have at least nine wins and must be ranked in the top 14 of the final BCS rankings. Virginia Tech fulfilled both of these requirements. There is no arguing that fact.
The word I've heard thrown around most over the last 48 hours is "deserve." Every hack trying to make an op-ed name for himself is screaming that Virginia Tech doesn't "deserve" to be in the Sugar Bowl, or that Kansas State or Boise State "deserve" to be there more. In response to that noise, Will Munny said it best.
 |
| Deserve's got nothing to do with it. |
Make no mistake, Kansas State had a phenomenal year. They are a very good football team worthy or recognition and acclaim. But they do not "deserve" to be in the Sugar Bowl more than we do because there is nothing to be found anywhere in any of the bylaws of the Bowl Championship Series that when making at-large selections the bowl committees should look at the resumes of the teams they are considering. All of this feigned moral indignation is a play to fill broadcasting hours and grab ratings, or the bitter rumblings of anti-BCS curmudgeons like Dan Wetzel.
Look, don't get me wrong. I don't particularly like the BCS. I think it's a pretty ridiculous method of crowning a national champion. But I don't exacerbate the problem by trying to make it more than it is. It isn't a playoff. Outside of the national championship game it is in no way designed to reward the best teams in college football. It's a bunch of bowls that have a contractual agreement with each other, and like all bowls they try to select participants that make for interesting matchups that guarantee sellout crowds and high television ratings. In pairing Virginia Tech and Michigan for their first ever meeting on the field, the Sugar Bowl committee hit a grand slam. Virginia Tech is the overall winningest team over the past sixteen years. Michigan is one of the most storied programs in the history of college football. And the Sugar Bowl has put them on the same football field for the first time ever. This is a great matchup and a great storyline.
There are six teams playing in a BCS bowl this year that actually "deserve" to be there: LSU, Oklahoma State, Oregon, Wisconsin, West Virginia, and Clemson. Those are your automatic qualifiers. They did what it took to guarantee their spot at the big money table: they won their conference. Outside of those six teams, it's a popularity contest. And this time around Virginia Tech is the cool kid with the keys to the convertible, while K-State and Boise are sitting in their mom's basement playing Dungeons and Dragons.
16 comments:
Here's where you lost me:
"But the [sic] do not "deserve" to be in the Sugar Bowl more than we do because there is nothing to be found anywhere in any of the bylaws of the Bowl Championship Series that when making at-large selections the bowl committees should look at the resumes of the teams they are considering."
They DO have to look at the BCS rankings (top 14 and in, which is more of a Notre Dame law than anything else) and thus only teams inside the 14 are able to make the first cut.
The only reason I'm not a hater right now is my wife is a Hokie and she's excited about getting the invite--but please don't feign that you don't know you're not supposed to be at the party. Just be happy you're there and enjoy the ride.
No place for standing on a table in your tuxedo t-shirt at a black-tie affair screaming "I belong!", when that's pretty clearly not the case. Just be happy you snuck into the party and enjoy your drink.
IH, well said. But not only that, we would beat those other "more deserving" teams (assuming we did not "pull a Clemson."
Really, BCMike? How is it "pretty clearly not the case" that we shouldn't be going to the Sugar Bowl? They invited us, didn't they? All while adhering to the selection criteria for at-large bids. Apparently, both reading comprehension and quality football aren't offered at Boston College.
I'm going to guess that you aren't new to this blog and have perused the posts and comments before. In that case, you should be more than adequately aware that Illinois Hokie, though a rabid fan like the rest of us, is about as fair and reasonable in his assessments/observations as can be expected from a 'biased' person. I'm really having a difficult time understanding what it was that lost you. We're ranked in the top 14 of the BCS. The selection wasn't based purely on position within that top 14, but on a number of other factors to include our traveling fan base and popularity. Add in the first ever match up between us and Michigan and you have a very compelling game.
Quite frankly, we're entitled to be more than just happy to be going and don't owe anyone an apology. Saying you're not a hater, but then making pointless, disparaging remarks is at best passive-aggressive and at worst intellectually dishonest. Please just go enjoy your quiet offseason while living in denial that you are nothing more than troll with that post.
BCMike: You can go orally pleasure a rabid donkey. As mentioned, outside of the BCSMNC you've only got to hit the qualifiers (9 wins inside the BCS top 14). Boise State should've lobbied to join the Pac-10 if they wanted AQ status. As it stands, they made a lateral promotion (WAC to MWC)and are now reaping the benefits of playing in a non-AQ conference. The real injustice is 'Bama getting a re-do on the Home game in which they crapped the bed by missing 4 field goals. Only three teams on Bama's schedule having a winning record (they lost to one of them, LSU). Okie State should be playing LSU.
BCMike, thanks for the proofread. Hope you enjoy BC's bowl game.
