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 you missed it, last week’s mailbag focused on bowl partners for the new Pac-12, the future of conference championship games and the Big Ten’s 2026 schedule.
If 80 teams don’t have a realistic chance to participate in the College Football Playoff, do they push for separate status in the form of a new subdivision between the FCS and FBS? The media and college football power structure is realistically catering to about 50 teams. When do the others say enough is enough? — E Thompson
The number of teams without a realistic chance is closer to 100 than 80, if we’re being honest about the balance of power across the ACC, Big 12, Big Ten and SEC, plus the Group of Five, which will become the Group of Six when the Pac-12 reforms next fall.
Put another way: Approximately 30 teams enter each season with a reasonable path into the CFP through the at-large pool. All 30 are members of the Power Four (and Notre Dame).
For the 68 teams in the American, Conference USA, MAC, Mountain West, Sun Belt and rebuilt Pac-12, there is just one bid available — it’s reserved for the highest-ranked champion of those conferences — and that will remain the case if the CFP expands to 14 or 16 teams next season.
Yep, one bid for 68 teams across six conferences.
And if critics of the current process had their way, the Group of Six would not be guaranteed any spots in the CFP moving forward — a cockamamie approach that ignores: 1) the value of Cinderellas to mainstream viewers, 2) basic laws of competitive fairness and 3) the legal system.
If the power conferences attempted to deny access to the Group of Six, they would get slapped with an antitrust lawsuit within seconds.
But should the Group of Six voluntarily withdraw from the CFP — a twisted version of self-imposed bowl bans — and form their own playoff?
Should they take a more extreme position, as posed in the question, and remove themselves from the FBS entirely?
Only the schools and their conference commissioners can speak to that strategy, but the Hotline sees no benefit, at least not in the current environment. (In 10 or 15 years, the circumstances might change.)
There is too much money and far too much prestige at stake for the Group of Six to recuse itself.
Everything from ticket sales to recruiting to media rights — and of course, postseason access and dollars — is based, to some extent, on those 68 schools being associated with the biggest brands in the sport.
That said, the gaps are expanding. And yes, the plural usage (gaps) is intentional.
College sports is a giant subsidy pyramid:
— The top 12 or 15 football brands generate the revenue that supports everyone else in the Power Four.
— The Power Four generates the revenue that supports the remainder of the FBS.
— The FBS generates the revenue that supports the remainder of Division I.
— And Division I generates the revenue, through the NCAA Tournament, that supports the lower divisions.
With NIL and revenue sharing as the twin propellants, the gaps are expanding between each of those tiers — even within the Power Four, although the rate of bifurcation isn’t as great within the Power Four as between the Power Four and the Group of Six.
Because economic pressures are soaring, the schools generating outsized portions of media rights and postseason revenue are less willing to share equally with their conference peers. And they are growing weary of sharing, to the extent they share, with the Group of Six.
This structural reality is at the core of the super league concept. Forget all the chatter in recent years about a 70- or 80-team super league. If it takes shape in the early 2030s, the entity would feature anywhere from 32 to 42 (perhaps 48) teams. The economics don’t support anything beyond that.
Why would the media companies pay top dollar to air Minnesota vs. NC State? The current Power Four shape already offers those matchups. Only by forming an exclusive club would the schools atop the subsidy pyramid receive the dollars that accurately reflect their true value.
At that point, the lower half of the Power Four would have more in common with the Group of Six than with the biggest brands.
Instead of housing 68 schools, the top tier of college football would have 32. Everyone else — the other 100-something in the FBS — would form the B tier.
Why can’t “schools” sign players to multi-year NIL contracts to eliminate the yearly free agency frenzy? — @mobility_mode
How close is college football, and college athletics, to having a collective bargaining agreement with the players? — @jimmy0726
Multi-year NIL contracts exist, but they are typically predicated on the player remaining at the school, not vice versa. In other words, the contracts cannot prevent athletes from transferring. They have that right, just as coaches have the right to leave one university for another.
There is only one way to end the free-agent frenzy in college sports: through a collective bargaining agreement (CBA).
The legal experts we have leaned on for insight — alas, the Hotline did not attend law school or business school — generally believe any CBA would require college athletes to form a players union. And in order to form a players union, they would need employment status.
So it’s complicated. Also, it’s the only way to clean up the mess college football has become.
The industry is a long way from taking the CBA plunge but also closer than it was a few weeks ago.
Why? The much-publicized SCORE Act was designed to grant antitrust protection to the NCAA and declare athletes as non-employees. Once it failed to generate enough support for a vote in the House of Representatives earlier this month, the advocacy organization Athletes.org released a proposed CBA that could serve as the blueprint.
Also, more college sports administrators than ever before believe a CBA is the best path forward — the only path forward, because Congress won’t help and something needs to change.
Rate the three coaching hires in the new Pac-12. Who do you think will have the most success? — @brycetacoma
There are different ways to judge the moves at Colorado State, Oregon State and Washington State. But if your standard takes into account a school’s tradition/resources and the new coach’s resume, the Rams clearly rank atop the list.
They are not a top-tier Mountain West program like Boise State or San Diego State but landed a coach, Jim Mora, who took Atlanta to the NFC championship game, won 10 games at UCLA and rebuilt an FBS bottom feeder (Connecticut).
