Greg from Cincinnati writes: Brian, I normally really enjoy your material. However, I have to ask if I missed Pitt winning the Big East this year. How does the No. 2 team end up with five of the top 10, while the champions from Cincinnati get two?
Bob from New Brunswick, N.J., writes: Your top 30 has seven Pitt players, but only three Cincinnati players. Even among those who just missed, you mention five Panthers and only two Bearcats. Yet Cincy was better over the course of the season. Is this perhaps a reflection on a difference in coaching, or is there another explanation?
Brian Bennett: Yes, this was the most frequently e-mailed comment/complaint. Where were all the Cincinnati players? Look, there's no denying that the Bearcats had the best team, as evidenced by their 12-0 record. But this is a top 30 list of individual players. Cincinnati was extremely well-coached and executed its system to near perfection offensively, and if this were, say, a Top 50 list, its players would be all over the list.
I just didn't think that Cincinnati necessarily had the best individual talent. I've explained that Zach Collaros just didn't play enough games for me to put him on the postseason list. Five Bearcats players made the All-Big East first team; the only two I didn't include were Aaron Webster and Chris Jurek. Webster was an extremely close call, but with the way the defense played down the stretch, he missed the cut for me. Jurek was a terrific college player, but I'm not sure how much future potential he has.
Perhaps I'll look stupid in a few years when a boatload of players from the '09 Bearcats are starring in the NFL. But to me it seemed like Brian Kelly had a few superstars and a whole bunch of really, really good players who did everything right.
Of course, there's one guy from that team whom many people thought I misfired on ...
Jesuit Educated from North Bend, Ohio, writes: To exclude Armon Binns from your 2009 Big East Top 30 players by suggesting Cincinnati's offense inflates receivers' statistics is bemusing at best and stupid at worst. By your logic, albeit flawed, Dion Lewis's statistics are inflated given he had 68 percent of Pitt's rushing attempts. Mr. Binns's receptions accounted for less than 20 percent of Cincinnati's total receptions of 311. He also scored every 5.5 times he touched the ball compared to Mr. Lewis's 19-to-1 ratio.While I am not at all suggesting Mr. Binns should be the Big East's top player, I am suggesting your credibility as as a football reporter/pundit/talent judge is suspicious when Mr. Binns is excluded from your Top 30 while the two wide receivers from Rutgers and the wide receiver from Connecticut are included.
Brian Bennett: Well, first of all I don't really buy your comparative stats since by nature a receiver touches the ball far fewer times than a running back. Did Binns have the numbers to make this list? Yeah. He had 888 receiving yards and, most impressively, 11 touchdown grabs. So why did he just miss?
Three things went into my reasoning. First, it's clear that Binns was the No. 2 receiver on that team behind Mardy Gilyard and got a lot of open looks because of that. Secondly, though he had a great season, he wasn't dominant. He had only three games in which he had more than 100 yards receiving. And finally, though you may disagree, Cincinnati's offense does inflate statistics -- the Bearcats passed the ball 57 percent of the time in 2009, which was a far higher percentage than any other team in the Big East.
For an example of how Kelly's offense can inflate receiver numbers I present this example: Marcus Barnett. He had a freshman year that was arguably better than Binns, catching a school record 13 touchdown passes and 862 yards overall. Yet, he has barely been heard from in the two years since as he fell out of favor with Kelly.
I don't mean this to sound critical of Binns, because he's a terrific talent who's got a world of potential. I will agree that perhaps he should have been in the Top 30 somewhere, and I can assure you he'll be there in the preseason list. But I don't see him as the slam-dunk postseason pick like many of you do.
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigeast
Bob from New Brunswick, N.J., writes: Your top 30 has seven Pitt players, but only three Cincinnati players. Even among those who just missed, you mention five Panthers and only two Bearcats. Yet Cincy was better over the course of the season. Is this perhaps a reflection on a difference in coaching, or is there another explanation?
Brian Bennett: Yes, this was the most frequently e-mailed comment/complaint. Where were all the Cincinnati players? Look, there's no denying that the Bearcats had the best team, as evidenced by their 12-0 record. But this is a top 30 list of individual players. Cincinnati was extremely well-coached and executed its system to near perfection offensively, and if this were, say, a Top 50 list, its players would be all over the list.
I just didn't think that Cincinnati necessarily had the best individual talent. I've explained that Zach Collaros just didn't play enough games for me to put him on the postseason list. Five Bearcats players made the All-Big East first team; the only two I didn't include were Aaron Webster and Chris Jurek. Webster was an extremely close call, but with the way the defense played down the stretch, he missed the cut for me. Jurek was a terrific college player, but I'm not sure how much future potential he has.
Perhaps I'll look stupid in a few years when a boatload of players from the '09 Bearcats are starring in the NFL. But to me it seemed like Brian Kelly had a few superstars and a whole bunch of really, really good players who did everything right.
Of course, there's one guy from that team whom many people thought I misfired on ...
Jesuit Educated from North Bend, Ohio, writes: To exclude Armon Binns from your 2009 Big East Top 30 players by suggesting Cincinnati's offense inflates receivers' statistics is bemusing at best and stupid at worst. By your logic, albeit flawed, Dion Lewis's statistics are inflated given he had 68 percent of Pitt's rushing attempts. Mr. Binns's receptions accounted for less than 20 percent of Cincinnati's total receptions of 311. He also scored every 5.5 times he touched the ball compared to Mr. Lewis's 19-to-1 ratio.While I am not at all suggesting Mr. Binns should be the Big East's top player, I am suggesting your credibility as as a football reporter/pundit/talent judge is suspicious when Mr. Binns is excluded from your Top 30 while the two wide receivers from Rutgers and the wide receiver from Connecticut are included.
Brian Bennett: Well, first of all I don't really buy your comparative stats since by nature a receiver touches the ball far fewer times than a running back. Did Binns have the numbers to make this list? Yeah. He had 888 receiving yards and, most impressively, 11 touchdown grabs. So why did he just miss?
Three things went into my reasoning. First, it's clear that Binns was the No. 2 receiver on that team behind Mardy Gilyard and got a lot of open looks because of that. Secondly, though he had a great season, he wasn't dominant. He had only three games in which he had more than 100 yards receiving. And finally, though you may disagree, Cincinnati's offense does inflate statistics -- the Bearcats passed the ball 57 percent of the time in 2009, which was a far higher percentage than any other team in the Big East.
For an example of how Kelly's offense can inflate receiver numbers I present this example: Marcus Barnett. He had a freshman year that was arguably better than Binns, catching a school record 13 touchdown passes and 862 yards overall. Yet, he has barely been heard from in the two years since as he fell out of favor with Kelly.
I don't mean this to sound critical of Binns, because he's a terrific talent who's got a world of potential. I will agree that perhaps he should have been in the Top 30 somewhere, and I can assure you he'll be there in the preseason list. But I don't see him as the slam-dunk postseason pick like many of you do.
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigeast