Big East mailblog

Welcome to your mid-week edition of the mailblog. One last time for all those asking in the mailbag -- West Virginia is officially in the Big 12 blog on ESPN, so check there for all updates and lunchtime links. West Virginia players are included in the final top 25 countdown because they played in the Big East in 2011.

Now on to your questions ...

Dave in Cap Hill, D.C., writes: Wow, Pitt gets three new members in the PRO Football Hall of Fame in the last two years and gets little attention. Only USC and ND have more all time and the mighty Panthers are tied with Michigan and Ohio State for third. Just a thought, some may find this good reading. Take care and Hail to Pitt! I'm sure you will find the new coaching staff much easier to deal with then "high octane out-of-town's" approach.

Andrea Adelson: Dave, you must have mistakenly skipped this must-read on the Big East blog!

Doug in N.J., writes: New York does not matter to Rutgers. Their high school football stinks for the most part. Rutgers has had some past success with a few excellent/NFL caliber players but that is ancient history. Pennsylvania is far more important, siphoning a few players from there and Florida, as they've done, and continuing to do very well in New Jersey of course.

Adelson: You are right that New York is behind New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Florida in the talent that is produced. But it is important for Rutgers to have a presence in that state given its location.

Dave in Charlotte, N.C., writes: As we just witnessed with WVU, money is the great equalizer in overcoming any time constraints. With that in mind, shouldn't the Big East (and all conferences) redo their exiting bylaws to cover any possible scenario? Something like: $100 million if you leave with 0-6 months notice; $50 million for 7-12 months; $25 million for 13-24 months; $10 million for 25+ months.

Adelson: Dave, I completely agree that the Big East exit penalty does not go far enough. Doubling it from $5 million to $10 million is not much of a deterrent. I think the ACC had the right idea when it agreed to bolster its exit fee to $20 million. That should have been a starting point for the Big East back in 2005. The problem, of course, is that the universities vote on where they should set the exit fee. Given the shifting landscape and the Big East's place, do you think they would all agree to double it yet again? My guess is no way.

Brutus in Houston writes: AA, I take it from your "Artist" take on the lunchtime links post that you watched the Academy Awards. I haven't watched the Academy Awards in well over a decade. I could have watched the NBA All-Star Game, but I have even less interest in that than the Academy Awards. I watched NFL Combine rebroadcast on NFL Network. When will you start covering the new members more? Keep up the great blogging.

Adelson: Thanks, Brutus. I love the movies, so I watched every last second of the Oscars and I really truly loved "The Artist." To your main question -- the new Big East members do not officially join the Big East blog until the season they begin play in the conference. Based on what we have done in the past, my guess is that transition will begin early in 2013. But I do plan on giving quick sketches of the incoming members here in the coming months so fans have an idea of what to expect from future conference teams.

John in Louisville writes: AA, I am not understanding the issue entirely with regards to the multiyear scholarship. I read a report that many schools are against it for varying reasons -- to a budget that can't handle it, to schools basically just not wanting to offer it. Is the legislation a mandate to use a multiyear versus a single-year renewable or an option to use a multiyear in lieu of a renewable? If it is an option to use it would they really try and get that option prohibited to prevent other schools who are in favor of using it just because they don't want to? It seems juvenile to me if that is the case.

Adelson: Universities can offer multiyear scholarships instead of one-year renewable scholarships after a repeal vote failed. It is not a mandate, but simply an option for schools that choose to go this route. One of the big objections had to do with recruiting. Schools arguing against the multiyear scholarships believe coaches will use it on the recruiting trail as another way to sell their programs. That is a weak argument, if you ask me. I am not a huge fan of the one-year renewable scholarships because they allow coaches to pull grants willy-nilly. It's about time somebody started thinking about the student-athlete.