The Hotline mailbag publishes weekly. 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.
If Boise State continues as the best Group of Five program, how long will the Broncos remain in the Pac-12 before getting an invitation to the Big 12? — @BakerMeow
This topic is a wormhole that leads to a wormhole that leads to a wormhole, and we are here for every step of it.
First, let’s start on a practical level, with Big 12 expansion: Not happening. At least, it’s not happening anytime soon.
The conference has a media rights contract that runs into the early 2030s, at which point the entire sport could undergo a massive restructuring. Could it add schools later this decade? Perhaps, but that’s not the most likely course of action based on present-day realities.
As with Washington State and Oregon State, the Broncos simply don’t work for the Big 12 financially — meaning, they don’t carry enough media value to trigger an increase in the revenue distributions from ESPN and Fox for the 16 current members.
Those schools have no interest (none, zero, zip) in adding schools at the expense of revenue. Any new member would need to pay for itself and increase the distributions for the other 16.
If the Broncos commanded a valuation that achieved those goals, they would already be in the Big 12. The same goes for the Cougars and Beavers.
The Big 12 spent months in 2022-23 devising an expansion plan, along with its media consultant (Endeavor) and Fox and ESPN. The conference would never have passed on a football program deemed accretive — that would have added value.
But the Broncos didn’t clear the necessary bar, largely because Boise is merely the 101st-largest media market in the country, per Nielsen data. (For context: Spokane is No. 66.)
The question does touch on a fascinating plot twist, however: What if the Broncos beat WSU and OSU to the Power Four?
What if the two remaining Pac-12 members are eventually lapped by a school that they help elevate by inviting Boise State into the conference starting in 2026?
We view that as a distinct possibility, partly because anything is possible in the late 2020s or early 2030s, when the sport (likely) begins its next transformation.
In many regards, Boise State is to the future of Pac-12 football what Gonzaga is to the future of Pac-12 basketball: It’s the tentpole program with a recent history of success and a national brand larger than those of Washington State and Oregon State.
Which means the potential for using the Pac-12 as a stepping stone is higher.
Granted, the Zags are more likely to simply pass through the Pac-12 on their way to the Big 12 (or Big East) because of their success, TV ratings and drawing power. (They sell out visiting arenas.) Also, because the Big 12 prioritizes basketball in a manner other power conferences do not.
Boise State’s football program isn’t quite at that level. But two decades of winning, which includes the halcyon years of the Chris Petersen era, have elevated the brand.
A college sports fan in Texas or Florida or New York would be more apt to watch Gonzaga basketball or Boise State football than any competition involving Washington State or Oregon State.
That might be hard for fans of the Pac-12 schools to hear, but it’s the competitive reality.
But in one sense, Washington State, Oregon State and Boise State — along with San Diego State, Memphis and Tulane — are facing the same existence, which is this: The College Football Playoff offers them an equal chance to audition for the Power Four, the Power Three or whatever structure the sport adopts in the 2030s.
The Hotline has described playoff expansion as the greatest competitive change in the sport’s history — far more significant than the move from the Bowl Championship Series to the four-team CFP in 2014.
The initial playoff format was an invitational that became increasingly regionalized. The expanded event is a true national tournament that, in our view, will dwarf the regular season in short order.
In that regard, the new CFP is an opportunity for schools in the ACC and Big 12 that have aspirations of eventually climbing into the Big Ten and SEC.
What the playoff could do for Boise State, it could do for Utah or Miami, for Colorado or Louisville. And yes, for Washington State and Oregon State.
Beneath the surface of their well-executed survival strategy, the Cougars and Beavers heaped significant pressure on themselves by inviting three schools with bigger brands (Boise State football and Gonzaga and San Diego State basketball) than they possess.
The newcomers add substantial value to the Pac-12. But if Washington State and Oregon State aren’t shrewd with hiring decisions and committed to resource allocation for their major sports, they could fall behind quickly and assume a secondary competitive position in the conference they salvaged.
Don’t think for a second that Boise State and Gonzaga are focused entirely on joining the Pac-12 in the summer of 2026. Every move, every decision, is made with the 2030s in mind.
With Gonzaga headed to the Pac-12 and Grand Canyon entering the Mountain West, are any more non-football-playing schools on the radar for the two western conferences? Are they both interested in St Mary’s, for example? — @mlondo856
Landing Gonzaga was nothing less than a coup for the rebuilt Pac-12. At the same time, the Mountain West was smart to add Grand Canyon, which was set to join the West Coast Conference but changed course and accepted what it considered a better offer. The Lopes have significant potential due to their location, resources and commitment to winning.
Saint Mary’s doesn’t have Gonzaga’s history of success or drawing power. Nor do the Gaels possess resources comparable to those at GCU. They are stuck in purgatory, in essence.
Frankly, we cannot identify a non-football school in the western half of the country that would be viewed by either conference as a must-have.
The Pac-12, which needs at least one more full-time member, has been clear in its strategy: The conference will let the ongoing media rights negotiations determine which school(s) to add and whether to increase its focus on basketball.
The rebuilt conference has established its foundation for the future. The size and shape of the house it’s about to build will be determined by discussions with potential media partners.
Can we stop calling it the College Football Playoff and use its proper title: “The SEC/BIG Invitational Pimped by ESPN”? — @bogeycat85
The frustration evident in your question is wholly understandable. The SEC, Big Ten and ESPN are the only entities that truly matter in the CFP structure. Nothing of consequence will happen to the event in 2026 and beyond without their approval.
Why 2026? Remember, the CFP format for this season will hold through 2025. But starting in the fall of 2026, in conjunction with a new ESPN contract, the details are undetermined.
Will it be 12 teams or 14 or 16?
