The Hotline mailbag publishes each Friday. Send questions to wilnerhotline@bayareanewsgroup.com and include ‘mailbag’ in the subject line. Or hit me on the social media platform X: @WilnerHotline
Some questions have been edited for clarity and brevity.
I think the Mountain West gets $8 million from Boise State making the quarterfinals. The Big Ten has earned $40 million. Plus, does every team get a $3 million stipend per round for expenses that doesn’t go to the conference? Do the host schools not get that stipend? — @CurtisBlack
We’ll start the mailbag with this topic because the conclusion of the quarterfinals provide an ideal time to address the College Football Playoff’s revenue distribution formula. And because the process impacts every conference.
First, a reminder: The current formula has a two-year lifespan. It was implemented for this season with the expansion to 12 teams and will hold through next season. But everything changes in the fall of 2026 with the start of a new contract cycle with ESPN.
The network will pay roughly $1.3 billion annually for six years. Unlike the current revenue model, which is based on success, the next version will pay each conference a set amount regardless of the number of teams in the field or wins collected.
For the 2024-25 postseason, the calculation is fairly simple:
— Each conference receives $4 million for every playoff team and for every quarterfinalist.
— Each conference receives $6 million for every semifinalist and for any national championship game participant.
— Each conference receives $3 million for expenses per team per round.
(Additionally, there are base payments for each school of roughly $6 million, plus payments tied to contracts with the Orange, Rose and Sugar Bowls and a $300,000 per-school payment if certain academic standards are met. The focus here is revenue connected to CFP bids and success.)
So, let’s tally the Power Four conference earnings based on participation, quarterfinalists and semifinalists.
The ACC had two teams in the field (Clemson and SMU) but no quarterfinalists: $8 million.
The Big 12 had one team in the field (Arizona State) and one quarterfinalist: $8 million
The Big Ten had four teams in the field (Oregon, Ohio State, Penn State and Indiana), three quarterfinalists and two semifinalists: $40 million
The SEC had three teams in the field (Georgia, Texas and Tennessee), three quarterfinalists and two semifinalists: $26 million.
(Note: The revenue distribution model within each conference could vary. Most are expected to divide the cash equally among the full membership. But the ACC has implemented a “success initiative” for postseason competition.)
A few more housekeeping matters on CFP revenue:
— Notre Dame has earned $14 million thus far but, as an Independent, doesn’t have to share. The Mountain West received $8 million for Boise State’s participation as a quarterfinalist.
— All ticket revenue (for the opening round matchups and the neutral-site games) goes to the CFP, which then distributes the cash across all conferences.
— The home teams keep the gate receipts (e.g., parking, merchandise, concessions, etc.).
— The CFP allocates $3 million in expenses per participant in each round, including the host schools in the opening round. (The money is used to cover game operations.)
All in all, revenue for the 2024 and 2025 playoffs will tilt to the Big Ten and SEC because they are more likely to receive multiple bids and produce semifinalists and finalists.
That won’t change with the next iteration of the CFP, when revenue is guaranteed regardless of participation and success.
Starting in 2026, the SEC and Big Ten will receive roughly $22 million per school, with the ACC and Big 12 receiving about $13 million per school.
Put another way: The CFP revenue gap will begin to resemble a chasm.
With all four top seeds failing to make the semifinals, how much of an outcry will there be to change the format? How could the 12-team format be altered to remove the “rust” factor for the top-four teams? — @MarcSheehan006
There is already a significant outcry for change, although I’m not sure how much is a direct result of the, err, results.
The Hotline argued long before the quarterfinals that the format was all wrong — that the seeds should be based on rankings, that the conference winners should have home games and that the disparity in rest created a competitive disadvantage for the teams that were idle for 24 days.
(We repeatedly published columns arguing that Oregon was better off losing at least once, and earning the No. 5 seed, than it was winning out, and becoming the top seed. In fact, our first article on the topic was published Nov. 8.)
The CFP’s management committee assuredly will take a long look at the format when it meets in three weeks, but I would urge skepticism for those seeking immediate change.
Every conference (and Notre Dame) would need to approve tweaks to the format for the 2025 season, the last under the current contract.
But that’s not the case in 2026, when the Big Ten and SEC have outsized control. They could push for changes to the CFP’s format, calendar, selection process or number of participants — or all of it at once.
The Power Four championship games featured two former Pac-12 schools (Oregon and Arizona State), one former Big 12 school (Texas) and one former Group of Five school (SMU). This year’s Heisman Trophy finalists included three players with ties to the former Pac-12 (Cam Ward, Dillon Gabriel and Travis Hunter). Can we please stop talking about how great the Big Ten and SEC are? — Andrew C
You can try, but it won’t make a difference.
The Big Ten and SEC will dominate the national narrative, both during the regular-season and the College Football Playoff. There are many reasons for this state-of-affairs, but two are atop the list:
— Brand names
The overwhelming majority of schools with the richest traditions and largest fan bases — as measured by stadium size and TV ratings — are members of the Big Ten and the SEC.
Notre Dame is the primary exception, followed by Clemson and Florida State.
