ESPN College Football

Hello again, friendly readers. Lots of good questions this week. I'm making my first trip of the year to Syracuse this weekend to take in the Orange's final home game against UConn. Hopefully there won't be two feet of snow waiting for me. Any suggestions on places to visit in and around the Syracuse campus area would be much appreciated, as always.

Now on to your questions ...

Gillan from Pittsburgh writes: Where do you think Pitt would be right now in the rankings if not for the losses to Bowling Green and Rutgers? I certainly don't believe they'd be ahead of Alabama or Texas Tech, but would they be No. 3? Or would those one-loss teams like Florida and Oklahoma be ahead due to their conference competition, which the Big East lacks?

Brian Bennett: That's an interesting question, and one that cuts to the heart of the Big East's perception. I don't believe a 9-0 Pittsburgh would be No. 3 right now. I think it's more likely the Panthers would be somewhere around No. 5 or 6, behind Florida, Texas and perhaps Oklahoma. The reason is because A) Most people perceive the Big East, probably correctly this season, as being down this season, and B) Pitt would still lack marquee wins. The best victories for Dave Wannstedt's club right now are at South Florida, at Notre Dame and at home versus Iowa. None of those teams are currently ranked, and only one team left on the schedule -- Cincinnati -- is in the Top 25. Pittsburgh did start the season ranked, so it would have continued a steady ascension if it had kept winning. But the usual Big East criticisms would have put a ceiling on its rise. It would be interesting to see how an undefeated Pittsburgh stacked up against undefeated Utah, as well.

Andrew from Storrs writes: At the beginning of the season, UConn was winning, but Tyler Lorenzen was playing awful, and there was a lot of talk about starting Zach Frazer. Now, UConn is losing, and fans are starting to call for Lorenzen to start again. Go figure.

Brian Bennett: Just goes to prove the old adage that the backup quarterback is the most popular person on any campus -- until he starts to play. Would the Huskies have won any of their three losses with a healthy Lorenzen under center? I think they may have pulled out the Rutgers game with him, just because Randy Edsall would have trusted his senior more than Frazer when UConn was continually backed up at its own goal line. On the flip side, I'm not sure Connecticut wins the Louisville game without Frazer, because the Huskies needed his passing ability to mount that comeback.

Graham from Cincinnati: Hey, I think it would be pretty cool to see Kentucky and Cincinnati in a bowl game. What are the chances of this happening?

Brian Bennett: It could happen in the Papajohns.com Bowl, which pits the Big East vs. an SEC team. I'm sure bowl organizers would love to have Kentucky fans make the short drive to Birmingham. But Cincinnati played in the game last year, and though it brought a lot of fans, bowls generally don't like to have the same team two years in a row. And another trip to Birmingham would have to be seen as a vast disappointment for the Bearcats, who have their eyes on a much bigger prize right now.

Scott from Cincinnati writes: Brian: a question about the Gator/Sun Bowl. Although I hope the Bearcats win the Big East, I realize there's a pretty good chance we lose at Louisville or vs. Pitt. Less likely vs Syracuse. That would leave us 10-3 and in second place. I have been told that the Gator/Sun can only choose Notre Dame if they are within two games of the No. 2 Big East team. Notre Dame is 5-4, and reasonably their best result is 7-5. Is this an accurate scenario, or not? And while we're at it, you wrote that Mike Tranghese told you the Big East is inclined to keep the bowl-sharing arrangement with Notre Dame. In your professional opinion, based on the last four years, does the Big East need to keep this deal? And if so, what needs to happen for it to end? Thanks.

