With Michigan's 0-2 start, Lloyd Carr's successor has become a hot topic of conversation among Wolverines fans. John Biever/SI

Stewart Mandel's first book, Bowls, Polls and Tattered Souls: Tackling the Chaos and Controversy that Reign Over College Football, is available for purchase now. Order your copy today.

MAILBAG Submit a question or an opinion to Stewart. Your name: Your e-mail address: Your home town: Enter your question:

In light of the Appalachian State and Oregon games, did you regret using Lloyd Carr as an example of fans obsessed with firing their coaches in Bowls, Polls, and Tattered Souls (pages 91-92)? It was a great read, by the way. I'm waiting for your next book, so get on it.
--James C., Houston

Actually, I feel the opposite. One thing I was worried about with this book was that some of the material would become dated as soon as a new season started, but in this case, it's actually become even more relevant than when it was written. For those of you who don't yet have the book ... well first of all, what's wrong with you? (Just kidding. ... sort of.) James is referring to the chapter "FireMyCoach.com," which discusses the lofty expectations on coaches and the new voice of fans in applying pressure to embattled coaches thanks to the Internet. Early in the chapter, I include a couple of anti-Carr cyber-rants from Michigan fans during their then-unthinkable 7-5 season two years ago.

As noted in the book, it probably seemed absurd to an outside observer that a coach who had won 76 percent of his games, a national championship and five Big Ten titles would be subject to so much heat. But in this case, you've got to give those fans credit. The criticisms they were leveling back then about Carr's outdated coaching philosophy have now become evident to even the most detached observer out there, and the Wolverines' program is imploding because of it. Michigan's athletic department, however, is one of the few that truly operates in a vacuum, and all the Internet venting in the world isn't going to make a difference. There have been many other cases, however -- most notably with Ron Zook at Florida -- where fan outrage played a direct role in the coach's eventual ouster, and while I don't always agree with them, I do find it refreshing that there is at least one area of the sport where fans truly have a voice.

I once had a course in school where on the first day of class, the professor gave the students the one and only question that would be on the final exam at the end of the quarter. Stewart, would you care to attempt to answer a burning question which will be a on the final exam of most college football fans at the end of this year: Who is the better coach, Tyrone Willingham or Charlie Weis? Some interesting measuring sticks are falling into place -- both started three years ago at high-profile schools with the cupboard supposedly left bare by their predecessor. This year both play three common opponents, UCLA, Stanford and USC, and, of course, both share the Notre Dame experience.
--Tom, Gilroy, Calif.

I will accept that challenge, as long as I have until the end of the season to decide -- because I do think there will be ample evidence to evaluate both men by then. As was discussed last week, and as any Notre Dame fan will tell you, Weis' current predicament is due in large part to recruiting shortcomings during the end of Willingham's tenure. What those fans would never admit to, however, but what I absolutely believe, is that they themselves contributed to Willingham's failures. The class that causes the most retrospective angst among Domers is Willingham's 2004 crop, which was ranked inordinately low and, as expected, has largely been a bust. However, Willingham, who had only just finished his second season at that point, was already facing rampant criticism and job-security questions. In fact, shortly before Signing Day that year, a group of alumni from across the country sent a letter to the school's board of trustees denouncing the "pronounced and persistent deterioration of the Notre Dame football program," which included the line, "Although we continue to support [Willingham] and hope he succeeds ... absent significant progress in 2004, a coaching change will become necessary." Gee ... do you think that helped recruiting? Do you think Weis would currently be assembling the No. 1 class in the country if they'd written a similar letter this past January?

I bring this up not to completely absolve Willingham of his shortcomings, but to point out that perhaps there were extenuating circumstances that contributed to his performance. After all, he had no such trouble assembling his vaunted 2003 class -- nor does he seem to be having any similar troubles at Washington. Believe me, the program he took over in Seattle was in far worse shape than the one Weis inherited in South Bend. At the time of Willingham's arrival, UW was only 18 months removed from Rick Neuheisel's ugly ouster and had spent the past two seasons under the direction of an obvious lame duck, Keith Gilbertson. The Huskies had gone 1-10 the year before he arrived, not 6-6. For Washington to be in a position where it is now beating teams like Boise State and possibly contending for a bowl berth is a direct testament to Willingham's ability to restock the talent there and coach it up. I'm not saying he's automatically the better coach than Weis if he finishes with a better record this season -- that would not be a fair comparison and would discount Weis' previous two seasons. What I'm saying is, we already know Willingham was a good coach who had some bumps in the road. This is our first time seeing Weis handle adversity. We'll learn a lot more about him by how much the Irish improve over the course of this year.

Given the fact that West Virginia and Louisville seem to be searching for any kind of defense, do you still see them as the favorites to win the Big East, or do you see more balanced Rutgers and South Florida with the inside track to a title?
--Jonathan, San Antonio

I think Louisville's defensive issues will ultimately doom them. There's just too many good offenses in that conference -- much scarier than anything Middle Tennessee threw at them. West Virginia's defense troubles me as well, but only its pass defense. Its run defense is strong, and its offense is so scary, that to me the Mountaineers are still the team to beat in the Big East -- but not by much. It's becoming increasingly evident that Rutgers is the most complete team in that conference. It has a legit defense (though so do USF and, believe it or not, Cincinnati), an All-America running back and now, for the first time, a dangerous passing game. It would not surprise me at all to see the Scarlet Knights emerge on top, especially since they get West Virginia, USF and Cincinnati all at home. Conversely, of the top five, the Mountaineers play only Louisville at home.

3 of 4