Time for a mid-week edition of the non-AQ mailbag. The bag is overflowing this week, so stay tuned for the usual Friday post.

Chris Johnson from Man, W.Va., writes: Hey, Andrea Why hasn't Boise State or TCU applied for the vacant spots in the Big 12 conference? This would make them AQ and take out all debates about how good they really are or if there schedule is tough enough. thanks for your time.

Andrea Adelson: Chris, trust me, Boise State and TCU would jump at the chance to join the Big 12. But it is not about applying for vacant spots. The Big 12 has to want to invite you, and there is no interest right now in doing so. Why? Because the league feels neither team adds value where it counts most -- on the TV side. The Big 12 already has the Texas TV market covered, and adding in Boise State would do little more than scare Texas and Oklahoma -- that is the last thing the Big 12 wants.

---

Ren from Germantown, Tenn., writes: So far, the schools the WAC is speaking with about expansion don't seem very impressive, interesting to college football fans or helpful to the conference's prestige. Do you agree with their list of prospects? If not, what schools do you think the WAC should target?

Andrea Adelson: Ren, who would the WAC try and get? Colorado? California? Seriously, there is a very limited pool for the WAC here. I think the WAC realizes the chances of getting Houston or North Texas are virtually impossible. So it will try and reinvent itself with teams the way it has done in the past. Nobody had heard of Boise State when it joined the WAC. These are the types of teams the league is looking for, and setting up a base in Texas certainly helps when it comes to TV deals.

---

Scott from Boise, Idaho, writes: Do you think it's fair to judge Boise by the teams they play instead of their players? Don't the players make the team?

Andrea Adelson: Do I think anything about the current system is fair? Nope. But that is the system we are stuck with, and voters are entitled to use whatever criteria they feel is best to make their judgements on what team belongs where.

---

Nathan Owens of Salt Lake City writes: How would Utah and BYU have done had they switched schedules up to this point in the season? I ask because both of them had a nail-biters against teams that are ranked 'average' in the Sagarin rankings to open the season. Then their next 3 games are on opposite ends of the spectrum. BYU has played 3 top-30 teams and lost them all. Utah has played 3 teams below 100 and dominated them. I'm curious what you think.

Andrea Adelson: Nathan, you get the prize for best question of the day, one I wish I had thought of myself! It is hard to say, but I am not sure all the problems BYU has had would have gone invisible if it had played easier teams. That quarterback rotation really messed the team up from a chemistry and rhythm standpoint. There is no question BYU has had the harder schedule, but I think Utah went into the season with the stronger team because of what it had returning to the offense. It is never easy to replace your record-setting QB, plus top running back and top tight end. I think BYU would have had struggles regardless. That being said, I think we will find out a lot about Utah very quickly, because the schedule is totally backloaded.

---

Scott from Salt Lake City writes: With Coach Mendenhall taking over the defensive coordinator duties at BYU due to Coach Hill leaving; can we expect to see a more aggressive, physical defense before the end of the season?

Andrea Adelson: I should hope so, but BYU is struggling with a talent deficiency right now, especially with Romney Fuga being lost for the season. The unit was already inexperienced to begin with, and it is hard to imagine that Mendenhall is going to provide a quick fix. I mean if he thought he could do such good, why has he waited until now to speak up and do something?