Brian Bennett: You've got it pretty much nailed, Scott. Keep an eye on this week's Notre Dame-Navy game. If the Irish lose to the Midshipmen, they're destined to finish 6-6 -- at best. I believe that will take them out of the running for the Gator Bowl berth, though they could still end up in the Sun Bowl if the Gator decides to opt for a Big 12 team over a Big East outfit. As for whether the Big East still needs Notre Dame, I tend to trust Tranghese when he says the league would be in a lot worse shape bowl-wise without the Irish. Certainly the Big East is not putting itself in a stronger position with the performance of its teams this year while it's working to improve its bowl lineup. Until the league can get several of its teams consistently competing with the best and bringing large crowds to bowl games, the Notre Dame crutch still is needed. The good news is, the Irish have complied the last two years by staying home and out of the way.

Tyler from Morgantown writes: I was reading in one of your articles about Cincinnati running Pat White down. But look at it this way, White is staying in the pocket longer than he did last year, giving the defense the advantage when he does take off and run. There were multiple times in that game where White could have easily pulled the ball down and taken off, but waited. Like that third down in overtime, which I think White should have taken off sooner and would have never been sacked. White needs to do what he does best, and you know what that is. What is your take on this?

Brian Bennett: That's an interesting point. Yes, he is staying in the pocket longer. But what stood out to me in that game was there were times when he did start to run and appeared to have a step on a Cincinnati defender, only to get caught. The time where defensive end Connor Barwin chased him down from behind surprised me. It illustrated how much speed this Bearcats defense has. The West Virginia offense seems to be stuck in a bit of a Catch-22, in my view. Let's use the next question to talk about that some more.

Tahoe Dave from Lake Tahoe, Calif., writes: Brian, I enjoy reading your comments on the Big East. Have to say our conference needs a team to step up and show the country that we can compete. I am so disappointed in WVU (yet proud of the players) since I believe they are still this year's chance for a BCS win. I don't think Cincinnati or Pitt can do the job on a BCS bowl stage like WVU. I just don't understand how an offensive coordinator can mess up this Pat White offense. I blame Jeff Mullen and whoever is coaching the kickoff team for most of our woes. Is Mullen using a Ouija Board to choose his plays in the "Red Zone?" AND, this slow start "problem" is directly related play-calling, not just the players as they lead us to believe. Share your thoughts.

Brian Bennett: Here's my take on the offense, after watching the Mountaineers in person for two straight weeks: West Virginia's best three skill players are White, Noel Devine and Jock Sanders. Well, how many teams can you remember in recent football history that have excelled while primarily using three diminutive, speedy backs without a power threat? Steve Slaton and Owen Schmitt gave the
Mountaineers more of an inside running presence than anyone on this team can provide. And so when a defense like Cincinnati -- which has a lot of speed as we just noted earlier -- comes in determined to stop those guys, West Virginia's options on offense greatly diminish. White is still talented enough to get yards on his own, but if you run him all the time he's going to get hurt. He nearly got knocked out at the end of the quarter against Cincinnati.

That's a big reason Mullen and Bill Stewart tried to add more of a passing attack, but we all know that's not a major strength, especially against a top-flight secondary like Cincinnati's. Down in the red zone, where things get bunched up and defenses have more guys closer to the line of scrimmage, it's even harder to rely on pure speed. Should West Virginia have recruited/developed some power backs who were ready to step in when Schmitt and Slaton were leaving? And is that on Stewart or on Rich Rodriguez? I believe those are fair questions to ask.

Gary from Louisville writes: Why is Steve Kragthorpe not being mentioned as being on the hot seat?

Brian Bennett: Because he's not on it.

Jason M. from Louisville writes: People have asked every week if there was a possibility of saving Louisville football and getting rid of Kragthorpe. Any hope after the latest blowout loss? If not, is there any potential for the play on the field to improve from jaw-droppingly-bad to at least pathetic?

