Week 10 BCS Rankings

On Saturday we may have seen a preview of what Michigan's offense could be in 2013. Maybe. Devin Gardner received the unexpected start against Minnesota and when you take out his first quarter stats, he was very efficient with scoring drives of 91, 90, 86, and 79 yards. He was evading defenders when they broke through their blocks. Yes, he did have one bad throw that was across his body and limped into the arms of Minnesota's defense, but most quarterbacks don't have as much zip on their throws when doing that.

However, in the end, there will inevitably be the usual quarterback controversy. There should be none--Michigan is Denard's team. And it will remain so for another 3 games and a bowl. In other Big Ten news: Michigan State lost a heartbreaking game to Nebraska (which also makes it more difficult for Michigan to make it to the Big Ten title game)  and now all the Cornhuskers need to do to reach Indy is win out while the Spartans are left just scratching to be bowl eligible. Ohio State remains undefeated after blowing out Illinois 55-22, and Braxton Miller has even more Heisman worthy stats (against Illinois it's not hard). Surprising Indiana took out Iowa which sets up an intriguing matchup in Bloomington next week against Wisconsin  Penn State won a convincing matchup against Purdue  and now it's become plain sad that Bill O'Brien can't take his team to a bowl game following the aftermath of everything that's happened in State College over the last year, and after JoePa's death. I think it'd be not poetic justice per say, but a matter of rebirth for that school. Alas, it's not going to happen. Onto the new BCS poll:

Week 9 BCS/AP/Big Ten Rankings

Horrid. Just plain horrid. During the course of the Michigan-Nebraska game, Denard Robinson got hurt yet again. It was said he injured the nerve in his throwing elbow, thereby not allowing him to grip the football. Russell Bellomy came in as the backup, and the offense was doomed from there. What did we learn about Michigan's offense on Saturday? Without Robinson, it's largely ineffective.

A second straight game and no sign of Thomas Rawls. Another anemic rushing performance by Toussaint, which begs the question: what is Al Borges doing? You can't use the argument that he doesn't have his players on the team yet...to me that's a cop out excuse that I heard constantly during the RichRod era. Anyway, as usual Ohio State is undefeated yet again and with three games to go, including Michigan, they could still be come time for "The Game." Wisconsin was surprisingly bad offensively against Michigan State but it didn't help that Joel Stave got hurt. Minnesota won their first Big Ten game against Purdue in dominating fashion. I could go on...but that'd seem redundant at times, so here's the poll. The BCS poll:

Week 8 BCS/AP/Big Ten Rankings

Week 8 is over with, and I think my blood pressure is finally starting to come down. The Paul Bunyan Trophy is home where it belongs after a hard fought Michigan victory over Michigan State. Yes, it was a great game by two very well matched teams, and the  better one prevailed. Drew Dileo had a great game catching passes when they needed to be caught, and Brendan Gibbons and Matt Wile were clutch as well. The Michigan State offense was just as anemic as we previously thought, and Michigan's defense held Le'Veon Bell in check. That's not the only game that was better than advertised--look at Purdue and Ohio State. After leading for much of the game, Purdue knocked out Braxton Miller in the 3rd quarter (symptom free and out of the hospital later that evening) and still lost the game in overtime to their backup QB.

Week 7 Big Ten/AP/BCS Rankings

There will always be things about college football I'll never understand. Last week Indiana pushed Michigan State to the brink and lost, and yesterday they did the same thing to Ohio State. The ghost of Knute Rockne must be in full force after yesterday's last second win in overtime against Stanford, and how that wasn't a touchdown by Taylor at the goal line I'll never agree with. Geno Smith's Heisman candidacy took a massive hit after losing to Texas 49-14. Michigan State losing to Iowa was a shocker to some, but not to others. The Spartan offense has been bad lately, and Andrew Maxwell is looking shakier every week. I do trust in the theory of quality wins vs quality losses, but when MSU loses to Iowa, who were previously beaten by CMU earlier in the season...well that just says they have a long way to go before becoming elite as many have tried to make them out to be. And I can't forget Michigan ...a team that dominated Illinois yesterday in every way possible. Illinois couldn't muster 150 yards of total offense, and were shut out by the resurgent Wolverines. The running game was effective and diverse, and there wasn't a single receiver who caught more than one pass. The balanced attack on offense and defense led to a great, resounding victory.

National Title Contenders?

