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.
The financial terms of the Pac-12’s media rights agreement with CBS, The CW and USA Network were not disclosed, which I have never heard of with a media deal announcement. Is it way lower than projected? Or are they possibly waiting until the Mountain West announces the financials of its deal first? — @NateJones2009
I seriously doubt the Mountain West’s media rights negotiations impacted the Pac-12 decision to keep mum. Could the ongoing litigation over the poaching penalties and exit fees have played a role? Perhaps.
But when there’s a shred of doubt, the Hotline typically leans into Occam’s razor: The simplest explanation is correct.
And in this case, the simplest explanation is the financial terms of the three agreements aren’t what the rebuilt conference aimed for when this process began.
Because if the revenue figure was worth celebrating, the Pac-12 would have found a way to leak the terms, just like every other conference in the history of college sports media deals.
Having said that, there is a load of context to include in our discussion, starting with the original projections and reasonable range of valuation.
Based on conversations with sources throughout the process, our understanding is the nine schools were given a wide range of media rights valuations by both the advisor on expansion (Navigate) and the advisor on media rights (Octagon). And those figures depended, to a large extent, on the makeup of the conference.
The projected valuation was not the same with Memphis, Tulane and South Florida (and perhaps UTSA) forming an eastern arm — and spreading the footprint across four time zones — as it was without those schools, for example.
What’s more, there was ongoing confusion in both public comments and leaked information over the projected distributions for the media rights component as opposed to the total annual payouts, which include College Football Playoff and NCAA Tournament revenue.
Once it became evident Memphis and Co. would not be involved, the Hotline set $7 million to $10 million (per school per year) as our projected range for the media rights piece.
Now that the process is complete, our hunch, per industry sources — to be clear: they have not seen the final contracts — is the valuation landed on the lower end of that range.
But even there, more context is required, for two reasons:
1. We don’t know the specific terms of Texas State’s agreement. The Bobcats are a partial-share member, but for how much and for how long? Whatever revenue they don’t collect increases the shares of the other schools.
2. Pac-12 Enterprises, the conference’s production unit, will handle dozens of football and basketball games for The CW and USA Network. The cost of those productions — it’s presumably several million dollars per year, at least — will impact the Pac-12’s bottom line and create a net revenue figure.
And in the interest of transparency: Our projected range of $7 million-to-$10 million per school was based on a net revenue figure.
(Over and above those components, keep this in mind: The Pac-12 is creating a performance fund in which postseason participants keep an outsized percentage of the revenue earned. That money is part of the annual total distributions from the conference, not the media rights revenue stream.)
Until there’s fact-based reason to believe otherwise, the Hotline views the entire pursuit with a dose of nuance.
The Pac-12 didn’t reach the media rights valuation level it sought, but every home football game will be on linear television. (Dollars matter, but so, too, does exposure.) Not being on ESPN or Fox is a miss for media attention, but the ability to set every kickoff time prior to the season is a hit for fans.
If we’re handing out grades, the Pac-12 clearly doesn’t deserve an ‘A’ or ‘D’. Whether it gets a ‘B’ or ‘C’ depends on the details that are not yet known.
With 16 football teams being the smallest Power Four conference, what number of teams do you think the Pac-12 needs in order to be taken seriously? — @brycetacoma
We’ll start by saying there is no football membership total that will elevate the new Pac-12 to the level of the ACC, Big 12, Big Ten and SEC.
The conference was relegated to the second tier the moment eight schools announced their departures on Aug. 4, 2023.
So let’s address the relevant question: Is there a membership total that would optimize the Pac-12’s ability to become the best of the non-power conferences?
The answer is, unequivocally, no.
It’s not about quantity; it’s about quality. The rebuilt Pac-12 is better off remaining lean and mean than adding schools for heft. Why? Because schedule strength and quality wins are vital to the College Football Playoff selection process.
In order for the Pac-12 champion to grab an automatic bid, it must be ranked higher than the winners of the American, MAC, Mountain West, Conference USA and Sun Belt.
That’s best achieved by avoiding low-level competition that deflates vital metrics.
If the conference cannot find a ninth (or 10th) school that maintains or elevates the quality of play, it should stand on eight.
If the Big Ten signs the private capital deal, does that lock in the conference with 18 members through 2046, or does it have a “pro rata” clause to add schools? — @JimSkin70758794
First, it depends on how many schools sign the private capital deal. USC and Michigan are opposed. If the conference moves forward, the 16 signees will have their grant-of-rights locked up until 2046, while the Trojans and Wolverines would become free agents in 2036.
(Of course, we aren’t certain the terms that have been reported to this point would be the same without the two blue bloods involved. It’s hard, if not impossible to believe UC Investments would value the conference in the same manner.)
With or without USC and Michigan, the Big Ten would retain the option to expand at the end of the decade, when its media rights contract cycle comes to an end.
However, the barrier for entry might be more difficult to clear. The proposed capital deal creates revenue shares for both the Big Ten conference office and for UC Investments, creating two mouths above and beyond the member schools.
Any additions would need to carry enough media value to make expansion worthwhile and increase the revenue for the 20 shareholders (or 18, if USC and Michigan aren’t involved).
Then again, newcomers could always agree to partial-share membership status.
Either way, the private capital deal won’t seal off the expansion option.
Leaving the Rose Bowl: Good or bad idea for UCLA? — @PDawg206
It’s not good or bad. It’s terrible.
The Bruins won’t attract more fans to SoFi Stadium just because it’s 14 miles closer to Westwood than the Rose Bowl.
Is the location easier for UCLA ticket-holders on the Westside? Yes, but it’s less accessible for all the alums living in the San Fernando Valley.
