Wishing you a great spring weekend (right, Mother Nature?). Join the Twitter train.
Kevin from Pittsburgh writes: This might sound like a weird question but do you think Penn State's recruiting success this offseason will have any impact on the NCAA potentially lifting the bowl ban? There was some optimism it could be lifted for this season, if not next. But with James Franklin seemingly overcoming the other intended punishments, would the NCAA be worried about a perception of letting PSU off the hook? Stop me if I'm overthinking here but this certainly wouldn't be the first time the NCAA has made a decision based on it's own perception.
Adam Rittenberg: No, it certainly would not, Kevin. Trying to get inside the mind of the NCAA is a dangerous and often futile endeavor. My hope is any decision made about the sanctions would have nothing to do with how Franklin is recruiting. Penn State is being assessed for how it conducts itself as a program from a compliance and integrity standpoint, and the success in games or in recruiting really shouldn't matter with potentially reduced penalties. Also, the 2015 recruiting class won't impact the 2014 team, which has some depth problems stemming from the NCAA sanctions.
Jim from Albany, N.Y., writes: As a season-ticket holder who doesn't mind the 200+ mile trip for every home game, I'm wondering what Rutgers (and/or Maryland too) do to be accepted by the average B1G fan? Reading everything from "meh" to "I'm never going to attend a Rutgers/Maryland game in my team's stadium" is tough when the average Rutgers fan is thrilled about being able to take a step up. I've not read this in any of the other realignment moves in any of the conferences (except perhaps WVU in the Big 12 or Mizzou in the SEC), but not so vitriolic as the B1G boards. Comments?
Adam Rittenberg: Jim, there are a few factors involved here. Many Big Ten fans didn't want the league to expand again. Those who did wanted additions with stronger athletic traditions than Rutgers. Although Scarlet Knights football had a breakthrough under Greg Schiano, Rutgers doesn't match the historic accomplishments of Nebraska and Penn State, the Big Ten's most recent expansion additions. There's just not an obvious reason to get excited. Also, the demographic argument the Big Ten used with adding Rutgers and Maryland, while making sense on several levels, doesn't resonate with the average fan. There are also geographic and cultural differences between the traditional Big Ten footprint and the East Coast. Penn State deals with a similar divide.
B1G fan from the Midwest writes: I know I'm about to ask something blasphemous to some longtime B1G fans, but is there a name change in the conference's future? Myself included, most members of the B1G are proud of tradition and are reluctant to change. I can understand sweeping it under the rug at 11 teams or maybe even 12, but when it's at 14 shouldn't it be considered? Maybe something non number related like the SEC and ACC have.
Adam Rittenberg: It's not happening, B1G fan. Commissioner Jim Delany actually was open to a change when the Big Ten added Penn State in 1989, but the league presidents and other power players wanted the name to remain. Same thing happened when the league added Nebraska. There's too much meaning and history in that name, and while it's quite mathematically inaccurate, most Big Ten folks can live with it.
Delany and Michigan athletic director Dave Brandon addressed the league name this week at an event in Detroit. Brandon said, "If you look at the Big Ten Conference, you've got brand equity that's been built over decades and decades. The Big Ten means something." So there you have it.
John from Kansas City, Mo., writes: The B1G has 6 members (Iowa, Nebraska, Indiana, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Purdue) located in what are considered "talent poor" states. That is half of the conference (MD and Rutgers excluded) that has to actively recruit outside of their backyard. Not to mention they all border states that have more than one FBS school. The SEC on the other hand, has 10 schools in the top 15 "talent rich" states, so it seems the recruiting soil is a bit more fertile in the South. Meyer and Franklin are obviously great recruiters but they are also located squarely in the middle of two very saturated regions and are pulling huge numbers from their immediate footprint(s). Location and population are just as big of factors in recruiting as to which coach is running the show. It seems unfair to assume the B1G coaches aren't working hard enough.
Adam Rittenberg: Some good points here, John. The population deck is undoubtedly stacked in the SEC's favor, no matter which set of recruiting rankings you trust. And you're right that Ohio State and Penn State can recruit locally and regionally more than programs like Iowa, Wisconsin and Nebraska. I wonder if there's an extra gear that both Meyer and Franklin --as well as their assistants -- reach on the recruiting trail. I know a lot of Big Ten coaches that label their programs "developmental" and take pride in that distinction. I wonder if that approach limits how much they can push for the upper-tier recruits.
Bruce from Los Angeles writes: Simple question: If Michigan fails to win 8 games next year, Brady Hoke is fired? Yes or No?
Adam Rittenberg: A simple question, Bruce, but a not-so simple answer. If Michigan endures a wave of injuries, loses several close games in the final minute and beats one of its rivals on the road -- Michigan State, Ohio State or Notre Dame -- I think Hoke stays. Dave Brandon is firmly in Hoke's corner and doesn't want to make a change. But if Michigan remains relatively healthy, endures the same problems it did in 2013 and gets blown out in rivalry games, the pressure on Brandon could be too great and Hoke would need to go.