Coming at you from an undisclosed Big Ten campus. Can you guess which one?
A lot of good responses to what you would do to improve college football.
To the inbox ...
Jeff from Chicago writes: What would I like to see in college football: A Big Ten-SEC Challenge every season, the first weekend of October. Just like the B1G-ACC Challenge in basketball, you make the pairings by perceived quality, play half the games in each conference's stadiums. Alabama-Ohio State. Texas A&M-Michigan. Michigan State-Auburn. Florida-Penn State. Wisconsin-Georgia. All on the same day. Would that be compelling TV or what? (And yes, I know it's not going to happen!)
Adam Rittenberg: It would be extremely compelling TV and, unfortunately, it will never happen. Although SEC teams will have more nonleague games to schedule than their Big Ten counterparts, I could never see that league getting on board with a scheduling agreement like this one. There are other nonleague rivalries (Florida-Florida State, Georgia-Georgia Tech) that would take priority, and I just can't see too many SEC teams leaving the comforts of the South to play Big Ten opponents on the road. Maybe the playoff and its purported emphasis on schedule strength changes things.
Bill from Indianapolis writes: While it would never happen, the big improvement would be to take the 4 nonconference games and reduce it to two. Then take those two games and have them played after the conference championships. Each team would get one home game and one road game against a team from another conference that finished in a similar place in the standings. Thus when the playoff teams are picked there are more quality games to choose well and it, in a way, expands the playoff by two extra weeks. A full write up on this idea can be found here ...
Adam Rittenberg: Interesting proposal, Bill. It could provide a more comprehensive gauge on which teams truly deserve to be part of the playoff. I actually like having nonleague games sprinkled in later in the season as some teams improve gradually. Some early season nonleague contests are really misleading. If logistics didn't matter, maybe this plan could work. I wish there was more flexibility to do short-notice scheduling in college football, but when you have big stadiums and big money on the line, it's difficult, if not impossible.
Rob from Morristown, N.J., writes: Adam, you can mark this down for a "bold prediction" but I seriously (homer alert) think you are missing any one of the PSU tight ends in your mystery man option for B1G 1,000-yard receivers. My pick, C-Hack's best friend on the team Adam Breneman. All three PSU tight ends have shown they are more than capable of being reliable pass catchers, Kyle Carter in 2012, Jesse James and Breneman in 2013. With the lack of a true No. 2 receiver to compliment Geno Lewis, and an inexperienced O-Line that may cause a lot of dump off passes to a tight end, this could be a year that multiple tight ends push the receiving yards race.
Adam Rittenberg: Rob, I certainly considered the possibility of a Penn State tight end breaking out this season, although 1,000 yards is a very lofty mark. Ultimately, Breneman would really have to separate himself to have a chance to catch so many passes from his buddy Christian Hackenberg. Breneman was hurt when I watched PSU practice this spring, and James looked like the best receiving option on the field. He's a beast at 6-foot-7 and 257 pounds -- a matchup nightmare. So while Breneman could become a superstar, I don't know how Penn State ignores James. And then there's Carter, who has 54 receptions in his first two seasons. I expect all the tight ends to play and likely limit one from producing way more than the others.
Joe from Ames, Iowa, writes: As a Big Ten (Minnesota) alum, here are a few ideas on how to improve college football:
1. Ban oversigning. Eat it, Team SEC.
2. Create an early signing period.
3. Quit tinkering with rules just for the sake of tinkering. Touchback placement comes to mind. "Safety" has become the catch-all justification for every bit of tomfoolery the rules committee wants to try.
4. Expand playoff to 8 teams.
5. No polls until after Week 4.
6. USC, Texas, Nebraska, PSU, Miami, etc. return to normal and help beat some humility back into the University of SEC. A thousand years of darkness for Michigan. Reversion to pre-1993 historical means for Wisconsin and Minnesota.
7. Honestly wouldn't mind Boston College in the B1G, albeit for selfish hockey reasons.
Adam Rittenberg: Wow, a lot of thoughts here, Joe. I'll tackle a few of them. I agree on the early signing period, but as I'll write later this week, moving up official visits to a prospect's junior year is even more important, especially for Big Ten schools. I can't agree more with pushing back any sort of poll or getting rid of them entirely. They have way too much significance in shaping the way teams and leagues are viewed. Looking at your list for No. 6, it's amazing how college football's power structure has shifted. You likely won't see any of those teams mentioned as likely playoff contenders this season. Times have changed.
Isaac from Stevens Point, Wis., writes: I’d just like to throw in my two cents regarding receiving threats for the Badgers for the upcoming year. Many people are worried, and for good reason. I feel like many people have failed to notice one man: Sam Arneson. I have never seen the guy drop a ball and his touchdown catch against Ohio State last year was incredible. The guy has size and athleticism in an offense that features pass-catching tight ends. I wouldn't be surprised if he led the Big Ten in receiving for tight ends. What are your thoughts?
Adam Rittenberg: Bold statement, Isaac. I like Arneson, too, and he could have a much bigger role in the offense this season. I don't know if Wisconsin will pass the ball enough for any player to eclipse 1,000 receiving yards, but the uncertainty at wide receiver creates opportunity for players like Arneson, who has only 10 career receptions, four for touchdowns. I'd be surprised if he has more yards than Michigan's Devin Funchess (still technically a tight end), Rutgers' Tyler Kroft, Ohio State's Jeff Heuerman and possibly several others, but his numbers will go up.