I know it seems crazy to be talking about Michigan competing for a national title only two years into the Brady Hoke era. After all, it hasn't been done since 1997. But over the past couple weeks, the most famous question in college football is starting to pop up amongst fans and analysts: Is Michigan a national title contender?


There are actually a number of reasons why I do believe the Wolverines can compete for a national title this year.


When Brady Hoke took this job on January 11th, 2011, he promised to compete locally for recruiting. Of course, by locally, he meant beating in-state rival Michigan State in the recruiting battle. For two years in a row now, Hoke has left the Spartans in the dust.

Seasons Of Change For College Football Coming Today

Today could be a monumental day in the history of college football. The BCS Presidential Oversight Committee will vote Tuesday in Washington, D.C., on a new four-team, three-game playoff that could be sold to television for as much as $5 billion over a 10-year deal. The 2011 BCS contract paid out $174 million, and the newly restructured postseason would nearly triple that number. The model is being presented by 11 BCS commissioners, and Notre Dame's president Jack Swarbrick.

I know one of the major debates is how the selection committee will be picked. Football is vastly different than basketball in that there are far fewer conferences and programs to choose from. Basketball has well over 300 schools, while football is set at 119. Logic suggests one member from each conference and one from ND will be used, yet I do have misgivings about that. One, not all 11 conferences all equal. That might seem prejudiced seeing as how Michigan is what it is, and being in the Big Ten, but we're not the MAC. We're not the WAC or Mountain West either. I'm not saying anything derogatory towards those schools, but it's true. Why should they have a say into what final four teams should be playing for the championship? Sounds mean, I know, but it's reality.

Living Up To Expectations

In the world of sports, the toughest part of putting together an incredible season is coming back the next year to back it up with everyone expecting the same results. The world of Wolverine fans will be expecting nothing less than a BCS bowl win this season, plain and simple.

But before expectations can be met, expectations have to be established. For example, how many Michigan fans would say their number one goal for this season is a Big Ten Championship? That is exactly what Brady Hoke is saying, though. He has made it very clear from day one that his teams will strive for Big Ten Championship trophies before focusing on anything that comes after that, like a National Championship. Some reporters at Hoke's first press conference had a very hard time understanding that logic, so it is very easy to see where fan and coach expectations are colliding.

BCS Playoff--Fair For The Big Ten?

Yesterday, headlines were made when a proposed BCS playoff system "model" was submitted by league commissioners. Supposedly, the commissioners came to an agreement on a 4 team, seeded playoff system that would hopefully begin in 2014. Though many of the details involved with this new postseason model remain unresolved , the commissioners will present their recommendation to a committee of university presidents that is scheduled to meet in Washington next Tuesday. The 12-member BCS presidential oversight committee, chaired by Virginia Tech President Charles Steger, still must approve the four-team playoff before it goes into effect.
   
As for selecting the teams, Scott and ACC Commissioner John Swofford indicated there has been serious discussion about implementing a selection committee similar to the NCAA tournament in men’s and women’s basketball.  A key issue will revolve around who exactly will be on the proposed committee and how much weight they would give to winning a conference championship and strength of schedule. Revenue sharing must also be resolved in the coming months.

Memorial Day Pondering And Rants

First, let me begin by saying thank you to all the men and women in the armed services, both current and veterans. Without you, I would not be able to feel safe in my home with my wife and kids. Happy Memorial Day and just remember folks, say thank you every day!

Now on to my Sunday Night Special. Or Kyle's Korner. I need to come up with a catchy term like Peter King's MMQB. Anyway, I am going to let you in on a widely known yet over-analyzed secret. Preseason rankings do not matter! Oh, and by the way Ohio, you will not take Mike McCray from us.
   
Phil Steele has Michigan ranked as 22nd in the nation, College Football Live has Michigan ranked as 10, and Athlon Sports has Michigan ranked as 7th. Why such the wide disparity? On the flip side, I've seen MSU ranked as 7th and 18th as well.

Yes, Michigan is returning 13 starters from a team that made it to the Sugar Bowl last season. Yes, Michigan has lost some of the leadership provided by Mike Martin, Ryan Van Bergen, and Troy Woolfolk. But, what we've lost is also made up by what we're gaining. Kyle Kalis, Eric Magnuson, Joe Bolden, Royce Jenkins-Stone are just some of the big names that are part of the 2012 class.

