Time to close out the week with a final installment of the Big East mailblog. It was a busy week at the ACC meetings. There will be plenty more next week with the Big East meetings in Ponte Vedra Beach, Fla. Stay tuned for updates, and a few more notes from Pitt and Syracuse.
Now who has some questions?
Paul in New Jersey writes: AA, If there is no agreement with any of the new BCS proposals, is it possible the conference commissioners would just throw up their arms and continue to operate the BCS under the current rules in 2014?
Andrea Adelson: Anything is possible, Paul, especially when each conference has its own agenda. Just look at this comment from ACC commissioner John Swofford from our media availability Wednesday: "The more this gets focused, the more difficult it will become in terms of getting us all to agree on something. I don’t think we’ll end up back with where we are right now, but it’s possible. We’ll have to see how that plays out."
Paul in the Adirondacks writes: SU fan here who's still bitter about the move to the ACC. Is it wrong of me to feel some joy that FSU might bolt the ACC for another conference? That way they get a taste of their own medicine? Also at this point why don't the Big East and ACC be proactive and join the conferences together to form a beast in all sports?
Adelson: I feel your pain, but you have to come to terms with the fact that Syracuse will indeed become a member of the ACC. Therefore, you should feel no joy that Florida State might bolt for another conference. Florida State is one of the few high-profile football teams the ACC has. If the Seminoles go, then you are looking at potentially another addition from the Big East. If you just want another version of the Big East, then you can jump for joy. But if you want a strong football conference, then you should worry. As for the super conglomerate ACC/Big East, a 27-team conference is really not a conference. C-USA and the Mountain West just tried to create an association, but it appears that might not work out. The ACC has its own interests, so I'm not sure how it would benefit with a joint Big East venture.
Petey D. in Ansonia, Conn., writes: What's the deal with UConn having a plethora of quarterbacks with the offer to the prep school kid from Plano (Richard Lagow)? Not saying that he even signs with UConn, but, when do they take what they have and develop a couple quarterbacks instead of trying to use a stable of quarterbacks, because we all know if you have more than one starting QB you have no starting QB. And is the front-runner Chandler Whitmer?
Adelson: I don't have any issue with UConn offering a quarterback. Most teams carry somewhere in the neighborhood of four scholarship quarterbacks at one time. That is one position where depth is really important, particularly if the players you sign don't pan out, which has been the case recently for the Huskies. As for the front-runner, my guess is it's Whitmer after his spring-game performance, but coach Paul Pasqualoni has not said anything official.
Frank in Sarasota, Fla., writes: There is no way USF has the support for an on-campus stadium. Ray Jay is a better place than USF will ever be able to build and the student athletic fees are already fairly high. Let us figure out if we will be in Conference USA by 2015. I know I will be at the games no matter what, but how many fans will come out to see the Bulls play Rice, Tulane or another third-tier football school without any regional draw?
Adelson: As opposed to SMU, Houston, San Diego State and Boise State? Or heck, even Rutgers and UConn? As I mentioned in the post, I think it is good that USF is thinking big. But the only way the Bulls should ever do it is if they have the financial backing and are certain they will be able to get a better deal than they have at Raymond James Stadium. The old saying "If you build it, they will come" does not ring true for on-campus stadiums everywhere.
John in Louisville, Ky., writes: AA, hope you are having fun at the ACC meetings, and taking notes on how they are worse than the BE. I have a bowl question. With so many schools located in the north, and quite a few domes in those areas, why don't we have bowls there? Example in Indianapolis, shouldn't be that hard to find a weekend the Colts have an away game and have a B1G vs. BE (or ACC, or B12). Fans would love it and show up in larger numbers than having to travel to the south every year.
Adelson: I will be comparing meetings between the two, that is for sure. As for your questions, cities must want to host bowl games. Indianapolis might be interested in hosting a national championship game. But a second-tier bowl game? Maybe not. There also is an extensive application process even to be approved to host a bowl game. Detroit does host the Little Caesars Bowl, which pits the Big Ten against the MAC. But I'm not sure what other cities would want to start up their own games.
Jonathan in Storrs, Conn., writes: Concerning that USA Today study of the percent of subsidies each school receives from student fees, the 23.8 percent that UConn receives go to the Student Recreation Services as UConn puts that under the athletic department. So the fees technically go the athletic department, but are funneled to the student recreation services for the rec center and intramurals.
Adelson: Thanks for the clarification, Jonathan. Excellent information.