Let's forget about the potential SEC orgy that could be the National Championship game. I've heard that bowl projections have Michigan going to the Sugar Bowl. I heard that Michigan could go over Stanford, who only has one loss, because they "travel better". This is absolute bullshit. Michigan does not deserve to go to a BCS game, and if they do, on top of the LSU/Bama title game shit (if it happens), I am boycotting the BCS bowls this year, and possibly in future years, except for BCS bowls that feature the Buckeyes, of course.
I shouldn't need to explain why Stanford deserves a BCS bid over Michigan, as the teams' records are the main indication. Here's why Michigan should not get a BCS bid:
As you know, only two teams from a conference can go to BCS bowls. Michigan State and Wisconsin are clearly the two best teams in this conference. They are both division winners. They also both have two losses. But they have to play each other in the B1G championship game next week, which means one of them is going to take a third loss. Michigan, meanwhile, gets to stick with their two losses because they weren't good enough to go the B1G championship game. You're essentially punishing MSU or Wisconsin for winning their divisions, and rewarding Michigan's impotence against MSU and Iowa.
"Well OSU got to go to BCS bowls all those times they had two losses". OK, about that. 2003, 2005, 2008, and 2009 were all years that two loss OSU teams got BCS bids. In 2009, we won the B1G outright, thus the automatic bid. In 2005 and 2008, we were B1G co-champions those years. Each of those years, we lost to a top 5 ranked Penn State team, and a top 5 ranked team in out-of-conference play (USC in 2008, the eventual national champion Texas in 2005). We beat two ranked teams in the 2008 regular season, and four ranked teams in the 2005 regular season. In 2003, we finished 2nd in the Big Ten, and beat five ranked teams in the regular season. Our losses were to a top 5 Michigan team, and a ranked Wisconsin team. In all of those years, we never avoided the best competition to us in the conference (a team that could beat us or finished with a record equal to or better than our's). Michigan avoided Wisconsin, a team that lost two B1G games on hail maries, and outside of that is probably the best team in this conference. Now, I know that scheduling is not their fault, especially with B1G games, but it has to factor in when debating on worthiness of a BCS bid.
Michigan's two losses this season were to a ranked MSU, and unranked Iowa. They defeated just one ranked team - Nebraska. I see that Notre Dame managed to sneak in to the top 25, which obviously won't last since they lost. The bottom line is, in all four of those seasons, we were either the best or 2nd best team in the B1G. Is Michigan the best or 2nd best team in the B1G? No. MSU beat them, Wisconsin would beat them. So Michigan avoids a B1G championship game berth, and gets rewarded with a BCS bid? Bullshit.
Michigan is currently #15 in the BCS standings. The only higher ranked team that lost this week was Arkansas - their 2nd loss, which came to #1 LSU, which means that they won't drop below Michigan. 5 of the 14 teams ranked ahead of Michigan are in the SEC, so 3 of them are out of the mix. So now let's say Michigan is #12. The potential at-larges ahead of them are Alabama (2), Stanford (6), Boise (7), Houston (8), Oklahoma (9, though they play Ok St next week), and Kansas State (11). If Oklahoma loses, that's 3 for them, they're out. If Oklahoma wins, then Oklahoma State is on the list as an at-large with only 2 losses. Now Boise, I say they're overrated - if you're not in a power conference and are not undefeated, bye. That still leaves Alabama, Stanford, Houston, Oklahoma State (if they lose next week), and Kansas State (a couple of tough losses, but probably a better resume than Michigan, not real sure about them).
In conclusion, Michigan should not be in a BCS bowl. If they are, I can only imagine the embarrassment it'll bring the B1G when they lose to Houston.