Good lord, guys. If I don't waive the Hokies colors and wear a gobble-gobble MF'er shirt I'm a hater and a troll?
If you don't want to offer a place for comment of dissenting opinion, fine, but please don't burn the books when someone happens to disagrees in a (attempted) funny and polite way.
VT is a very good team. Very deserving of going to a very good bowl, such as the Peach (again) this year.
Yes, I'm also well aware that my team stinks this year--and I'm also aware we've beaten VT more than our fair share before our most recent and precipitous decline--but that's not what on topic here.
Preaching that the Hokies DESERVE to be at this bowl game and pretending like the status of a BCS bowl game is not to match the best teams (i.e., highly ranked / conference winners) is blindingly biased and time-sensitive. You wrote how it was something that the Hokies got screwed by w/ND a couple of years back and I'm darn sure you, if writing at this point, would have shouted from the tree-tops the unfairness and how your team was more deserving.
...and you would have been right.
Listen guys, put your pitchforks and torches down. I'm not hating on the Hokies, but rather the BCS system. If you tell me that they are DESERVING of going is where I take exception to fans that are clearly only on this side of the argument--and temporarily so--because it behooves them at the moment.
...and to answer the "troll" accusation, no, I'm not. I've been blogging on my own / other sites for years on end. Some of you probably have read my stuff before.
---------------------------------
sorry for the re-post, spotted a typo.
BCMike, I don't think you're a troll. But I also don't think you read my argument, and if you did I don't think you understood it.
"Deserve" is a red herring. Virginia Tech fulfilled the requirements to be considered for at large selection to a BCS bowl, and we were selected. We did not lobby to be selected, but we damn sure accepted when we were.
My argument is not that Virginia Tech "deserves" the Sugar Bowl, but that the entire notion of "deserving" an at large bid is stupid. I laid that out very clearly.
We travel and we spend money. That's why we're an at-large. And the exact same thing can be said about Michigan.
and Shane--I agree--you don't owe anyone an apology.
I wouldn't be apologizing if I won the lottery, either. I won. I'm happy.
...but I don't walk up to the guy who bought 50 tickets a day for every day in his life and shout in his face that I DESERVED it more.
Again, my exception to this whole mess of a post is the statement that the Hokies are deserving to go to the Sugar Bowl over such teams as Boise State and K-State.
I disagree strongly. I have no problem with you having a good time or being happy that you're there. No apology necessary.
Apparently that means I'm a hater and I'm doomed to a lifetime of pleasuring rabid donkeys. Bummer for me, I guess.
last, here's some proof I'm not a Hokie Hater...this was published by another source before this season began. Check out who I picked to win the conference:
http://allsportsdiscussion.com/2011/08/10/acc-atlantic-division-pre-season-football-roundtable-part-1/
Alright folks, chill. It is what it is. And like the baseless officiating in the ACCCG, there's not a damn thing ANYONE can do about it now. Bitching, whining, complaining, moderately disagreeing or even sucking the BCS execs c-ks (theoretically) won't change it. Done deal. Merry Freakin Christmas & whathaveyou.
Hi Illinois Hokie--
I didn't mean to be a proofreader with the [sic], I get called out enough on my own I hate to have folks think I misquoted someone.
I do believe I understood your post.
We can chalk it up to a disagreement of one paragraph, the one where you throw "deserve" in quotation marks and say that the Hokies have just as much of a right to go to the bowl as Boise State or K-State. Right, perhaps.
Deserve? Absolutely not.
Listen--at the end of the day I'm happy as the wife is happy and that's more dough for the ACC...but I sincerely believe you're kidding yourself if you think you wouldn't be shouting from the rooftops the exact opposite argument if you were a K-State or Boise State fan.
I'm surprised no one's mentioned the fact that we're ranked AHEAD OF MICHIGAN. By the argument of the "VT didn't deserve it" crowd, we "deserve" it at least more than Michigan.
100% agree Michigan shouldn't be there, either.
BCMIKE .... it is obvious that you have gone well out of your way to either be disagreeable or just argumentative. That's the only way you could have misunderstood the post so badly. It's NOT the national championship for God's sake...! It's a stupid bowl game that means jack. VT simply happened to qualify and be chosen.
Like IH pointed out.. they actually chose our FANS and propensity to travel. IT IS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY. Please show me where you think the BCS bowls are supposed to pick the teams YOU think "deserve" to be there.
"BCMIKE .... it is obvious that you have gone well out of your way to either be disagreeable or just argumentative.
Seriously?
I guess if I'm not walking the company line of your school I'm being disagreeable?
Whatever man.
I'll be happy to talk with sports with you guys again sometime if you take your Suzy Sensi-Pants off (IH withstanding).
Good luck vs. Michigan, I'll be cheering for ya with the wife beside me. Go ACC.
the Unforgiven reference was absolutely amazing.
Post a Comment