How will the automatic and at-large bids be allocated? Will there even be at-large bids?
That’s all unknown, but the SEC and Big Ten will make the final decision along with ESPN.
And there’s nothing the ACC, Big 12 or Group of Five can do.
In our view, the selection committee is effectively working under threat this season: If SEC commissioner Greg Sankey and Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti aren’t satisfied with the bids and seeds for their leagues, they will move to establish a framework (for 2026 and beyond) that suits their purposes.
“This just has to go incredibly well,” Sankey said in October after a joint meeting of SEC and Big Ten executives.
Incredibly well for the SEC and Big Ten, that is.
Clearly the Big Ten and Fox didn’t want to spend an additional $60 million annually (in total) to add Stanford and Cal, comparable to what they paid for Oregon and Washington. From what I can deduce, the Bay Area schools are only getting about $12 million per year apiece for the first seven years in the ACC. Wasn’t there a number somewhere between $12 million and $30 million that would have gotten the deal done for the Big Ten and Fox? — Scott G.
As the Hotline reported in August, the Bears (and Cardinal0 have agreed to contribute back to the ACC a portion of their media rights revenue in the following manner:
— “67% of distributions of Media Revenue to Cal during each of the first 7 years following the Effective Date;
— “30% of distributions of Media Revenue to Cal during the 8th year following the Effective Date; and
— “25% of distributions of Media Revenue to Cal during the 9th year following the Effective Date.”
All in all, that means Cal and Stanford will be roughly $195 million behind the full-share ACC schools over the course of the 12-year membership term.
As for the Big Ten piece, it’s fairly simple: Fox did not believe the Bay Area schools were worth the (roughly) $30 million apiece that Oregon and Washington are receiving annually in media rights.
We were not privy to the discussions but quickly concluded Fox didn’t think Cal and Stanford were worth anything, because presumably, the schools would have jumped at the chance to join the Big Ten at greatly discounted shares — even $10 or $15 million per school.
(And if the schools didn’t do everything possible to gain entry into the Big Ten, that’s on them.)
Bottom line: As institutions, Cal and Stanford failed to prioritize football in a manner that would have enhanced competitiveness and relevance and made them attractive to Fox and the Big Ten — even at significant revenue discounts.
The price for neglect, apathy and indifference was a door slammed shut.
Is it possible for Washington State to attract a big corporation (like Amazon or Microsoft) to be a name, image and likeness (NIL) sponsor so that we would no longer lose our star players to bigger schools? What would be the benefit for the NIL sponsors by helping WSU? — @CelestialMosh
The companies must determine the level of benefit, but theoretically, the idea makes sense. After all, Washington State has a substantial presence in Seattle, where Amazon and Microsoft are based.
That said, neither entity is hurting for marketing exposure. WSU might be better off with a company based in the Pacific Northwest that could use NIL as a means of elevating its brand.
(Of course, the Cougars have undoubtedly pursued those options. We’ll see how the situation plays out over the next six to 12 months.)
But know this: Even if the Cougars land a corporate partner to bolster their NIL game, the issue of losing players to “bigger” schools won’t disappear.
We would argue that 90 percent of the 130-something schools in major college football, including Washington, are in danger of losing players — the players they want to keep — to the elite programs.
It’s the reality of the new era but not confined to the Pac-12 or Group of Five leagues.
When it comes to college football, how far away are we from a player not needing to attend classes at the school he plays for and having no limits on the number of years (or schools) he can compete? — @brycetacoma
My strong suspicion is the academic piece (attending class) will remain embedded in the sport for years.
However, we are fast approaching a tipping point for eligibility, courtesy of an ongoing legal case.
Related Articles
On CFB media: Fox’s depleted inventory options, the ‘Big Noon’ plan and Colorado’s lower but enduring popularity
Washington State and the CFP: Five steps to postseason glory
Week 12 picks ATS: Colo, Ore. cover (and win) while Boise St struggles
Rude welcome for former Pac-12 schools in their new conference: Officiating has been bad everywhere
Best of the West MBB power rankings: Zags, Arizona, St. Mary’s on top
Vanderbilt quarterback Diego Pavia filed a lawsuit against the NCAA last week arguing that his competition seasons at a junior college (New Mexico Military Institute) should not count against his eligibility clock — that they violate antitrust law.
The case could set a precedent for athletes to take the NCAA to court over the eligibility restrictions at four-year schools.
After all, the legal system has repeatedly shown it does not look kindly on NCAA rules created eons ago.
How will stadium income (tickets, concessions) from the four opening-round playoff games be split? (I’m assuming the ESPN money goes into a pot.) — Mike Stahlberg
Other than the sheer size of the new College Football Playoff — it will have three times the number of participants as the previous version — the most significant change is the creation of on-campus games for the opening round (Dec. 20-21).
The host schools will keep all cash from parking, concessions, etc, but the ticket revenue will be sent to the CFP for distribution to the conferences.
According to the CFP, the participation revenue will be allocated in this manner:
— A conference will receive $4 million for each team that makes the College Football Playoff (12 schools) and each team that advances to the Playoff Quarterfinals (eight schools).
— A conference will receive $6 million for each team that advances to a Playoff Semifinal (four schools) and each team that advances to the national championship game (two schools).
— Each conference whose team participates in the College Football Playoff will receive $3 million to cover expenses for each round.
(That payment structure takes what was in place for the four-team event and applies it to the 12-team version.)
To be clear: The financial benefits extend well beyond the revenue distributions from the conferences and the cash retained by the schools.
In many cases, the CFP game will be the biggest on-campus event in the school’s history, offering a massive fundraising opportunity for the university writ large.
Come for the football game, donate to the engineering department.
*** 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