Preseason rankings is just about as flawed a system as the BCS. Outside of the top 3 teams, when are they ever correct? I can write for one of those prediction magazines and put Alabama and LSU in the top 2 spots like everyone else. Oh, let me throw in USC or Oklahoma every now and then as well. The rest of the rankings are just a guessing game. Notice how they continue to put Notre Dame in the Top 25 every year? Notice how Notre Dame doesn't finish in the Top 25 every year? (Yes, you Brian Kelly).

As for the MSU faithful who think they're going to contend again this year? Who's your quarterback? Andrew Maxwell? A redshirt junior who hasn't seen a lick of playing time and missed the spring game due to injury? Or Connor Cook? The redshirt frosh who has the physical size, but not the experience. Where's your wide receiver core? Deanthony Arnett, a hardship transfer from Tennessee who only is going to State because Michigan didn't have an open scholarship (before Stonum was dismissed). Any others come to mind? Nope. This is a major reason why I have never understood, or agreed with preseason rankings. Can I get an agreement on that?

On a side note, and I'll write more about it for Tuesday's column, is Meyer's seemingly desperate attempt to poach Michigan recruits. You tried it with McCray, and he'll probably turn you down. You tried it with LTT, and he burned your letter offer. Keep sounding more desperate Urban, it works for me.

Hot Topics: Should There Be A BCS Playoff?

Photo Credit: Business of College Sports

Each week, our writers break down a "Hot Topic" among the Michigan fans and allow them to express their  opinions. Topics cover everything from rivalry games to team and fan apparel. Writers have their own opinion and readers are welcome to comment or contact them via Twitter with their thoughts.


--


Tyler Desy - Representing Those For A BCS Playoff

1) Ok I definitely want a playoff. Don't get me wrong, I am a huge Michigan fan and I love the "Rose Bowl Tradition." Big Ten vs Pac 12 is a great thing. But often every year teams that run the table are getting left out of the discussion. For example, 2005 USC vs Oklahoma where the Trojans just throttled the Sooners. On the outside looking in was Auburn who went undefeated. Now, both USC and Oklahoma were undefeated as well, but Auburn didn't deserve to be left out. If you run the table you should have a shot at your claim to be the best team in the country and therefore play for the National title.  Couple years ago Utah, same thing happened. Sure, they made it to the Fiesta Bowl, which they won, but why should they get denied a chance at the title game. Sure, they are in a smaller conference, obviously weaker schedule but they did beat what everyone thought was a better Georgia team.  Whether it's a 4 team, 8 team, 12 team system, I think a playoff is the best bet.  More often than not, teams that deserve to play for the title get left out.  Don't get me wrong the BCS was kind to Michigan this year in giving us a Sugar Bowl bid, but a lot of people questioned their worth to be there and I definitely think Virginia Tech didn't deserve a bid to the Sugar Bowl. With the playoff system, you take the top 4-8 teams (whatever the number) and say, alright you guys deserve a shot at the title, so you will play for it. No voters, no computers to screw it up.  I say leave it to the teams on the field, not voters and computers.

2) March Madness, I love it. The little guy has a shot at doing it big. Teams like Butler wouldn't have a chance in the BCS system. Even if they did run the table, no way they are getting looked at for a BCS bowl.  With the NCAA tournament everyone gets a shot, you get in the tournament field you got a shot at the title. Even with this tournament teams get left out but I believe it gives the teams in the field a fair shot. To me that's what the playoff system would do for college football. It's more fair. Teams like Utah, who run the table, would get their shot to play for a national championship. Sure, there are teams that run the table that would get left out of the 4 team playoff because they simply don't play a strong enough schedule, but if you are ranked in the top 4 of the country, win your games you should get a chance to play for the title. Why should a computer decide your fate if you get to compete to be the best team in the country? Year in and year out there's always a couple teams with 1 loss, and some that go undefeated. Last year, Oklahoma State thought they should've been in the title game against Alabama. They went a way in proving their argument because they whipped on a very good Stanford team. Of course, Alabama did end up being LSU and winning the title. So were the computers wrong? You could say all three of those teams deserved to be in the game, LSU for sure. So with a playoff you wouldn't have had to hear Oklahoma State feel left out because they have a shot at playing in the game. If you win, you're in and that's how it should be.