None of that guarantees CSU will experience more success in the new Pac-12 than Washington State with Kirby Moore or Oregon State with JaMarcus Shephard, which brings us to the more appropriate discussion point: The relationship between win totals and dollars raised.
The fundamentals of coaching (evaluation, development, tactics) are critical, but so is talent. And talent depends on revenue sharing and NIL.
Even if Mora were capable of coaching circles around Moore and Shephard, it would only mean so much if the Cougars and Beavers have better personnel.
Which of the new coaches will have the most success? The coach with the greatest level of support.
Given the historical standards in Pullman and Corvallis across decades of competition in the former Pac-12, the two holdovers might appear to have the advantage.
But don’t be surprised if the Rams climb quickly in the new conference and, perhaps, overtake WSU and OSU. The Mora hire suggests they are fully committed.
What do you think about Washington State’s new head coach? If Kirby Moore does well, won’t he just leave after one year to the next big opportunity? It seems like the Cougars could be a rotating wheel in regards to coaches in the future. — @MistUncle
They already are a rotating wheel. Moore will be WSU’s fifth coach in eight seasons (2019-26) following Mike Leach, Nick Rolovich, Jake Dickert and Jimmy Rogers. With the exception of Rolovich, they left for a more prestigious job — it’s a credit to the Cougars in many respects.
The Moore hire attempted to account for loyalty. He grew up in Prosser, Wash., attended WSU games as a kid and, therefore, seems like less of a flight risk than his predecessors.
In seeking stability, the Cougars were willing to give on experience. Moore has never been a head coach; his learning curve is steep.
If he turns WSU into a winner sooner than later and leaves for a job in the Big 12 or Big Ten, well, that’s the price for success — a price the Cougars should be eager to pay.
Keep in mind that WSU isn’t the only program in this position. Washington could lose Jedd Fisch to Michigan; same with Arizona State and Kenny Dillingham. Only a handful of programs across the FBS are insulated from the whims of the coaching carousel.
In both the Big 12 and Big Ten, which play nine conference games, six teams are not bowl-eligible. That is the same total for the ACC and SEC, which play eight. How many more teams won’t meet the six-win standard when the SEC and ACC switch to nine-game conference schedules next season? — Jon J
Adding a conference game in the SEC and ACC essentially means adding one loss to half the teams in each league, but that doesn’t completely solve the math problem or answer your question.
A few teams might have lost the non-conference game that’s being replaced.
Also, some teams that lose the additional conference game will be bowl-eligible anyhow. It’s not a case where only the 6-6 teams are taking on the added risk; the 10-2 teams are doing the same.
All in all, we suspect each conference will have one or two more ineligible teams in a given year than is currently the case.
The system can handle a slightly smaller pool, even if the CFP expands to 16 and takes four more teams off the table for the bowl games.
After all, a handful of 5-7 teams are participating in Bowl Season this month after Notre Dame, Iowa State and Kansas State, which were eligible, opted out.
In fact, the opt-out issue could be a greater threat than adding a ninth conference game to the schedule for teams in the SEC and ACC.
With the recent news about Apple TV offering all Major League Soccer games to all subscribers: If the Pac-12 had signed the deal with Apple in 2023, would the conference be in the same predicament as the MLS is right now? What would that have done to the projected $50 million per year that the teams could have gotten? — @draywilson29
First, Apple’s proposal to the Pac-12 wasn’t for $50 million per school per year.
The initial annual amount was $25 million per school, with additional dollars dependent on meeting certain subscription benchmarks.
Those benchmarks were never made public, of course. But multiple sources subsequently told the Hotline the deal was framed in a manner that would have allowed the Pac-12 to reach the $30 million per-school figure within two or three years.
From there, it would have been a tougher climb to the $50 million range.
The other key unknown was the exposure component: Would Apple have sublicensed games on linear TV? That was discussed, but we don’t know how close the sides came to an agreement
The Hotline’s view all along was rooted in nuance.
The Apple deal was suboptimal for exposure and probably could have been tolerated financially.
The primary reason for taking the leap was to stroll arm-in-arm into the future with the most influential, innovative media company in the world.
It’s been said that if the Mountain West can’t pay UNLV and Air Force, those schools would leave. A date for the poaching penalty lawsuit has been set for the summer of 2027. Can they wait that long for the money? Or does the lack of any payments in 2026 give those schools an out? — @NateJones2009
Our view of the matter is based on the expectation that 1) the case will take many, many months to unfold, thereby pushing attorney fees into the stratosphere and 2) the best the Mountain West can hope to recoup is half of the $55 million in poaching fees.
The Hotline doesn’t view a court trial as the most likely outcome. We are solidly in the settlement camp. But when might that settlement occur? Perhaps this spring or summer. (The trial is set for July 6, 2027.)
It’s clear UNLV and Air Force will compete in the Mountain West in 2026-27, assuming the conference finalizes a media rights deal. (Don’t be surprised if the annual valuation is lower on a per-school basis than the current agreement with Fox and CBS.)
But whether the Rebels and Falcons are willing to wait for the trial, pay the attorney fees or accept less than the amounts promised — due to a settlement — remains to be seen.
Our only advice for fans: Be prepared for any eventuality.
Anytime you combine millions of dollars, lawsuits, realignment and university presidents, the endgame is impossible to predict.
*** 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