Some salty readers this week! Deep breaths, everyone ...

Gene Fadness in Boise, Idaho, writes: "When they play Saturday in Lincoln, their matchup will serve as another reminder that college football has moved on without them." That's got to be about the most stupid sentence in any article I've ever read. So, since college football has moved on without Nebraska and Miami, why are the sports gods at ESPN giving then a nationally televised audience? Why will there be 90,000-plus screaming fans packing Memorial Stadium? Say that the Miami and Nebraska dynasties may be over (as are all dynasties with increased parity and a playoff system) and you'd be somewhat right. But college football has moved on without them? Like I said, stupid. Insanely stupid.

But wait, there's more ...

V Scott in Austin, Texas., writes: Miami and Nebraska are still looking? FYI, honey, there are only three college programs that've won nine games every year in the last six years, and they're the FOURTH winningest school in COLLEGE FOOTBALL HISTORY. Who the hell are you besides some ACC wannabe?

AA: I'm Andrea Adelson, not a jar of honey.

One more, for good measure ...

Collin writes: Hey, overall good article -- by that I mean I respect your opinion. ... I do not completely agree that college football has moved on without Nebraska or Miami. ... Miami is still getting talented classes and the right coach can and will win there. As far as Nebraska, we still have the longest sellout steak in college football ... and one of the biggest fan bases in college football. We might be mediocre right now, but the right coach can win big at Nebraska. Our facilities our top notch, up and in the same level as Ohio State, Texas, Alabama, Tennessee, Texas A &M, etc. Blue-blood programs such as the eight, which includes Nebraska, have down periods. Blue-blood programs do not lose their elite program status. Nebraska, USC Trojans, Oklahoma, Notre Dame, Texas, Michigan, Alabama, Ohio State, in no particular order. These programs are elite programs that are a step above all other programs in football that do not have resumes to match these teams. Oklahoma was irrelevant for most of the 90s. Alabama struggled in the 90s and Notre Dame has been irrelevant for the most part since the late 80s and has been embarrassed far worse than Nebraska in bowl games. What is your angle with this article?

Adelson writes: The angle is pretty straightforward: Miami and Nebraska have not been nationally relevant since the last time they played for a national championship in the 2002 Rose Bowl. Since 2004, Miami's highest Top 25 finish was No. 17 in 2005; Nebraska's was No. 14 in 2009. Not once did I knock the history or the tradition, V Scott. When was the last time Miami and Nebraska were each ranked in the top 10, Gene? Nebraska has had more wins than Miami in the last few years, and seasons with nine and 10 wins are great. But none of you can tell me Nebraska today is what Nebraska was 20 years ago. Same goes for Miami. I love the passion and support Huskers fans give their team, but why is it that nine-win and 10-win seasons over the last few years have not been enough to keep everybody happy with Bo Pelini? Blue-blood programs may never lose their status, but they sometimes lose their way for a bit. See: Texas, Michigan.

Don writes: Bear with me as there are a lot of assumptions and ifs in this question. If Pitt happens to win out (I agree they are deservedly unranked at this point) and wins the division, only to lose the ACC title game to an unbeaten Florida State, do you see any place for them in playoff picture? They would be a one-loss team with 12 victories over UVa, VT, BC (beat a top-10 team) and UNC. Not the most impressive slate of victories, but still a dream scenario for any Pitt fan.

Adelson: I would have a hard time buying a one-loss Pitt team with a loss in the ACC title game as a playoff contender. First, the committee will consider conference champions. The Panthers would fall outside that category. Second, none of those teams you mentioned are currently ranked. Who knows what happens with the rankings at the end of the season, but Pitt does not have the type of schedule that would make it stand out from other candidates in the SEC or Pac-12.

Peter in Dallas writes: Andrea, Re: Miami, Olsen and your concerns about arrests. Just want to add some perspective to your recent blog post about Miami football. Since 2010, Hurricanes football has had seven arrests. Since 2010, Gators football has had 17 arrests. Since 2010, FSU football has had 14 arrests.

Adelson: So you want a gold medal for having fewer arrests than Florida and Florida State? Seven arrests is seven too many. Instead of comparing your program to others that are awful at keeping their kids out of trouble, I think a better measurement is to compare coach to coach. It should trouble any fan when one player gets arrested; especially when those arrest numbers start to rise. Randy Shannon got deserved praise for cleaning up the program's image. Miami can't let it slip, not when it past reputation leads to much harsher judgement.

Mike D in Hamilton, Ontario, writes: Thank you! Finally, a member of the media has said what I have been saying for years, which is the preseason polls are pointless for the exact reason you mentioned. Truth be told, I'd rather see the polls go away completely. They really are meaningless, and sometimes tradition is bad for the game. But if they must stay, I agree the polls should be delayed at least until after Week 3. It is beyond me how anyone can select a No. 1 team when not a single down has been played. If the previous seasonb is supposed to be any indication of future performance, then teams would repeat as national champions far more often than they do. What bothers me most about early polls is that the fashionable teams are given an undeserved advantage over other schools that have to climb the polls. And even then, those same teams are still ranked higher after a loss. Ridiculous. It's a boys club and nothing more.

Adelson writes: The College Football Playoff selection committee is doing the right thing, releasing its first rankings on Oct. 28 -- after Week 9. That is how it ought to be done.