Since the weekly Monday chat is on a brief hiatus, I've decided to add an extra mailbag to the rotation, giving you guys another opportunity to ask questions and get answers. My regular Thursday mailbag will remain in its place, while Adam will continue to answer your emails on Tuesdays and Fridays.
Let's get to some Monday mail ...
Jim from Albuquerque writes: Nebraska has won five National championships. MU has won 11. Considering NU has more pressure after winning 10 games and beating MU 23-9, was it okay with Michigan Nation to win 8 games last year? What should the standard be at Michigan? Is Michigan Nation okay with 8 wins? I think Bo Pelini might have been on a serious hot seat with 8 wins. Does NU have a higher standard? I am confused.
Brian Bennett: An 8-5 record is never going to be acceptable in Ann Arbor, but I think Michigan fans are smart enough to understand the circumstances behind that number. As Phil Steele recently pointed out, the Wolverines' five losses came to teams who finished with a combined six losses. That's kind of amazing. Two of the losses were to teams that finished the regular season undefeated (Ohio State and Notre Dame), while another came to the national champion (Alabama). And even the loss to Nebraska came after Denard Robinson got hurt in the first half on the road. While Michigan still expects to win some of those games against great teams, fans understand that Brady Hoke was in his second year and is still assembling the type of roster he wants. Hoke also had the cushion of an 11-win, Sugar Bowl championship season the previous year.
Nebraska, on the other hand, hasn't been to a BCS game since the 2001 season, and in Pelini's fifth season should not have been getting blown out in big games. There's your explanation.
Tyler from Madison, Wis., writes: I have been thinking about this for a few weeks, wondering what my reaction would be if you guys didn't put Montee Ball #1 on your postseason top 25 and I have now come to the conclusion that I will never be reading your blog again. How could you guys be so ignorant that the 2012 Doak Walker Winner (only major award winner in the Big Ten) and 2011 Heisman Trophy Finalist would not be Number 1? Don't even start with me about saying he got off to a slow start and that you have to look at his entire season because I could come right back and tell you to look at the entirety of his career. This is absolute garbage as Ball will forever be looked at as one of the top 2 to ever put on the Badger gear and you guys think that he wasn't even the best player in this week conference.
Brian Bennett: This must be the first time we've ever been accused of not properly promoting Montee Ball on the blog. If you've been a regular reader here the past couple of seasons, you know we've been major proponents for the Wisconsin star to receive more national acclaim. As for our top-25 list, as we mentioned at the top of every single entry in that series, the criteria for selection was 2012 performance only. So Ball's historic 2011 season and career accomplishments were not considered. We only took into account his 2012 season, which was still outstanding but not, in our opinion, as strong as Braxton Miller's body of work. I was very happy to see Ball win the Doak Walker Award, but I do believe his career accomplishments factored into that voting. Regardless, he was still No. 2 on our list, which is no small potatoes. If you're going to stop reading the blog over that, I'd hate to find out what you'd do if we'd actually written something critical of your favorite player(s).
Aaron T. from Syracuse, Kansas, writes: One question and a bit of an observation. I've been following the debate over the protected rivals. As a lifelong Husker Fan it all reminds me of the expansion of the Big 8 to the Big 12. The rival we had in Oklahoma was built over time and was as heated as there was in the nation. When the Big 12 divided into divisions there was no "protected crossover" and only playing OU 2 years out of every 4 killed a great thing. Seems to me, based on that experience, that the BIG should do all it can to protect rival games. (Although if someone can be so kind to explain what an Illi-Buck is?) And wouldn't it be better to give Nebraska, Maryland, and Rutgers time to develop a rival rather than force it down? Give these teams 10 years or so and then have a protected crossover and you'd be able to keep some of the other games. I'm sorry, but the "Heroes Game" with Iowa has yet to inspire me. The teams that I can't stand to lose to are Wisconsin, Michigan, and The Ohio State University!! Iowa is like a younger step brother.