Brian Bennett: Oh, we're still on this topic? Look, we all know Kragthorpe's 11-10 record is disappointing, and his back-to-back losses to Syracuse are inexcusable. This is not what any Louisville fan had in mind when he took over an Orange Bowl-winning team. But you also have to realize Kragthorpe's job is in no jeopardy because athletic director Tom Jurich believes in him fiercely and has said this is a rebuilding job that will take a couple of years. The only way Kragthorpe is not the coach next season is if he gets tired of the negativity by the fan base and decides to go somewhere else, which he almost did last season. I don't think that will happen. Remember that two games ago, he had this team at 5-2 after a win over a ranked South Florida team, and people were jumping on the bandwagon. Yes, the 41-7 loss at Pittsburgh was ugly, but the score was 20-7 in the third quarter and Louisville was driving until it got stopped on a fourth-and-1. Things snowballed from there. Let's see how the Cardinals respond in their final three games. I think that will tell us a lot about the character of this team and about Kragthorpe's ability to rally the troops.

P.J. from New Jersey writes: Seems like every time I turn around, Pitt is entering a bye week! The first two (before Iowa, before Navy) seemed to come at the perfect time. As they enter their third bye week, how do you feel about the timing? They will likely be ranked in all polls after Saturday's blowout over Louisville. It was a win that guarantees them a bowl game and a winning season. That leaves a lot of time to receive plenty of pats on the back. They have some huge games ahead, including what is shaping up as two Big East championship games in a row (at Cincy, and verus WVU.) Pitt is feeling pretty confident right now, especially since they found out they can win without Shady going off. Is this week off really what they need? Or do you think they can use this as a way to refocus for this critical three-game season?

Brian Bennett: The Big East schedule is downright silly with all these bye weeks, and that's an issue I plan to explore more fully in the blog this week (shameless plug). I think it's instructive to look at Pitt's last two bye situations, when they came back and had nice wins both times. While I'm not sure they need another bye week, I think it is a slight advantage heading into the Cincinnati game. The Bearcats will have played four games in 21 days, including emotional contests against South Florida on a Thursday night at home, at West Virginia and a rivalry game at Louisville. Then they will have to take on Pittsburgh in a possible battle for first place. Pitt gets extra time to study film of Cincinnati and heal some injuries. That trumps all possible concerns about the week off.

Jay from Storrs writes: Hey, Brian, earlier this week I was pondering the situation at the top of the Big East. I came to the conclusion that there is the potential for a four-way tie at the end of the season, but I dismissed the thought when I saw that Cincinnati would have to win at WVU for this situation to play out. Now that it's happened, who would win the BCS bid in a tie that big? Am I to assume that it would go by BCS standings, or would it be based on who beat who? Another thing to consider would be a five-way tie at the end of the season with WVU, Cincinnati, UConn, Pitt, and Rutgers all finishing at 5-2 in conference. UConn and Rutgers would have to win out, and Pitt would have to beat Cincinnati and WVU. But it's a possibility, albeit a wild one, that would have to be explored given the craziness that is the 2008 Big East.

Brian Bennett: I've been thinking about this too, Jay, especially the four-way scenario. If Cincinnati loses to Pittsburgh, Pitt beats West Virginia, and UConn beats Pitt in the finale, here's what we could have: those four teams tied for first place at 5-2. The four teams would be placed in a "mini-conference" with each other and the team with the best record in that mini-conference would go to the BCS, according to Big East tiebreaker rules. In this particular example, UConn and Pittsburgh would be 2-1 in the mini-conference, while West Virginia and Cincinnati would be 1-2. The tiebreaker between UConn and Pittsburgh then would be the team with the higher BCS ranking. So even though UConn would have just beaten Pitt in the final game, Pittsburgh could conceivably still go to the BCS over the Huskies. (Same tiebreaker rules apply in the event of a five-way deadlock, by the way). Crazy stuff, huh?

Fred from Barcelona: Hey, Brian, check this out. It's possible for a five-way tie for the Big East title! I don't think that is very good news for bowl aspirations of the Big East conference.

Brian Bennett: I realize I just answered the same question, but I'm excited that the blog has reached yet another country. Hello Spain! Also, I love the fact that someone in Barcelona is contemplating Big East tiebreaker scenarios, one can only hope over tapas and sangria.