-----

Thomas Beindit - Representing Those Against A BCS Playoff

1)  What makes college football special?  Some may say the school pride, the amateur players, or the rivalries, but I'd say its history is what makes the sport special and unique from all others.  Does any other American sport, except maybe baseball, have even close to as much tradition as college football?  I'd say no.  The bowl system is part of that history and throwing it out for an unproven hybrid playoff system is not the right decision.  I completely agree that the current bowl and BCS system is not perfect, but it's something that's entrenched in the fabric of the sport.  Things like the "Idaho Potato" bowl may not be that special, but I don't think anybody would debate the heritage and importance of the Rose Bowl.  Everybody wants to compare the BCS to things like NFL playoffs, so let's do that for a second.  Sure, things like the Super Bowl are great, but don't forget about all the boring first round playoff games fans are forced to watch.  Granted, the current playoff proposals only select the top 4 teams, but does anybody really believe it will stay as 4 teams?  When has any sport's playoff not expanded?  Even football and baseball have expanded.  I have no idea how big a college football playoff could eventually get, but to me, there's little doubt that if a playoff is established, it will get bigger.  To me, destroying things as special as the Rose Bowl on New Year's Day for a hybrid system that is pretty likely to change in the future doesn't seem like a great option to me.  The BCS system isn't perfect, but it's preferable to something I'm not sure will even work out well.

2)  What is the major difference between the BCS and a traditional playoff system?  Only the very elite teams compete for the national championship.  Since we've brought in some other playoff systems, let's take a look at one of the NCAA's own, the NCAA Basketball Tournament, more commonly known as March Madness.  Everybody loves March Madness, right?  Well, consider this.  Does the best team become the champion and do the best teams compete for the championship?  Some years, certainly.  However, I'm not so sure you can say the best teams compete on a yearly basis.  Look at the 2011 tourney, UConn won the championship and was considered the best team of that season.  However, no #1 seeds made the tourney.  So of the four teams that did the best over the 5 month season, none were even in the final running for the championship.  Sure, you could say "well, only the end matters".  However, isn't that a questionable method to determine the "best" team?  Right now, in order to make the championship game, a college football team pretty much has to go undefeated, or lose one game at most, during the entire regular season.  That's a pretty challenging requirement for most teams and pretty accurately separates the best teams from the rest of the pack.  Even in the worst case scenario, two of the top four teams will be playing for the national championship.  I'd bet that 9 times out of 10 it's going to be the two best teams in the country, but as I said, worst case scenario that's what fans get to see.  However, in a playoff, I'm not sure you're going to see that every year, especially if it expands, which I'd be willing to bet that it will.  Along with this, it simply moves the debate down the line.  Instead of debating the two best teams, fans will end up debating who the #4, #8, or #16 should be in the playoffs.  If you don't think it will happen, take a look at college basketball.  Anybody hear of a team on the bubble trying to strength their resume?  It will happen in college football if there is a playoff.  I just see no reason a person could say they should be debating the #4, #8, or #16 team in a discussion about the national champions.  It just doesn't make sense.

-----

Final Points

Tyler - So to summarize, give me a playoff system. There are so many ridiculous bowls and matchups that virtually nobody cares for. Every year a team gets left out of the title game because they have the same record as the two teams picked, or even a better record. Same song different year. Give the teams a chance to earn their right to play in the game on the field. More often then not the computers get it wrong in my opinion. I would rather have a team be left out of the title game because they got beat in a playoff, not because the computers gave them a .1 less rating then the #2 team in the country. Pretty ridiculous. I think that a playoff is the best way to go. Sure teams will feel like they are left out of the playoff as well that goes without saying. But I think it gives more teams a chance, and its more of a legitimate shot at playing in the title game. You can't please everyone, but I think you will have more people that are happy, rather than sad or pissed off because they are left out of the game. I think the BCS is a joke and I hope the playoff system happens, because I for one am very interested in seeing it.

Thomas - Do some deserving teams get left out of the BCS title game?  There are always going to be flaws in the system.  However, in a playoff system you run the chance of not only excluding some deserving teams, but also or crowning an undeserving champion.  If you use the 4 team playoff model, there is still going to be a debate about who is deserving.  Look at this year, could you definitely pick the best 4 teams?  I'm not so sure.  LSU, Alabama, and Oklahoma St were obvious picks, but does teams like Oregon, Stanford, or Wisconsin get that last bid?  It's not as clear cut as many assume.  Along with this, if you put a team like Wisconsin in the playoff, you're looking at a team with two regular season losses and a relatively weak schedule (compared to teams like LSU or Alabama).  How can you possibly say they are better than a team like LSU who had 0 regular season losses and wins over Oregon, Alabama, West Virginia, Miss State, Auburn, Arkansas, and Georgia?  The obvious answer is you can't say Wisconsin was more deserving.  If you create a BCS playoff system, you would still leave the hated aspects (rankings, quality debates, and uncertainty) in the system while also allowing undeserving teams a chance at winning the championship.  Even if you set-up requirements to address some of the problems a playoff system may face such as the potential for future expansion, it's not going to be the fix-all that many assume it will be in the future.  In fact, I think it will only expand the problems and controversy surrounding the college football postseason.

