Yes Bulldog fans, you heard that right. Bianchi actually wrote a ridiculous article stating that unranked UCF deserves to be a BCS school more than #16 Mississippi State, and he didn't stop there. He also mentions Ole Miss, Vanderbilt and Wake Forest.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the same UCF that has played in only four bowl games and only managed to win one? Isn't this the same UCF that played Mississippi State in the 2007 Liberty Bowl and LOST? And I really don't care to hear anything about the two Conference USA championships...after all, they were conference champs in 2007 when State beat them!
Of course, it should be fairly noted that UCF has only been playing football since 1979. That fact, believe it or not, is one of Bianchi's main points in trying to justify the Knight's place in the SEC over MSU. Bianchi basically states that the only reason State is still among BCS schools is because they've been playing football for a hundred years. In his opinion UCF has more to bring to the SEC table. He's referring to a larger TV market and "future potential revenue".Wow Bianchi, the point regarding the TV market was a good one, but future potential revenue? What about Mississippi State's future potential revenue? If Dan Mullen can keep things going, there may be some of that future potential revenue coming to the SEC in the near future.
I think it's also important to point out that the first year of the Bowl Championship Series' existence (1998), the Bulldogs won the SEC West and made it to the SEC championship game. Yes, it's fair to say that almost the entire last decade was MSU at it's worst, BUT even at Mississippi State's worst they were still able to beat the UCF Knights when it counted! If UCF, as conference champions, were unable to beat a very mediocre team that pretty much lucked up and got into the Liberty Bowl, then how in the world do they think they would be able to fare against the likes of Alabama, LSU, and Florida? Could you imagine what the Bulldogs of today would probably do to UCF right now?
I'm sure Bianchi would argue that if UCF was in the SEC their recruiting would be far better, thus their team would be better. I'm not so sure about that. The state of Florida is already saturated with some big time programs. Florida, Florida State, Miami, and South Florida are all ahead of UCF. Is there really room for a fifth fish in that pond? Would their team really excel a lot further than where it is now? It's debatable.
Mike Bianchi, for some unknown reason, has got a real problem with the entire state of Mississippi in general. Last summer he made a total fool of himself when he pretty much wrote an article saying that Mississippi State and Ole Miss should be kicked out of the SEC. Of course later on that year State defeated the Florida Gators in their own stadium. Afterward, Bianchi, with his tail between his legs, wrote an article of apology to the entire state for his stupid (his word to describe it) comments he'd written and then went on to say that what he'd written was wrong.
While we're speaking about Mississippi, I can't help but notice that Bianchi seldom brings up Southern Miss. Could it be because UCF has only beaten the Golden Eagles ONCE during their entire Conference USA history? One could make a very good argument that USM would be a far better SEC contender than UCF.
Face it Bianchi, although money is a HUGE contributing factor when the SEC considers future expansion candidates, it's not the only factor and UCF itself is all the proof you need. There is a reason that they're consistently looked over and it's got nothing to do with money since they're obviously capable of generating lots of it.
The SEC is also about history and tradition. Those are two components that unfortunately UCF, with all their stadium expansions and high-dollar athletic facilities, are unable to buy. Those components are earned over time.