ESPN College Football

Lots of bowl questions, and understandably so, since this stuff gets confusing at times. We'll know for sure where everybody is going on Sunday night. For now, I'll try to shed as much light as I can.

Ethan Shenberg from Scarsdale, N.Y., writes: Huge Rutgers fan here. If Rutgers beats Louisville and WVU loses to USF and Rutgers finishes second, which bowl do you see them attending this year? And if they finish third which bowl?

Kyle from Pittsburgh writes: Rutgers wins, WVU wins, Pitt loses: Does WVU grab the Sun Bowl spot? Louisville wins, WVU wins, Pitt loses: Notre Dame would get the Sun Bowl; does Pitt or WVU go to Charlotte? What are your thoughts on Pitt's reputation of having poorly traveling fans affecting our bowl invitation? Is this fair or accurate?

Joe from Sherman, Conn., writes: If UConn beats Pittsburgh this weekend, what bowl do you think the Huskies would be going to? I would imagine the South Florida/West Virginia outcome would also be a factor.

Brian Bennett: I lump these questions together because I got a lot like them. And it allows me to explain something very important at the beginning: It really doesn't matter who finishes second, third, fourth, etc. It can be confusing when you see official listings saying the Gator/Sun bowl slot takes Big East No. 2 and the Meineke Car Care Bowl takes Big East No. 3. All that means is the Gator or Sun gets the first pick of all eligible league teams who aren't going to the BCS, and Meineke gets the next pick. They can take whatever team they want.

What it really comes down to is what the individual bowls need as far as ticket sales, marketing, matchups and geographic tie-ins. Gator officials, for instance, desperately need to sell tickets after the fiascos that were last year's ACC title game and Texas Tech fans' no-show in last year's game. That's why the Gator will jump to take Nebraska and its insanely passionate and excellent traveling fan base.

The Sun Bowl, on the other hand, is played in a smaller stadium and usually sells about 80 percent of its tickets to local fans. So, while that game really wanted Notre Dame for marketing purposes, it really doesn't care if it winds up with Pittsburgh or West Virginia. Yes, Kyle, the Panthers do have a horrible reputation for the way their fans travel, but this is one instance where it wouldn't matter.

Then you have the Meineke, which is played in a large, NFL stadium in Charlotte and needs to sell tickets. That's why Pitt really isn't being considered for this game, while Rutgers and West Virginia are in high demand. And UConn, whether it wins or loses, doesn't appeal to the Sun Bowl and played in Charlotte last year. So, geographically, the International Bowl is the only one that makes sense, especially since South Florida will go to the St. Petersburg Bowl to boost ticket sales there. The only other option is the Papajohns.com Bowl, and believe me, of all the Big East games, that one is last on the list. Not only does that game offer the smallest payout, but Legion Field -- despite its history -- is really showing its age and is not in an attractive part of Birmingham.

I hope that clears things up a little. Just remember, after the BCS invite is won, bowl invitations are based less on which teams have earned it and far more on what those teams can earn for that game.

Don Cunnigham from Dallas writes: Can you help us understand why we (Cincinnati) would be more inclined to go to the Orange Bowl versus the Sugar Bowl? Also, how is this decided? I may not be alone in not paying attention to the major bowl actions in the past, being a Cincy alum. Thanks!

Brian Bennett: No problem, Don. Here's how it works:

Certain conference champions are tied into BCS bowl slots unless they go to the BCS title game. Those are, as you probably know, the Big Ten and Pac-10 winners to the Rose Bowl, the Big 12 champ to the Fiesta, the SEC champ to the Sugar and the ACC victor to the Orange. The BCS rotates the selection order for how those bowls fill their at-large slots, and games that lose their conference tie-in to the BCS title game get first crack.

Now, we can assume that the SEC and Big 12 winners will be playing the championship game, so that means the Fiesta and Sugar will pick first. Then the next picks will be Fiesta again, Sugar again and then the Orange comes last. It sure looks like the Fiesta will take the next available Big 12 team (most likely Texas), while the Sugar will want the Alabama-Florida loser as its top choice. Then the Fiesta will probably try to create a high-profile matchup with Texas, with the obvious choices being 12-0 Utah or Ohio State. The Sugar would probably take whichever of those two teams is left, creating an SEC runner up vs. an undefeated Utah or another SEC-Ohio State showdown.

Those potential games are just far more marketable than any matchup involving Cincinnati since the Bearcats are so new to the national stage and nobody is quite sure how they'll travel. Thus, the Bearcats will probably fall to the last at-large pick, the Orange Bowl. Things could change, of course, but that looks like the situation right now.

Andrew from New York City writes: Hi, Brian, I'm kind of in a bowl frenzy over the Big East's sad slate. For bowl purposes, right now, the Big East has nine teams because we have to carry around the stinking corpse of Notre Dame football. Yet we only have six bowl spots, and no backup deals, and we'll probably lose the Gator spot to the Big 12, leaving us five spots. The way some teams schedule, was it unimaginable that we'd have 8 eligible teams, which would happen if Louisville beats Rutgers? The Sun Belt has deals with the Independence Bowl and the Papajohns.com Bowl to fill in if their affiliated leagues don't have available teams. The Big East has to be more desirable than the Sun Belt, right? Why the hell don't we have any back up deals? We'd be a pretty good fit to back up a Big 10 bowl, like the Motor City or Insight. (Motor City has an opening this year.) The Independence Bowl is a decent gig too. It's even worse for the Texas Bowl. We rotate with C-USA there, and they have an open spot because the Big 12 has two teams in the BCS, but we don't have a backup with them in case the Big 12 doesn't have a team. How on Earth is the Big East not the designated back-up there? If we had the back-up spot, Louisville would have been there last year, and they travel OK. I'll calm down now.