-----

All writers are entitled to their own opinion and those may or may not represent the held beliefs of Hoke's Mad Magicians as an entity. Readers are welcome to comment below or contact the writers via Twitter with  their thoughts

Virginia Tech, Not So Bad After All

Now that we've officially established what constitutes a "Hokie" and talked about the significance of Michigan's BCS bid, we can get into some serious football talk. Most Michigan fans, including myself, admittedly probably don't watch a lot of ACC football. When's there are dozens of games every week, including Michigan games, there probably isn't a lot of time to analyze random out of conference opponents such as Virginia Tech.

However, that doesn't mean one can't go back and analyze what Virginia Tech has accomplished this season. Let's start with some basics.

Virginia Tech

• 11-2 record (ACC Coastal Champs - Lost in ACC Champ Game)
• 55th in Scoring Offense (28.5 pts/g)
• 38th in Total Offense (415.8 yds/g)
• 14th in Total Defense (313.9 yds/g)
• 7th in Points Allowed (17.2 pts/g)
• 29th in Turnover Margin (+0.46)
• 51st in Strength of Schedule

So from looking at those stats what do could one speculate? Well, defense seems to be their strong suit. Their offense is far from horrible, but when a defense only allows 17.2 points on average, the offense doesn't exactly have to do a lot to win the game. Virginia Tech held 8 opponents this season to less than 20 points, which is a significant accomplishment.  For instance, Michigan was only held to less than 20 points twice this year (Michigan State and Iowa).

Although the defense appears to be quite strong, 7th in points allowed, 14th in total yards, and 17th in rush defense, the team's stats have been criticized because of Virginia Tech's "weak" schedule.  When I first started writing this article, I was under the impression that Virginia Tech had not only played few quality opponents, but were also blown out in against those teams.  However, after I took a deep analysis of the stats and schedule, I can no longer believe this argument.

When looking at a schedule, tend to take a quick glance for the number of ranked and "big name" opponents on a team's schedule.  However, this method does not yield accurate results for a team's strength of schedule.  Just because a team isn't ranked doesn't mean they aren't a quality team.  For instance, Notre Dame is not ranked, but they received the most votes in the rankings of any team outside the top 25 (effectively making them ranked #26) and played an extremely difficult schedule this year.

Using this logic, I attempted to make a more accurate analysis of Virginia Tech's schedule.  I did this by judging the number of opponents receiving votes or ranked, the number of teams with at least 6 wins, and the margin of victory in those games.

Virginia Tech Schedule Performance

• Number of Opponents Ranked or Receiving Votes - 5
• Locations Against Ranked or Voted - 2 Home, 2 Away, 1 Neutral
• Record Against Ranked or Voted - 3-2
• Margin of Victory Against Ranked or Voted - 8 pts/g

• Number of Opponents With At Least 6 Wins - 10
• Locations Against 6 Win Opponents - 5 Home,4 Away, 1 Neutral
• Record Against 6 Win Opponents - 8-2
• Margin of Victory Against 6 Win Opponents - 12 pts/g

After analyzing the actual games played against decent and quality competition, it's hard to still believe in the argument that Virginia Tech has played "nobody" and beaten "nobody."  Sure, they were only 3-2 against opponents who were ranked or received votes in the AP poll, but they still ended up outscoring those teams by an average of 8 points per game.  Along with this, both losses were against the same team, Clemson.  Two  losses against quality competition in which Clemson outscored Virginia Tech by an average of 24 pts/g is hardly impressive or excusable, but one can't help but speculate.

Perhaps Clemson was just a bad match-up for Virginia Tech this season?  It is rare, but sometimes there just seems to be 1 or 2 teams that a certain team cannot beat just because of certain match-ups.  I'm not going to claim this was the case for Virginia Tech against Clemson, but the rest of their season and these two games just don't add up.  How does a team handle or blow out quality opponents at home and on the road (Arkansas State, Georgia Tech, Virginia) and then get blown out against #15 Clemson?  There are many reasons to explain this including a poor match-up, but I go with a different reasoning.