— Media partnerships
ESPN and Fox, which control the sport through their game broadcasts, studio shows and media contracts, are tied to the SEC and Big Ten, respectively.
Certainly, their financial commitment to those conferences is far deeper than to the Big 12, ACC or any Group of Five leagues.
In other words, the on-field results in a given year won’t change the narrative because the entities controlling sport will always follow the money — their money — and focus on the SEC and Big Ten.
You detailed the Washington and Oregon football schedules for 2025 against teams coming off byes. Are USC and UCLA similarly disadvantaged as schools new to the Big Ten and located on the West Coast? — @jkparker2000
Yes, the Hotline took a deep dive into the complexities of the Big Ten schedule for 2025 and focused on the frequency with which the Huskies and Ducks face teams coming off byes.
Our general conclusions:
— The situation isn’t quite as imbalanced as it appears.
— The ideal schedule doesn’t exist for the conference writ large .
— Of course Washington and Oregon drew shorter straws. What else did you expect after they joined the Big Ten as half-share members?
The L.A. schools don’t have the same issue, at least in 2025.
In fact, UCLA owns a competitive edge with a bye before its trip to Nebraska, while the Cornhuskers will have played USC the previous week.
The Trojans also have an advantage — two, actually.
They are idle before a home showdown with Michigan while the Wolverines play Wisconsin the previous week. A few weeks later, USC will be coming off a bye when it heads to Nebraska, but the Huskers will have faced Northwestern the previous week.
However, the situation reverses the following week, when the Trojans will face an opponent (Northwestern) coming off a bye.
So the L.A. schools are not “similarly disadvantaged.” Instead, they benefit from the conference schedule.
However, we would caution fans against placing too much emphasis on any given schedule in a single season; some teams will have more challenges than others.
If the same schools are disadvantaged every year — and we plan to monitor the situation — that’s an entirely different issue.
What name will historians coin for the 2025 Peach Bowl? A few suggestions: The Peach Bowl Fiasco, the Debacle in Atlanta, No Flag/No Blood/No Ambulance, The Injustice Bowl. — @TerryTerry79
Above all, historians will look back at Texas’ double-overtime victory over Arizona State as one of the best College Football Playoff games ever played, at least to this point in the event’s lifespan.
It had every element of a classic, with a desperate comeback, controversial play (see below) and thrilling finish.
Did ASU get hosed with the targeting no-call? Yes.
Was that the only reason the Sun Devils lost? No. You can’t lose track of the opponent’s best receiver on fourth down in overtime.
Does the loss diminish ASU’s season in any fashion? Absolutely not. The Sun Devils had an amazing year and proved they belonged on the same CFP turf as the SEC’s runner up. What’s more, their performance will help the Big 12’s negotiating leverage, as we outlined earlier in the week.
Finally, we’ll offer this nugget (unpopular opinion alert):
One could argue that ASU’s season will be remembered more fondly with the controversial loss to Texas than if the Sun Devils had won the Peach Bowl and been run off the field by Ohio State in the next round.
Because the Buckeyes just might be in a class by themselves.
Your thoughts on the targeting no-call in the Peach Bowl? — @Cargoman0363
My thoughts are the following:
— Most fans and many media members don’t understand targeting and believe the crown-of-the-helmet element is always part of the process. It’s not. The crown is only a consideration when the player is a runner (i.e., not defenseless).
— Arizona State receiver Melquan Stovall was defenseless, so the threshold for targeting was forcible contact to the head or neck.
— There was clear forcible contact, in the form of safety Michael Taaffe’s facemask, to Stovall’s head.
It was targeting. It should have been called targeting. End of discussion.
We haven’t heard anything about the ACC’s doomsday clock for several months. Did the problem just fix itself? Or are there any updates? — @CelestialMosh
Much of that discussion was tied to the lawsuits filed by Florida State and Clemson against the ACC in parallel attempts to void the grant-of-rights. The suits are winding their way through the legal system.
However, an important date is approaching on a different front: The so-called ‘look-in’ window for ESPN’s Tier 1 media rights contract.
ESPN and the ACC are expected to continue their relationship into the 2030s. But the very nature of look-in clauses for media contracts likely means the ACC’s stability will re-enter the public realm, either through reports by established media companies or speculation on social media.
After that window, the focus will shift back to the lawsuits.
Will the Pac-12 hold its basketball championships in Las Vegas? — @KoolEconomics
That is one of many issues expected to be discussed in detail this winter and spring, with a resolution likely coming by the summer.
The most pressing topics, of course, are identifying the eighth full-time member and signing a media rights agreement. We expect those momentous matters to be finalized in several months.
But there are a slew of secondary issues, including the number of sports sponsored by the rebuilt conference, whether to stage a football championship game and the locations of the men’s and women’s basketball tournaments.
Don’t be surprised if the conference opts for rotating sites — there are plenty of NBA arenas in the Pac-12’s footprint — but our hunch is the tournaments will remain in Las Vegas.
*** Send suggestions, comments and tips (confidentiality guaranteed) to wilnerhotline@bayareanewsgroup.com or call 408-920-5716
*** Follow me on the social media platform X: @WilnerHotline