Submit your Pitt football question

Q: Do you think it's time for the Big East to give Notre Dame an ultimatum to either join the conference in football or get out completely?

G. Simon, Houston, Texas

ZEISE: No, there are far more benefits to being aligned with Notre Dame than the other way around and frankly the Big East doesn't have enough brand name teams to stand on its own and start making demands. Maybe ten years from now, but not quite yet. And don't forget Notre Dame is playing against Pitt, against Connecticut, against Syracuse (and they wanted to play Rutgers but of course, Rutgers being Rutgers declined an eight-year deal to play four at Notre Dame and four at the new Giants Stadium because Rutgers wanted the games on campus, which is ridiculous. The amount of money and exposure and the guaranteed national television appearance which would have come from playing at Giants Stadium against Notre Dame would have been far more than any home game against Army or Morgan State or whatever rent-a-win opponent Rutgers wants to bring to its campus) -- so those teams are benefitting from being aligned with Notre Dame (you don't think Pitt's entire strategy for selling season ticket packages next year is going to be built around the Notre Dame ticket? And you don't think there is at least one guaranteed national television appearance on the schedule because it is Pitt-Notre Dame). The one or two bowl games every so often the Big East might lose to Notre Dame is well worth the negotiating power being aligned with Notre Dame has given them. Again, at some point, perhaps the Big East can stand on its own, but that time is not right now.

Q: Why haven't we seen Greg Cross more than for a few plays this year? Given that he is a junior college transfer and has lost a year sitting on the bench, it appears that we have wasted a scholarship.

Doug Damico, Bridgeville

ZEISE: I agree, it is a wasted scholarship right now but coaches took a chance on doing something different and really didn't have a good plan laid out. I also think circumstances didn't allow for them to do a lot of experimenting with him because Pitt was never really fully in control of any game except for Louisville -- so they were always in tight games and always trying to use their best plays/players to try and win them. I think Cross can still be useful and it looks like he could get some opportunities at receiver or returner next year but it is clear that the coaches didn't really know exactly what they wanted to do with him and that's not a good thing because it speaks to a lack of a plan.

Q: Is Pitt Football getting a reputation for squandering talent? It seems like the coaching staff is so paranoid and adverse to risk as to let talented players sit rather then play. i.e. McCoy would have never seen daylight unless Stephen-Howling got hurt. Same with Bostick, and Baldwin. A strong bench translates to a confident, deep and winning team. Your thoughts?

Greg Smith, Providence, R.I.

ZEISE: No, I don't think this is a fair label at all. I think early in Wannstedt's career he learned two things (a) your best players need to be on the field and (b) your best players need to EARN their way onto the field. He learned that you can't take highly regarded players and put them on the field if they haven't earned it because it creates a sense of entitlement and hurts work ethic (see Joe Thomas, early years) and it creates hard feelings among other guys who are playing and busting their tails and know there are better alternatives than the big-name guy who just got handed a position. Yes, sometimes it is frustrating to watch how long it takes to get guys into the game, but you'd rather make guys earn their spots than have them handed out before they deserve them. I think McCoy is a better player because he had to work for the starting job, I think Baldwin is too. And if you are saying that Pat Bostick would have somehow made a difference this year you are kidding yourself. And what exactly is this obsession with the back-up quarterbacks getting playing time? Teams that win usually do so with ONE quarterback taking all the snaps unless it is a situation where a team has two different players with different skill sets -- like Florida during Tebow's first season when he came in and did the running/spread type of plays. Bostick and Bill Stull are similar players, so why would you put the guy who got beat out on the field, ever?