The ACC Has TWO Teams In BCS Bowls?

Please explain this to me, because I'm at a loss to understand how this makes any kind of logical sense within its presumed context:

Team A: Ranked 5th prior to its conference championship game, gets shellacked by 28 to a team ranked 20th, all while playing in a very mediocre conference.

Team B: Ranked 13th prior to its conference championship game, loses a squeaker by 3 to a team ranked 15th, all while playing in a better conference.


Team C: Ranked 16th prior to its conference championship game, which it doesn't play in, but is in the same conference as Team B.

Team D: Ranked 11th prior to its conference's de facto championship game, which it doesn't play in, but is in a conference of similar strength to B and C's.

Team E: Ranked 7th prior to the end of its conference's regular season, which has no championship game, and had a better overall record than the conference champ but lost their head-to-head matchup. The conference is weaker even than A's.

Looking at this, the two teams seemingly with the least amount of footing for a credible argument to be included in a BCS bowl are A and C. Of course, A and C are Virginia Tech and Michigan, respectively - who are playing in the Sugar Bowl. All at the expense of B (Michigan State), D (Kansas State), and E (Boise State) - all of whom had better arguments (especially K-State and Boise) than VA Tech and Michigan for being selected for a BCS bowl.

But you can throw those silly football-related things out, because the BCS exists solely to line the pockets of the people in charge. That's it. Nothing more to it. They couldn't care less if a team was undeserving, so long as that team is able to put butts in the seats. Don't believe me? Just read what Paul Hoolahan says under #1 in this article.

I've never seen a more naked money grab from the BCS. They can just drop all pretense of existing for any kind of benefit of the teams at this point - because it's never been more obvious, relative to team selection, that they don't.