Also, the Rose Bowl is a piece of UCLA’s identity. Moving into an NFL Stadium that’s a few miles from USC will simply add to UCLA’s traction trouble.
In fact, it’s such a terrible idea that the Hotline believes it’s mostly a negotiating ploy to force the Rose Bowl to adjust the terms of the lease.
And we’ll continue to believe that right up until a move to SoFi becomes legally binding.
With UCLA leaving the Rose Bowl, do you see a scenario where the Rose Bowl game eventually moves to SoFi? — BakerMeow
Never say never in college sports, but that seems incredibly unlikely.
And we sure as hell hope it never happens. It would be like the president living somewhere other than the White House.
But if the Bruins do, in fact, vacate the Rose Bowl, there could be changes to the stadium’s usage to account for the lost revenue.
It’s possible Rose Bowl and Pasadena executives would seek events for the facility — perhaps concerts, or other football games — in order to make up for the lost income.
Let’s hope the situation doesn’t come to that, for the sake of everyone involved. And that includes college football fans.
Is Arizona State coach Kenny Dillingham staying or going? — @arizstatefan
Dillingham reportedly told his players and staff recently that he has no interest in leaving ASU this winter. That came as no surprise to anyone who has been paying attention.
Dillingham grew up in metro Phoenix and attended ASU — it’s part of his DNA. He made that clear last winter with the terms of his contract extension: Instead of seeking more money, he leaned into security and longevity with the rollover clause that extends the deal to a maximum of 10 years.
In all but a few instances, the Hotline takes a skeptical view of coaches who proclaim their loyalty and commitment. Dillingham’s situation is one of those few.
Unless something goes haywire internally (with the university’s commitment), we expect him to remain with ASU through the end of the decade.
After all, interested schools in the SEC or Big Ten cannot dangle a possible playoff berth, because Dillingham has already been to the CFP with ASU. He knows it’s attainable in Tempe.
By every metric, the SEC is deeper than the Big Ten. But the Big Ten is a competitive conference with good football teams, and not every SEC matchup is a battle between behemoths. Am I pushing back too hard on the pushback against the Big Ten? — Jon J
Our sense is the pushback against the Big Ten is partly, if not largely rooted in the conference’s CFP expansion ideas. Nobody outside the Big Ten thinks expanding the playoff to 16 using the automatic-qualifier model is good for the sport.
In that regard and others — for instance: the transfer portal window — the Big Ten has staked out positions that run counter to the other conferences.
It has spent an immense amount of time on an island in the strategic sea over the past year.
In terms of the competitive narrative, the Big Ten is accurately viewed as being at least as strong as the SEC at the top. But as the question indicates, the SEC has vastly more quality depth.
The middle and lower thirds of the Big Ten don’t compare to the equivalent teams in the SEC.
The disparity in depth could be on display when the CFP field is selected Dec. 7, and the change in the committee dynamics might help the SEC: Arkansas athletic director Hunter Yurachek has taken over as chair for Baylor’s Mack Rhoades, who stepped down this week for personal reasons.
The Hotline has long believed the chair holds considerable, albeit subconscious, influence on NCAA selection committees.
We saw that last year with the Big Ten receiving favorable outcomes at every turn while Michigan athletic director Warde Manuel was chair.
Will it be the same with the SEC now that Yurachek is in charge?
Why can’t USC work with the Big Ten to ensure that the years it plays Notre Dame in South Bend correspond with the seasons they have four conference road games? The Trojans could still play five conference games and two non-conference games at home. They wouldn’t even need to move the Notre Dame game from October. — Sirtrojan
That isn’t the issue. The Trojans already visit Notre Dame in the years they have four Big Ten road games. (For example: this year.)
The issue is the date. The Trojans want to move the odd-year trip to South Bend out of October, and the heart of conference play, to the early weeks of the season.
But that plan doesn’t necessarily work for the Irish, who have high-profile matchups on a regular basis in the first half of September and are wary of overloading their schedule.
(They opened with Miami and Texas A&M this season, lost both and have been in must-win mode ever since — not a scenario they want to repeat.)
USC-Notre Dame is valuable to the Big Ten and good for the sport. We don’t sense the conference office is an insurmountable obstacle in terms of moving the game as long as any change doesn’t cause issues for 17 other schools.
What are the chances of Cal hanging on to quarterback Jaron-Keawe Sagapolutele after this season? — @michael_budd
The Hotline has been of the mindset all along that Cal’s odds for keeping Sagapolutele, one of the most coveted freshman quarterbacks in the country, were better than the national media narrative suggested.
After all, Sagapolutele already experienced the transfer portal when he de-committed last fall, signed with Oregon, practiced with the Ducks (prior to the Rose Bowl) and then realized the fit wasn’t right and transferred to Berkeley.
He made the mistake once. Why risk another bad situation?
Sagapolutele went public with his commitment to the Bears on Thursday, telling Hawaii News Now: “I want to stay here. This is where I want to be.”
Could his mind change if a blue blood swoops in with a massive financial offer in December? Sure.
But we view that as the less likely outcome. The Bears will offer enough in revenue sharing and NIL deals to be competitive — there might even be a hometown discount involved.
That said, Sagapolutele’s commitment assuredly will factor into Cal’s decision on coach Justin Wilcox and his staff.
The Bears (6-4) could fall short of general manager Ron Rivera’s stated threshold for success (eight or nine wins).
But if the quarterback and the head coach are a package deal — we don’t know if that’s the case, but it seems like a reasonable assumption — then the guess here is that everyone will be back for 2026.
*** 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