AA.com had an interesting article from their sister-site in New Orleans to some of the background that went into the decision making of picking Michigan and VT. Also some thoughts on how the BCS may evolve.
Some highlights of interest (to me at least):
- The double bowl game (this and championship) seems to be wearing on the committee.
- Oklahoma may have taken our spot if they had won. Or at least shifted us around.
- Saying that, the Sugar was locked in on Michigan as someone they wanted for a long time.
- It really came down to VT vs. KSU. Stanford, Boise, and West Virginia were elligble, but never really considered.
- KSU AD doesn't think he schmoozed enough, and that the ACC commish and Sugar Bowl guy being college teammates was a factor.
- They want to get ride of the Big East, but can't till 2014.
- Worried about only one at large team per conference (ie. "can't we just fill the BCS with ALL SEC teams?")
- And most intersting to me, they don't like the post Jan 1 BCS games, because of travel, work and school conflicts. Which I do miss the 1st being an orgy of football with the Fiesta in the later afternoon/early evening up against the Rose, and the Sugar and Orange at night that day. Getting excited for the one game at night, days later, (unless Michigan is in it) just isn't the same.
It gets into a little more detail than I did, but those were the points that stuck out to me.