ESPN College Football

Let's start off today's mailbag with a trivia question: Which current Big East coaches are undefeated in bowl games? (And they had to have been a head coach for a bowl, so Doug Marrone does not count). Send your answers to my mailbag by using the link under my picture, and I'll list those who answer it correctly in Friday's edition.

Last week, I started off asking you what you thought of the Mountain West's playoff proposal. So we'll begin with a couple of those responses today:

Andrew from NYC writes: I actually liked the proposal, but would tweak it a little bit. The top six conference champs, regardless of conference, are in the playoffs. Seed the top four ranked conference champs 1-4, then everyone else 5-8. Play first round games on campus. Also, no at-large team can host a game. Then the semis are two BCS bowls, one of the Fiesta or Rose, and one of the Orange or Sugar. To ease travel concerns, the two westernmost semifinalists play Rose or Fiesta, and the two easternmost play Sugar or Orange. Then the finals are at a different bowl the two Saturdays later.

Brian Bennett: I like your idea of using campus sites for the first round, because having fans make potentially three consecutive trips to neutral bowl sites seems unwieldy. Not so sure about having the teams play closer to their regions, however. What if the No. 1 and No. 2 teams were, say, USC and Texas? If they played the semifinal, then the final could be anticlimactic. Perhaps the top-seeded teams should get consideration for that, as the NCAA now does in the men's basketball tournament.

Darrin from Parts Unknown writes: So I just read the article about the MWC proposing the playoff. A couple of points. First of all, I noticed how the BCS "committee" or whatever they call themselves, is meeting in Pasadena in April. I think they need to meet in Grand Rapids, Mich., in January so they don't play golf all day. Second of all, there was a part in there about adding another BCS game, which I had heard before. We started with four, now we have five, and now they are talking about adding another? The BCS bowls are going to end up just as watered down as all the other bowls if they keep this up. I understand Utah's and the MWC's beef, but prove yourself for a few years, then try to "change the world." This is more of a comment/rant than a question. Keep up the good work on the blog. You are keeping me going in the offseason, even though I'm rather enjoying WVU basketball right now.

Brian Bennett: Thanks for the comment. Of course, this proposal will never see the light of day, but it's fun to talk about. Were it to happen that way, it might actually be good for the Big East. The league champ would get into a playoff and have a chance to win the national title. As it stands now, it's difficult for the Big East champion to get into the BCS title mix without a lot of help or public outcry.

Jason from Elmira, N.Y., writes: On this year's schedule, Connecticut plays at Ohio, Cincinnati plays at Miami (Ohio), Pitt plays at Buffalo, and USF plays at Western Kentucky. Do you think when Big East teams go play small mid-major schools on the road, it makes the Big East look less of a BCS conference? Or does it send a positive message that Big East teams are willing to play anyone, anywhere?

Brian Bennett: First, let's toss out the Cincinnati game, because that's a long-running rivalry and the Bearcats have gone to Miami a lot (though that's an arrangement they may want to change in the future). As for the others, I think it's mostly a representation of the scheduling difficulties in this league. It's becoming harder and harder now to get those so-called "guarantee" games, where a team from a lesser conference will come play you at your place without a return for a paycheck. Everybody is trying to schedule those games to fatten the bottom line, and Big East teams have to find five nonconference games because of the seven-game league slate. And so they end up agreeing to more home-and-home and two-for-one deals with teams that could never dream of getting an SEC team to their place. It's not an ideal situation, and the real danger is losing to one of these teams on the road and taking an image hit. But that's part of the scheduling headache this conference faces.

Andrew from Storrs writes: Not only does UConn have to play all their tough Big East games on the road, but they also don't have consecutive home games until the end of the season. Give me a break!

Brian Bennett: I'm sure Rutgers and South Florida would disagree with your assessment. Both those teams come to Rentschler Field this year, and both could be contenders. The fact is, we really don't know yet who the tough teams will be this season. One of the biggest games in the league last year was Rutgers-Cincinnati, and who saw that one coming in the spring of 2008? The fact is, UConn has four home league games and only three away, which is a big advantage. There's really no reason to complain.