- Brian Bennett, ESPN Staff Writer
- 0 Shares
It's Monday afternoon, which means it's time for more of your emails. Keep them coming.
S.H. Tan from Singapore writes: Now that UConn is in the championship game for both NCAA men's and women's basketball, should the B1G grab the Huskies before they fall into the clutches of the ACC? Not only will this solidify the B1G's standing as a premier basketball conference, it will give B1G an even greater presence and share of the New York/New England markets, and UConn is only a few seasons removed from the Fiesta Bowl.
Brian Bennett: Maybe Jim Delany can strike a deal before 9 p.m. ET on Monday so the Big Ten will have a chance to finally win another basketball national title. I kid, but man, the league has had some tough breaks on the hardwood. There's no doubt Connecticut is a powerhouse program in both men's and women's basketball, and the fact it will languish in the American Athletic Conference for a while is a shame. The Huskies desperately want to get in a power league, and the ACC and Big Ten are the only ones that really make sense for the school.
But Connecticut wasn't a main candidate for the Big Ten in the last round of expansion and is not really high on the league's radar now. While adding the school would open up some new TV markets in the Northeast, it doesn't really bring potentially fertile recruiting ground the way Rutgers and Maryland did. And though UConn has, unlike Rutgers, actually been to a BCS game, the football program still doesn't provide much juice to the Big Ten. Maybe most importantly, UConn is not a member of the Association of American Universities, which would be a big sticking point for conference leaders.
If expansion had anything to do with basketball, the Huskies would have found a new home by now. But as we know, it's all about football.
Alien Spartan from Somewhere In Open Space writes: While we Spartans bask in the aura of corporal appeasement -- think dominating Michigan -- I can't help feeling sorry for our in-state rival. There were so many times I hated them and now I want them to do well. As a kid, I only heard the U of M fight song on the radio. Then I graduated from MSU. I am so proud to be a Spartan! Especially now. Here's my question. Do you think Nussmeier will make a significant difference? For their sake, I hope he does. Not to the point that they beat us, though.
Brian Bennett: Up above, aliens hover, making home movies for the folks back home. (Sorry for the Radiohead nerd-out). I do think Doug Nussmeier is going to help Michigan's offense. The Wolverines talked a lot about becoming a physical, pro-style offense under Al Borges but never really came close to achieving that. Nussmeier is stressing the north-south running game and a simpler blocking scheme that I think will help give Michigan more of an identity. He also brings a lot of energy to the team that the program needed, in my opinion. The big question is whether the Wolverines have the skill on the offensive line to fully execute Nussmeier's vision, and that group still has a whole lot to prove.
Pat from Iowa writes: Could you call Iowa's 4-8 2012 season a fluke? They have never had that bad of record in more than 10 years. Many of the losses were by less than three points. And then they come back with an 8-4 record this year. Do you think they were much better than their record shows?
Brian Bennett: I wouldn't say the 2012 Hawkeyes were much better than their record showed. They earned that record, thanks to a crummy passing game and a defense that didn't intimidate anybody. Key injuries also played a big factor, as did the bumpy transition to a new offensive system under Greg Davis. And that season somehow included a win over a team that made a BCS game (Northern Illinois). So I wouldn't call 2012 a fluke, but I would say it's more of a blip on Kirk Ferentz's tenure than anything else.
Charley from New York writes: I know you two guys are constantly lobbying in your blogs for Big Ten coaches to be paid more and for Big Ten schools to spend money on sports facilities, so is it fair to assume you support a system where coaches can be paid millions while half their players don't get degrees? When you said, "but whether [Colter is] eventually viewed as a pioneer who helped improve athletes' causes or someone who brought down college sports as we know them can't possibly be known yet," it seems as if you don't understand that in order to improve the lives of college footballers, the system as we know it must be "brought down" and that you seem not to want that to happen.
Brian Bennett: It's a fair point to bring up that Adam and I often talk about coaches who deserve raises or schools that need to improve their facilities. But understand those opinions are in the context of teams trying to compete for championships in the Big Ten. The league is swimming in money from its TV deals, and so programs need to reinvest that cash into coaching salaries and infrastructure if they want to keep up. Schools are under no obligation to participate in the escalating college sports arms race, but if they want off that treadmill, then they have to stop taking the TV money and get out of big-time sports altogether.
I support college players in their quest to have a much larger voice in their sport and for them to receive a larger piece of the pie. I'm not so sure unionization is the best way to go about that. There's no question that major changes need to happen in college sports, and I think we're on the precipice of that. Do I want to see college sports "brought down?" Well, obviously, I write about college football for a living and, like most of you reading this, I am a big fan of college sports in general. There are few things better in life than a college football Saturday or the NCAA tournament. I remain hopeful that greed and arrogance don't prevent finding some middle ground that works for all sides.