Friday, September 14, 2012
Big East mailblog: Talkin' Notre Dame
By Andrea Adelson
So you want to talk Notre Dame ...
Paul in New Jersey writes: AA, Thoughts on ND and the ACC: It's a great day for the Big East -- the albatross has been taken off our back. We can now concentrate on becoming a great football conference in the future. John Swofford now has a co-commissioner in Jack Swarbrick. The ACC for sure is now a hoops conference. Watch the outcry when a full member ACC school has to give up a bowl game to ND. Again, a dreat day for the Big East.
Andrea Adelson: I can already hear that outcry, Paul. I do not think this news spells the death of the Big East, as the football product remains largely unaffected. But I am not going to say this news is great for the Big East, either. When Swarbrick talked about the bowl possibilities in the ACC, I took that to mean the Big East could be in trouble in gaining some excellent bowl tie-ins. The Big East was able to use Notre Dame to better its bowl status. It will not have that any more. I do not think you can discount the hit in perception, either. The Big East has lost its most high profile members. No matter what some might think, I can guarantee the Big East would have rather kept Notre Dame on board.
BIGPGM IN New Jersey writes: Hey Andrea, I think with the loss of ND, the Big East obviously takes a hit, but I think with the negotiators we have at the table, the Big East can still hammer out a good media deal. The loss of ND also brings the opportunity to bring on a 14th football member who can actually now come on for all sports. As such, I think they should make a hard sell to BYU (good football and hoops) or UNLV (great basketball, bad football, and great location in Vegas). The Big East has always rebuilt on its strength, which is basketball, and the football came along (Louisville and Cincinnati). Who is to say these new teams will not do the same? At the end of the day, the Big East will remain a great basketball league that plays pretty good football.
Adelson: I am not sure how eager the presidents are to add a full-time member out West. That team would be an outlier, and travel would be extremely difficult on most every team remaining in the league. I am not sure what the league gains by having St. John's, for example, travel to UNLV in all sports. They cannot combo that with another trip. There already was talk about how to manage so many basketball teams. I am not sure it is necessary to add an all-sports member with Notre Dame gone.
Ron Natale in Morgantown, W. Va., writes: It seems that a lot of people are trying to make this into a football downgrade for the Big East. How I see it the Big East football stability doesn't change from a day ago, am I wrong about this statement?
Adelson: The football lineup does not change, Ron. You are right. The only implication that fans should worry about is what type of impact this has on the bowl lineup.
Mike in Phoenix writes: Andrea, Everyone is poking fun at Syracuse and Pitt for being 0-4 and saying the Big East will be better next year, but they ignore the fact that future big east teams are a combined 2-10 against the bowl division with wins only against Akron and Army. Let's keep a running tally and see where these numbers go as the season goes on.
Adelson: I have no problem with that, though I want to make sure everybody knows that we will not start covering the incoming teams until next year on this blog. I did, however, mention the combined record of the incoming teams following Week 1.
Craig G in South Philly writes: What was more pathetic, Temple's first half performance against Maryland or the fact that only 20,000 showed up to the Linc to watch the Owls play a regional rival only an hour and a half down the road?
Adelson: Temple has struggled to get more than 20,000 people to its games, so I was not surprised to see that number. Still, I had the hope that more people would come out for this game.
Aaron in Cincinnati writes: Andrea, first of all, just want to say that I totally agreed with you before the season started about the major concerns with the Bearcats replacing all of those stars on offense, but I was glad to see a great performance from our team last Thursday. Looking ahead a couple weeks, what do you think UC will need to do better in order to take down VT, and what is the best outcome of the Pitt/VT game this weekend for UC/Big East?
Adelson: First, I think Munchie Legaux has to work on his passing. That was an area of concern for me against Pitt. Second, I think the defense has to work on giving up fewer big plays. Though the Bearcats dominated overall, there were still some long plays Pitt made in the second half. Virginia Tech has started slowly on offense in its first two games, and has had some shaky offensive line play, so I think Cincinnati has an opportunity to control this game at the line of scrimmage. As for the Pitt-Virginia Tech game question, I think it would probably be more beneficial for Virginia Tech to win and remain highly ranked and undefeated when Cincinnati gets its shot.
Brian in Arizona: If Pitt loses to Virginia Tech this upcoming Saturday, then would you put in a new quarterback like Chad Voytik and get him some experience for the future (especially playing a team like Gardner-Webb the following week)?
Adelson: I would go with the quarterback that gives me the best chance to win, and right now that remains Tino Sunseri. If Pitt is going to burn a redshirt on Voytik, it better not be for a game against an FCS team. It better be because he can lead this team to a bowl game and Big East title. Not sure he is there right now.