I think the reason Virginia Tech did so well against other quality opponents and so bad against Clemson is simply because they aren't an "elite" team.  Is Virginia Tech as bad as some of the pundits would make it seem?  Not even close.  Their performance this season against both decent and quality teams showcases their talent and ability, but their massive let-downs against Clemson also shows they are vulnerable.

Not only using my analysis, but using advanced stats provided by Football Outsiders, one can see Virginia Tech is at least a decent team.  FEI ranking, which is what Football Outsiders uses, analyzes not only wins and losses, but who and what causes each loss.  If a team loses to a bad opponent, they are punished in the FEI rankings much more than losing to a good team.  Basically, they do the type of break-downs I did above, except using a computer formula.  They have Virginia Tech ranked as #20 in the nation.  This is pretty far behind their #11 BCS ranking, but relatively near their #17 AP poll ranking.

After a long analysis, I think Virginia Tech falls in roughly this range.  They are a 15-20 ranked team that managed to make a BCS bowl due to some luck and flaws in the polls (Coaches had them at #11).  However, they are no push-over team.  They may not be "elite," but they will certainly pose a challenge for Michigan in the Sugar Bowl.  Just for a comparison, Notre Dame is ranked #21 in the FEI ranking.  So essentially, Michigan is going to be facing a team roughly as good as Notre Dame was this season and I think we all remember that game...

Photo Credit: Getty Images

Michigan Back To The BCS

Just in case you've been living under a rock, Michigan is heading to the Allstate Sugar Bowl in New Orleans on January 3rd to play against Virginia Tech. Most Michigan fans spent last week on the edge of their seats watching to see if teams such as Houston, Oklahoma, and Georgia would lose to allow Michigan its spot in the Sugar Bowl. Thankfully, you guys were right when 64% of you said that Michigan was heading to the Sugar Bowl

Along with a great match-up against Virginia Tech (11-2), we get to watch the "Urban Meyer" bowl. I think we all remember the last time Ohio State went to the Gator Bowl. A certain coach (Woody Hayes) ended up punching a player on the opposing team and getting fired. I think we can all remember last year's trip to the Gator Bowl and be thankful it is our rival and not us headed there.

Now, to address the big issue of the day. Michigan (10-2) gets selected for an at-large bid to the Sugar Bowl, but Michigan State (10-3) gets passed over, even though they won the regular season game. Frankly, when analyzed, there isn't a whole lot of difference between the two teams. Michigan State played some tough teams and in some tough environments, but when they fell, they fell pretty hard (Blowout losses to Notre Dame and Nebraska). Michigan may have had a slightly easier schedule, but the current BCS system is set-up to favor end of the season play, not 1 single game back in October. Michigan State had its chance to go to the Rose Bowl, but made a vital error at the end of the game that cost them their bid.

Along with this, it's not as if Michigan was a bad team with a horrible record and schedule. In fact, Michigan was the ONLY team in the nation that played 10 bowl teams. Granted, some of them barely crossed the 6 win requirement to be eligible for a bowl, but it still means that Michigan didn't have any cupcakes on the schedule. Bowl teams typically have at least one decent win on the schedule. The bottom line is that Michigan was playing better than Michigan State at the end of the season. It seems odd that a team is "punished" for playing in a conference championship game, but the team playing also has a chance to win the B1G and go to the Rose Bowl, something I think almost any Michigan fan would want.

Of course, we should also point out the LSU v. Alabama debacle. I don't want to get too much into the debate regarding the rematch, but it just becomes more obvious by the year that Michigan truly got the "short end of the stick" in 2006 when they lost on the road to #1 Ohio State by 3 points and were not allowed to play in the championship game even though they were ranked #2 at the time. Obviously there are some significant flaws in the BCS system, but I guess it's the one we use so we just have to get used to it.

Now, we'll have a full preview for the Sugar Bowl later on, but I did get to watch a few Virginia Tech games this year. At first glance they looked like a pretty well-rounded team, but after some quick analysis, this seems to be a facade. They faced two ranked teams this season (Clemson twice) and suffered blow-out losses. Now, anything can happen in this game, but I think my early prediction has Michigan winning by a significant margin.

Congratulations once again to the coaches and players on Team 132. Should be a great bowl, game, and trip for you all and the fans going down to New Orleans. We here at Hoke's Mad Magicians are ecstatic for Michigan to be heading to the Sugar Bowl and are looking forward to more coverage of the team in the weeks to come.

Photo Credit: ESPN