Friday, February 15, 2013
Big East mailblog
By Andrea Adelson
With our weekly chats on hold, stop by here
Jon in Tampa, Fla., writes: People keep forgetting about Aaron Lynch, the USF transfer from Notre Dame who was a first-team Freshman All-American. What is your take on how he will do this season?
Andrea Adelson: I don't think people have forgotten about him; he was a topic of conversation in our chat last week. Right now, it is tough to really say how I think he will do this season. He just sat out a year, and the Bulls have a completely new coaching staff. I think we all will have a much better idea of what to expect once spring practice wraps up and we hear from his new coaches. He clearly has talent, and was great his only year at Notre Dame. So the potential is there. It's just too early to say right now what he will do.
Rob in Big East Forever, N.J., writes: Whats up with this pathetic TV/Media rights verbal offer? Let me get this straight, two years ago the Big East wanted a $300M per year deal. They turned down a $130M per year deal, now the remaining schools and the new additions are possibly getting a $20M per year deal? So, schools like USF, Cincy and UConn are going to bring in roughly $2M per year, when they could have brought in as much as $10M per year under the offer turned down, while a school like Rutgers, moving on to the B1G, will make upwards of $25-$30M per year, more money than all 12 future Big East schools will make in a year combined? I really thought that $20-23M quote I read had to be a mistake, no?
Adelson: This is not a typo nor is it a mistake. Our general rule is to comment completely once news is made official, so I will have plenty more whenever a deal is signed. For now, all I can say is this: It appears as if realignment has indeed relegated the Big East to second-tier status in more ways than one. This report, and the others that have followed listing the same dollar figures, essentially validate those who believe the Big East is essentially another version of Conference USA.
Frank in Long Branch, N.J., writes: At what point does Rutgers give up on trying to be a big-time football program? We haven't scored a big-time recruit since Anthony Davis and have more offensive coordinators with poor game plans than I care to remember. It looks as if we will never be more than one of those teams playing in bowls I don't think should exist and it will get worse once RU joins up with the Big Ten. And I actually think it will get worse because they will have more money to spend.
Adelson: Before you get all down in the dumps there, Frank, remember that Rutgers did have a Top 25 recruiting class last season and just won a share of its first Big East title, on the heels of a 10-win season in 2011. I understand the frustration with the offense, but it is not fair to say Rutgers should give up on trying to be a big-time football program. Will the move to the Big Ten be tough? Yes. But the Big Ten is coming off a down year. And more money should mean more of an ability to try and compete with these "high-level" recruits you mention. But to me, it is more important what happens to a player once they arrive on campus. What was Khaseem Greene rated out of high school? Mohamed Sanu? Duron Harmon? Scott Vallone? Logan Ryan? Jawan Jamison? Lots of talent there, and none of those guys were five-stars out of high school.
CardFanDan at the center of the universe writes: The BIG's proposal to move to 10 league games only serves to make the conference more insular and gives the playoff committee little by which to evaluate a team other than the highly subjective strength of conference measure. Can you present ANY argument that having 10 league games in a 12-game season is good for college football?
Adelson: I am at a loss with this one. I have been a proponent of eight-game league schedules because I think it is important for conferences to go out and play each other. Yeah, there are some duds and a few FCS games sprinkled in there, but at least you get some variety and the potential for a blockbuster nonconference matchup, plus an opportunity to see how you stack up against other competition. I don't love nine-game league schedules, which is what most are moving toward. But 10 just seems preposterous. Add in the championship game, and a team could be playing 11 Big Ten games out of 14 on the schedule. For another perspective, our Big Ten bloggers argued both sides earlier this week.
Jon in Brodhead, Wisc., writes: In the constant realignment the Big East has gotten itself into, why hasn't the Big East tried to get schools from the bigger conferences. I'm not saying that the Big East should go for schools like Oklahoma and what not because that's unrealistic, but last time I checked when the Big XII was going through turmoil after Colorado and Nebraska left, Kansas State and Iowa State promised to go to the Big East if the Big XII collapsed. Why not try to go for Iowa State or schools like them? P.S. Go Cincy!
Adelson: Look at the proposed new TV contract. There is no school in one of the top five conferences that would ever willingly leave to join the Big East. The scenario you present was only because the Big 12 was falling apart. It's not anymore. So the Big East really has no pitch to make because it has no money to offer.