ESPN College Football

Welcome back to the mailbag. I will actually have a rare weekend "home" game this week since I'm going to Connecticut at Louisville on Friday, the first Big East league game. So I don't need any tips on places to eat, tailgate, etc. But I'm interested in hearing if any UConn fans will be making the trip. How well do Huskies' fans travel, anyway?

On to the mailbag. Solid variety of topics to peruse this week.

Tyler from Parts Unknown writes: I respect that you're an ESPN writer, but YOU NEVER SHOW ANY LOVE FOR PITT. We just get a huge win against a good team and you still doubt us. Also, I really disagree with your comment on West Virginia. You said they really can't be THAT BAD, well they got KILLED by East Carolina and lost to Colorado, which in my opinion would loss to Iowa. So, I really disagree with what you say.

Brian Bennett: I actually thought I've been a bit too kind to Pitt this year. Remember, I'm the guy who went out on a limb and predicted at least eight wins for the Panthers, which looks a bit shaky now. I also wrote fairly glowing things about them Saturday even though they didn't exactly play a perfect game (Iowa outgained them by 102 yards). Most of the reaction I've heard from Pittsburgh media and fans after the Iowa game is of the "good win, but long way to go" variety, which seems about right to me.

M.X. from West Lafayette, Ind., writes: I think the jury's still out on Louisville after these 3 games. But if they play the way they did against Kansas State, can Louisville do some damage in a weak Big East?

Brian Bennett: The jury is out, but it will begin deliberations Friday night against UConn. Really, that's a big game for both teams, and if Louisville wins it could set the Cardinals up for a run in this league race. Remember that West Virginia, Cincinnati and South Florida all have to come to Papa John's this season.

Greg from Cincinnati writes: UConn keeps winning cause they don't play anyone. They ended last year horrible and aren't any better. C'mon dude.

Brian Bennett: Dude, why the Huskies hate? Yes, the schedule hasn't been great so far this season but remember UConn did beat Pittsburgh, Louisville and South Florida last season. There's no reason to think it won't be a major factor in this year's Big East race.

Eric from Greece writes: Brian, how is it that UConn is still not ranked while teams like Fresno St. and Illinois are? These teams haven't beaten anyone. Neither has UConn, but they also haven't LOST to anyone either. This seems ridiculous to me, they've beaten a Big 12 and an ACC team the last two weeks. Are they the greatest FBS teams? No, but neither is Rutgers and that is Fresno State's "big" win. They needed OT to beat Toledo, and lost to Wisconsin, a good team surely, but a loss. The Illinois one is most perplexing to me. They lost to Missouri, a very good team, but who have they beaten to deserve a top 25 ranking with a 2-1 record, must be some impressive wins...UL-Lafayette and Eastern Illinois?!?!?! AAre you going to tell me that UL-L and Eastern Illinois are as good as Baylor and UVA? Are they much better than Temple, if at all? Just frustrating to see less deserving teams ranked ahead of us is all. Will a win over Louisville be enough? Or will people just say "Oh Louisville stinks this year, so it doesn't count for anything?"

Brian Bennett: Wow, the blog has reached its tentacles all the way to the birthplace of democracy. Opa! I wrote a little bit about this last week. I think Connecticut still suffers from its lack of name recognition and history. A better-known team would be ranked at this point at 4-0 even with UConn's schedule. But I'm sure voters see that overtime win at Temple, don't realize the weather conditions that day and just assume the Huskies must not be any good. Same thing happened last year, when it took forever for them to get ranked. But fear not. Just keep winning and the rankings will come. Last season, after beating South Florida, the Huskies debuted in the rankings all the way up to No. 16.

Dr. Ritter from Palm Beach Gardens writes: Brian, Great Big East coverage! Thanks! I am an alumni, season ticket holder, you get it for South Florida. I have noticed a few things that are disturbing over the last 2 years of USF football. I have been mentioning them on blogs for the 2 Tampa papers. Briefly, extremely poor special teams due to a lack of a special teams coach. We hired 2 D-line coaches after the wonderful McCarney left for Florida. This hurt us. Next, awful play calling over the last 2 years by our off co-ordinator. Mike Canales is the passing game co-ord. He needs to take over the play calling. This team has the horrible ability to play to the level of the competition. Not the mark of a championship caliber team, rather an immature and poorly disciplined team. Same goes for the amount of penalties, see above. We have a talented team, they feel that because they have more talent than other teams they can just show up and that talent will carry them in games they don't feel like competing in. I am cautiously optimistic. What say you?

Brian Bennett: I agree that the special teams should be better, given the number of athletes on the team. I don't have that much of a problem with the play calling this season. I actually thought it was pretty good versus Kansas. I see what you're saying about the Bulls playing to the level of their competition. Hard to argue after you see a 17-9 win over Florida International. I think that, for whatever reason, this team feeds so much off of emotion, which is one reason it plays so well at home. But when the Bulls aren't emotionally charged, they are prone to big-time letdowns and lapses. They're going to need to be a whole lot more consistent if they want to make it through an entire season and win a Big East championship.

Steve from Pennsylvania writes: I'm a die hard Pitt fan but I can even see the problems the Panthers are having on offense this year. Is it the running backs or the O Line that is causing Pitt not to have a successful rushing attack this year?

