Plain and simple, it looks like it's TCU, KSU or Boise St.
Who do you want to play in the Sugar Bowl?
What we've heard from a lot of teams complaining about the coming BCS selections, is how unfair the process is. Mostly by our "friends" in east Lansing, claiming that by a result of their victory over us earlier this season, that by default, they should be ranked ahead of us. While we could spend the better part of this month debating that, most Spartan fans, and other shunned teams are forgetting what the BCS is about. It's about money, and it's about tv exposure. Growing up a redsox fan, my hatred for the Yankees would cause me to watch them, hoping and praying they would lose. That symbol, their pin stripes, yankee stadium, I hated it all. Michigan, to a lot of football fans around the country, presents the same thing. They hate "hail to the victors", they hate our winged helmets, they hate Tom Brady, and they hate the Big House. They will most definitely watch, if only to see us get our ass kicked. The Michigan brand, like the Yankee brand, is a world wide brand.
That's what a lot of fans don't understand, that the business aspect of these selection, after the title game, and conference champions are selected, money is all that matters. Not only do we travel well, the merchandising opportunities with the Michigan brand, are far better than the other options. To quote our esteemed leader, and reigning B1G coach of the year, Brady Hoke "This is Michigan" after all.
Edit: Parts of this have been posted by other OP's, but they play an essential part iin explaining the "Yankee" comparison. This is also not to say, that we aren't worthy of going to the game on record alone, because we absolutely are. A large part of the process, is how you're playing right now, how you finish.
Was talking to an MSU fan the other night after the game and I came up with a thought. I told him that I thought teams should earn the recognition of being the reg. season champ and there should be another distinction for the championship game. I said this on a bit of a whim, but the more I thought abut it the more it made sense.
Say UCLA would have won the PAC 12 Championship game. Would they really the PAC 12 champion even though they lost more conference games than both Oregon and Stanford? In my opinion they wouldn't be, they would be the championship game champion and should be rewarded with a BCS bowl game, but if you want every game to count, you have co-PAC 12 champions in Oregon and Stanford, which makes sense to me. They earned the right over the course of the regular season to get that distinction IMO. This is similar to what happens in basketball, where you have regular season champs and tourney champs.
So I'm wondering what you all think. I'm guessing this will have a negative reaction because it would help State, but I don't really care about that. I care about what is right overall, which I think is to have seperate distictions. I don't think a pure champion should be determined by a single game in this case, the teams should be rewarded with their season. If they want to make a BCS bowl outright then win both regular season champion and championship game champion. Technically they should but it doesn't always work out that way.
By the way, this isn't a defense for MSU, they don't deserve a BCS game IMO, but I do think they deserve a regular season champion for whatever that is actually worth. Any other year in the Big Ten they would be in the Rose Bowl. Now everyone has the same rules, so the new system isn't unfair to MSU, Wisc should go to the Rose Bowl, but they were the outright regular season champ, beating Wisc. during the season (regardless of luck).
I guess he's ready to go to NOLA...