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.
Say there is a three-way tie for first place in the SEC or Big Ten. Is there an argument to be made that a team would be better off left out of the conference championship game (due to an arbitrary tiebreaker), have the week off, presumably jump the loser of the title game and get a No. 5 or No. 6 seed? — Cole T
A great question that is deeply layered, and we’ll address as many of the intricacies as possible. But let’s start with the consequences of losing a conference championship game on a generic level.
Treatment of the losing team has been an issue since the College Football Playoff era began in 2014. There are examples both ways — with the losing team being punished in the selection committee rankings (following a poor performance) and with the losing team holding its ground.
Granted, the details and consequences were different in the four-team playoff era than they will be with 12 teams, but the basic premise remains: Team X should not drop below Team Y for playing a game the latter did not unless Team X loses decisively.
In a media webinar last week, CFP executive director Rich Clark addressed this very issue.
“It depends what the loss looks like,” Clark said. “But I don’t think teams will be unduly penalized for losing their championship game.”
(Define “unduly penalized” as you wish.)
The next matter is among the most fascinating within the new playoff structure: What is the optimal seed?
You could make a good case that it’s not No. 1.
In fact, the optimal seed might not be No. 2, 3 or 4, either, even though the top-four seeds receive byes into the quarterfinals.
Let’s use Oregon as the example and game out two scenarios:
Scenario No. 1: The Ducks win out, claim the Big Ten championship and, as the only undefeated team in either of the two heavyweight conferences, receive the No. 1 seed in the CFP.
First, we’d argue that entering the CFP with a 13-0 record is challenging unto itself because of the pressure and expectations that would accompany perfection. (In our view, the Ducks are better off losing once along the way.)
That said, a perfect finish to the regular season would send Oregon into the Big Ten title game on Dec. 7. Win that, and they would have a bye in the opening round (Dec. 20-21) and advance straight to the quarterfinals for a date in the Rose Bowl.
Following a 24-day break, the Ducks would face the No. 8-9 winner, which is likely to be a two-loss team from the SEC or Big Ten, or Notre Dame.
Either way, Oregon will be playing for the first time in three-and-a-half weeks against a high-level opponent that would have played just 10 days earlier — enough time to recuperate but not enough for rust to develop.
Scenario No. 2: The Ducks win their final three games, then lose to Ohio State (or Indiana or Penn State) in the Big Ten championship.
Given their No. 1 ranking headed into the title game, it stands to reason that with a (presumably) close loss, they would be the highest-ranked non-champion and receive the No. 5 seed.
In that case, the Ducks would play in Indianapolis on Dec. 7, take two weeks off before hosting an opening round game against the No. 12 seed. Win that, and they would advance to the quarterfinals and play the No. 4 seed on New Year’s Eve or New Year’s Day.
Beyond the immense benefits to the university that would come from hosting a CFP game, there would be significant competitive advantages to this schedule. The Ducks would never have more than two weeks off, thereby limiting the potential for rust; and they would face the weakest CFP team overall (No. 12 seed), followed by the weakest conference champion (No. 4 seed).
We’d argue the Ducks would be better off as the No. 5 seed playing the No. 4 in the quarterfinals — that’s likely to be the ACC or Big 12 winner (whichever is deemed weaker by the committee).
As the No. 1 overall seed, they probably would face a two-loss team from the Big Ten or SEC (or Notre Dame).
Now, there’s a third scenario worth mentioning — the scenario raised in the question above: Oregon loses once during the regular season and doesn’t qualify for the Big Ten championship game.
In this situation, the Ducks would run the risk of dropping far enough down in the CFP rankings that they become the No. 6 or 7 seed.
They would have three weeks off (not ideal) before hosting an opening-round game (phenomenal for the university) against the No. 10 or 11 seed (manageable), then have 10 days off (good) before playing either the No. 2 or 3 seed.
That final piece in the chain of events is critical. As the No. 6 seed, the Ducks would be slotted into the bracket with the ACC or Big 12 winner (No. 3), but as the No. 7 seed, they likely would be matched against the SEC or Big Ten winner (No. 2).
The competitive disparity could be significant — the difference, perhaps, between playing Brigham Young and Georgia.
All of which is to say the following:
It’s impossible to identify the optimal CFP seed at this point, but don’t discount the possibility of No. 5 being highly advantageous — either for the Ducks or someone else.
If Boise State (and possibly Washington State) were to make the CFP, how would that help the new Pac-12? — @CelestialMosh
These are two different outcomes with the same broad endgame.
Washington State (7-1) gaining entry into the CFP is extremely unlikely and requires a slew of beneficial results elsewhere in addition to the Cougars winning out.
In contrast, Boise State (7-1) is the frontrunner for the Group of Five berth and could, under the right circumstances, vault the Big 12 winner and claim one of the top-four seeds and the accompanying opening-round bye.
The short-term financial rewards would not be budget-altering because of the way the CFP revenue is currently distributed. (The big money is coming in 2026, when the next contract cycle with ESPN begins.)