Brian Bennett: Well, it's never just one thing in the running game. It's the play call, it's the O-line blocking, it's the backs hitting the hole, it's the receivers blocking downfield, it's the defense, etc. But I think it's safe to say this Pittsburgh offensive line isn't quite to the level of last year's, which was able to open holes for LeSean McCoy even though the team had no credible passing threat. There aren't too many Jeff Otahs out there.

Nathan from Cincinnati writes: So, after ESPN starts the ESPN360.com showing of the Miami game so late we miss Jake Rogers 38 yard field goal (Something any UC fan at this point in Rogers' career would have loved to have seen) I log onto the Big East Blog and find this.... No stories about Pike's amazing performance, no stories about the game at all, not even an AP article! A helmet sticker, that's all we get... then I browse the game changing performance nominees and big surprise UC is snubbed again. Look at what happened leading up to it and tell me in all seriousness you can think of four plays with more significance to their game as Mike Mickens INT returned for a TD. I guess it's going to take UC winning the Big East to get any recognition. I sincerely hope you save this email Brian, when USF rolls into Nippert 8-0, top 5 in the country, on only 5 days rest and we beat them for the third year
in a row... I'll be able to say I told you so and maybe UC will get a little bit more attention.

Brian Bennett: Nathan, I appreciate your passion. But let's take it down just a notch. The reason there wasn't a lot of attention on Cincinnati this weekend was because it played Miami of Ohio. That's a nice local rivalry, but it's not going to get the nation's pulse throbbing. Pike played very well, and I mentioned him twice over the weekend (after writing a feature story about him last Wednesday). Let's see him do it against big-time competition before we build any statues. Oh, and the Bearcats won 45-20 so, yeah, I think I can come up with four more important plays than Mickens' interception. But keep those fires burning. I like the Bearcats and think they're going to have a big say in this league race.

Robert from Cincinnati writes: Brian, I know that Mike Tranghese said that expanding the Big East isn't being considered, but they have to be thinking about it. Even if Tranghese isn't thinking about it, don't you think that his replacement might try to make a big splash by adding more football teams? Adding teams would be tricky with the basketball conference being so large and strong, but there is just too much easy money to be made with more football programs. You have done a good job reporting the fans interest on this issue and Tranghese's stance, but what do you think? Stick with the status quo, add some now, or add some later?

Brian Bennett: Circumstances could certainly change, Robert. But don't put too much emphasis on the commissioner, whether it's Tranghese or the next guy. They're working for the school presidents, who thus far have shown no inclination to expand. As you mentioned, it's just too difficult to add onto a league that already has 16 members for other sports. It would have to be a football-only member or a basketball school deciding to begin FBS football at this point.

Rob from Pittsburgh writes: Do you ever get mad that the league you are covering is the punching-bag BCS conference. Do you agree?

Brian Bennett: Mad? I write about college football for a living so why would I ever get upset? Seriously, I kind of like covering the underdog league. And yeah, the conference is down this season so far, but I'm not so sure about "punching bag." If that's true what does that make the SEC, ACC and Big 12, each of whose champions have lost to Big East teams in BCS bowls the past three years?

Greg Cox from Atlanta writes: It is time to replace the Big (L)East with the MWC for an automatic BCS Bowl invitation. Prior to the abandonment of the Big LEast by Miami, VA Tech and Boston College this would not have been the case, but it is now. ... Just to dispense with the notion that the LEast could play with the MWC, the MWC's sixth-ranked team, UNLV @ 3-1, has wins against Arizona State and Iowa State. No. 11 BYU, a consistent contender year after year, is at 4-0. Two wins against the Pac-10, two consecutive shutouts (including a 59-0 seismologically notable destruction of the Pac-10's UCLA). No. 17 Utah humbled a Michigan team that vowed it would win its home opener in Ann Arbor, and put up the only loss UNLV has suffered. No. 24 TCU is 4-0 including 31-14 over Stanford and a 48-7 of their in-town rival SMU. Air Force @ 3-1 suffered it's only loss to No. 17 Utah. Don't believe me, ask the Pac-10's coaches who they would rather face in a bowl game. They'll tell you.

Brian Bennett: Those three straight BCS bowl wins don't do enough for you, Greg? You can give me all the Mountain West wins you want from this season and the past three, but none are better than West Virginia beating Oklahoma in the '08 Fiesta Bowl or Georgia in the '06 Sugar Bowl. Sure the Big East has struggled out of the gate this year, but to suggest it should lose its BCS bid over one substandard month is ludicrous. Why not pick on the ACC, which hasn't won a BCS game since 1999? I mean, we're talking a decade of incompetence there, not just a few weeks. I will agree that the Mountain West has been great so far this season, and if anything perhaps the league deserves to be included in the BCS auto-bids without excluding anyone else. There is enough room, after all, with five BCS games now.

Nathaniel from Parts Unknown writes: Brian, I'm tired of hearing about The MWC being better then the Big East. They are 5-0 vs. the Pac 10. Which means all their wins are basically vs. the Pac 10. Doesn't that say more about the Pac 10 sucking? At least not one conference has dominating us like the MWC has the Pac 10.

Brian Bennett: Yeah! Let's kick the Pac-10 out of the BCS!