Brian Bennett: You make a great point about Oklahoma-Nebraska and how expansion ruined or at least seriously eroded what was one of the nation's best rivalries. We can only hope the same doesn't happen in the Big Ten. I do think conference leaders recognize this and will do everything in their power to preserve the most traditional series like Ohio State-Michigan, Wisconsin-Minnesota, Michigan-Michigan State, Purdue-Indiana and on and on. But not every rivalry can be saved on an annual basis with 14 teams. Then again, not all rivalries are made equal to start with. The world will keep spinning if the Illibuck game (it's a carved wood turtle, by the way, because, uh, obviously) doesn't happen every year. The trick is to keep the most storied rivalries while also finding a way to make sure you don't see teams from the other division only once every six-to-eight years.
Reddit from Austin, Texas, writes: In your response to Nebraska/Wisconsin rivalry, you are wrong! There is already Nebraska blood boiling with how Wisconsin fans treated Nebraska fans in Madison. Likewise, the blowouts have stirred something deep in Husker fans, particularly, the lack of respect shown by Bielema. Additionally, there is special uniforms for the game already. Just you wait. ... Nebraska fans just don't see Iowa as a rival. Wisky feels more of a rivalry already. Also remember the connections between NU/UW: Barry and Sean Eichorst. So are willing to change your mind?
Brian Bennett: Love your city, Reddit, and I can't wait to get down there for South By Southwest next month. Anyway, I agree that Nebraska-Wisconsin is a budding rivalry and one that ought to grow. The point is that the rivalry is really in its infancy stages right now. And I believe the discussion is moot because it's extremely likely that Wisconsin and Nebraska will end up in the same division, given how strongly the Big Ten has indicated that geography will decide the new divisions. If for some reason that does not occur, then we could start talking about Badgers-Huskers protected crossover game. But remember that these two teams won't play in 2013 -- unless there's a rematch in Indianapolis.
Ryan from Wiliamsburg, Va., writes: I think you and Adam have done a pretty reasonable job staying balanced when discussing the Penn State sanctions and what the Miami case means to it. They may not be very similar. But my only concern with the NCAA using the Freeh Report is this: the Freeh Report was not commissioned to investigate Penn State's compliance with NCAA bylaws and other regulations. The Freeh Report essentially reviewed Penn State's compliance with Clery Act laws, internal Penn State polices and procedures, and other state and federal regulations. It was not commissioned to examine Penn State's compliance with NCAA rules, so why was it used to dole out punishment by the NCAA? Seems to me that the NCAA just didn't want to take the time to do its own investigation--and knowing what we know now, it seems like they had good reason to not open their own (because of the Miami debacle). Can somebody please bring this up??? Seems like a pretty valid point to me.
Brian Bennett: Your points are valid, Ryan, and I don't think anyone disputes the notion that NCAA president Mark Emmert overstepped his bounds and acted without precedent in using the Freeh Report as the sole basis for punishing Penn State. At the time, Emmert explained that the Freeh investigation was more far-reaching than anything the NCAA would have been able to do on its own. The Freeh Report was never intended as an internal NCAA audit, of course. Emmert went way out on a limb in using the report for such purposes, but unlike the Miami situation, the NCAA did not obtain any information illegally. I still believe that the only way the NCAA would reverse its course on Penn State is if Emmert loses his job, which appears a more likely scenario today after several missteps during his tenure.
Craig from Braintree, Mass., writes: You don't make the decisions for the NFL but any ideas why they didn't invite Michael Carter of the Gophers to the NFL combine? How do you think Coach Kill feels about that?
Brian Bennett: If I were making decisions for the NFL, we'd see a lot of changes, starting with allowing some occasional fun to seep into the game. But I digress. I'm not sure why Carter was snubbed, though it feels like an egregious omission given the way he played in 2012. I'm sure he will get his chance in the pros, especially as the league looks for guys who can cover in this golden age of passing offenses. Without a combine showing, Carter will have more pressure on him to perform well during Minnesota's pro day on March 4.