But either team making the CFP would greatly enhance the new Pac-12’s brand at just the right time: As the conference negotiates a new media rights deal for 2026 and beyond.
We don’t expect the negotiations to conclude in the next few weeks, which means the CFP field will be set before the terms of any deal are finalized.
That won’t necessarily transform the agreement — it would not, for instance, result in a 50 percent bump in media valuation. But it would help on the margins, allowing the conference to maximize its leverage at the table.
And it just might make membership in the rebuilt Pac-12 more attractive for possible expansion candidates, perhaps including some schools that appear unavailable.
What is the level of disgruntlement of the USC football fan base? — @MarcSheehan006
On the 1-to-10 scale, it’s probably 12.
A substantial number of fans would welcome the end-of-season dismissal of third-year coach Lincoln Riley. Is the number greater than half? That’s difficult to say. But clearly, a majority are deeply unhappy with the direction of the program.
And they should be. After that sizzling first season in which the Trojans exceeded expectations, they are 12-10 overall, including a 7-9 mark in Pac-12 and Big Ten conference games.
In fact, their grand entrance into the Big Ten has been an epic fail — an embarrassment for the proud program and the university. Instead of standing alongside Ohio State and Penn State, the Trojans are looking up at Minnesota and Illinois.
That all five conference losses this season have featured blown fourth-quarter leads simply adds to the ghastly optics, and intense frustration.
Will the Trojans move on from Riley? They likely would need at least $75 million to cover his contract buyout (the details of his deal are undisclosed).
Because USC’s regular season concludes with its rivalry games in back-to-back fashion, with a visit to UCLA on Nov. 23 and then a home date with Notre Dame, the situation could resolve itself on the field.
Win both, and Riley assuredly would return.
Lose both, and the pressure to make a chance would be immense.
Split, and the complexity goes next level.
What is the definition of an “autonomous” conference? How are they autonomous? — @BillyBobV7
A decade ago, the NCAA’s Board of Directors agreed to give the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC and Pac-12 autonomy to create their own rules on certain legislative issues, mainly those involving benefits to athletes. (Examples would include rules governing resources for nutrition and mental health, plus cost of attendance, etc.)
Even with that restructuring, the NCAA remained in control of eligibility issues, the competition calendar, the transfer portal, etc.
And it’s worth noting the term “Power Five” (now Power Four) often attached to those conferences is not in the NCAA dictionary. Nor, for that matter, is the term Group of Five.
Those are part of the football lexicon that help differentiate between conferences in the CFP selection process.
Does the Big 12 regret not taking Washington State and Oregon State for those western time slots considering the Cougars’ success and the Beavers’ TV numbers being decent? — @stltalt
The Hotline would be surprised if any high-ranking officials in the Big 12 office, or on the 16 campuses, regret not grabbing the Cougars and Beavers.
That’s not a criticism of the two schools. We are just being honest.
Despite the solid ratings on The CW and WSU’s success on the field, nothing has changed in a manner that would create second guessing within the Big 12 footprint.
Related Articles
BYU’s spot in CFP rankings shows Big 12’s tough road to multiple bids
CFB picks ATS for Week 11: Expect BYU, Vanderbilt, Washington to cover
On media: ABC, ESPN bask in their ratings and relevance while Fox trails in both facets
College Football Playoff rankings: Oregon on top, Washington State makes the cut while BYU lower than expected
Pac-12 bowl projections: UCLA, USC head in opposite directions
Value and alignment were at the center of the decision to add the Four Corners schools 18 months ago: Competitive value (in football and basketball); financial value; and geographic alignment.
WSU and OSU simply didn’t enhance either component enough to warrant membership offers, and that remains the case.
The Big 12 and its media partners, ESPN and Fox, have managed the game inventory for 7:30 p.m. (Pacific) kickoffs without major disruption to their plans.
Would Utah and Brigham Young have preferred an afternoon broadcast window on Saturday instead of the 8:15 p.m. local start time? Sure. But that hiccup doesn’t even register on the Big 12’s realignment landscape.
There’s a world in which the Cougars and Beavers are part of the Big 12. But it’s sometime in the 2030s and would require massive structural change to major college football, including the dissolution of the ACC as we know it.
Are the American Athletic Conference schools still on the list for the eighth football team in the new Pac-12, or has that possibility expired? — @DonaldFarmer65
No possibilities have expired, folks.
Disregard any claims of commitment, or references to binding documents, by schools in the AAC or, for that matter, the Mountain West.
(Until the Mountain West signs a media rights deal for 2026 and beyond, its future is not secure.)
Not every outcome carries equal probability. For instance, we view the Pac-12 adding Texas State as more likely than raiding the AAC for Tulane, Memphis and USF.
But our recommendation to Pac-12 fans is to prepare for anything and everything.
With WSU and OSU at the center, Boise State as a tentpole football brand and Gonzaga and San Diego State on the basketball side, the conference is attractive to any school not in the Power Four.
*** 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