Brian Bennett: Take a deep breath, Andrew. First of all, it will all work out just fine if Rutgers beats Louisville. All six bowl-eligible Big East teams will go to Big East bowls and Notre Dame will get shut out. The situation is better this year because the league added a sixth bowl in St. Petersburg, which was much-needed. It seems unusual that the league would get seven of eight teams eligible, considering how high a percentage of teams that is. The ACC, for example, has a record 10 bowl eligible teams, but that's not as high a percentage as seven of eight. Yet, with only seven league games, it's not hard for Big East teams to get to six wins. That's an issue. The reason the Big East doesn't have backup deals like the Sun Belt is because leagues like the Sun Belt need those arrangements because only their top one or two teams are guaranteed a berth anywhere. The Big East needs a better bowl lineup, for sure. But six bowls should be enough in an eight-team league. Is the seventh-best Big East team really deserving of a guaranteed bowl slot? I'm not sure about that.

Dave from Mountainside, N.J., writes: Brian, you keep putting Pittsburgh above Rutgers in your rankings, do I need to pay for an airplane to fly over your house with a sign saying "54-34?"

Brian Bennett: Good line, Dave. But here's the difference between Pitt vs. Rutgers and
Oklahoma vs. Texas: The Sooners and Longhorns each finished 11-1, so that head-to-head was very important (at least in some people's minds). Right now, Pitt is 8-3 and Rutgers is 6-5, and the Panthers have not played an FCS team while the Scarlet Knights count a win over one (Morgan State). So, in taking the whole season into account, Pitt gets the nod in my power rankings over Rutgers. If it were just head-to-head, I'd have to put Connecticut over Cincinnati since the Huskies won that game 40-16. Would that make any sense, though?

Todd from Wilmington, Ohio, writes: I just wanted to ask you a question about Cincinnati's schedule. How were the Bearcats able to scedule 13 regular season games? I thought the limit was 12. Thanks for your time.

Brian Bennett: Todd, the NCAA allows team to play a 13th game if they go to Hawaii. It's a way to help the Rainbows get nonconference games, since most schools don't want to undertake the difficulty and expense of flying to the island without such an incentive.

Brandon from Pittsburgh writes: Brian, do you think that this year's win in the Backyard Brawl legitimizes last year's victory? Do you think that winning two years in a row shows that Wannstedt has the 'eers number?

Brian Bennett: I'm not sure last year's win needed legitimizing. Pitt won that game fair and square (and maybe more so, given the number of bad calls that went against the Panthers that night). I think what it does show is that Pittsburgh has figured out how to defend the West Virginia spread option, and that Dave Wannstedt has accumulated a lot of speed on that defense. The talent Pitt has is legit.

Kris from Hollidaysburg, Penn., writes: Brian, while debating about who should represent the Big 12 South in the conference championship game, someone made what I thought was a very good point. The league uses BCS standings to break a three-way tie, and someone said that they didn't like the idea of coaches from Syracuse, California, Indiana, etc., getting to pick the Big 12 South's rep in the championship game. Do you think it would be reasonable, fair, and feasible to let the coaches (and possibly the commissioner for a tiebreaker) vote for who their subdivision representative should be to their championship game? You know, let the league's members have the say? The same model could be tweaked and applied elsewhere as well. The Big 10, for example. If Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State have the same records, why not let the conference pick who represents them in the BCS? I know that politics could get involved, e.g., "I'm not voting for that Saban's team," but politics are ALREADY involved when you let the coaches control one-third of the BCS formula in the "Ulterior Motives Poll." Your thoughts?

Brian Bennett: Boy, you'd be opening up a whole new Pandora's Box, given the relationships between coaches in a conference. Some would vote for coaches they like personally or against those they didn't like, and it would absolutely have to be made public to have any legitimacy. And can you imagine the uproar if, say, Mike Gundy voted against Bob Stoops' team? You think that would be an angle in the following year's Bedlam game? I really don't like coaches voting on anything, including the polls. There is way too much conflict of interest there. College football should move to a selection committee like the men's basketball tournament uses. At least there'd be the pretense of objectivity there.

Andrew from Storrs writes: If the Big East is looking to expand, why not add Villanova. They haven't been terrible in division two, and they are already members of the Big East in the other sports. Problem solved?

Brian Bennett: Villanova has built a very good FCS program, and the Wildcats gave West Virginia problems in the season opener. The problem is, Villanova doesn't have a place to play at the FBS level. Lincoln Financial Field is already home to the NFL's Eagles and to Temple.

Brandon from Pittsburgh writes: Brian, after the Backyard Brawl, I'm not so sure the Panthers can take it to the next level with Bill Stull. I saw Tino Sunseri warming up before the game, and he looked great. Do you think there's any chance that Stull gets beat out for the starting job next year?

Brian Bennett: I'd be stunned if Dave Wannstedt turned to an unproven rookie ahead of a veteran like Stull. That's not his style at all. I thought Stull played well in the middle of the year, but he has struggled at times the past few weeks. Pitt will definitely need better quarterback play in order to really get to the next level. I just don't know that there's a better answer than Stull right now, and I really doubt Wannstedt would take the gamble to find out.