The Hotline mailbag publishes weekly. Send questions to [email protected] 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.
Do you think the Big Ten will ever follow the SEC and adopt a conference schedule with three protected games? — @KwadeSays
That would ensure the four West Coast schools play each other every year, which the Hotline fully supports. But the conference has a math problem that can only be solved with a major structural change to the schedule.
First, the SEC’s easy math: With 16 teams, nine conference games and three protected opponents, every school plays each of the other 12 teams every-other-year (or twice in a four-year cycle).
That works because six annual rotating opponents fit nicely into the six slots not blocked for the three permanent opponents.
But the Big Ten has 18 teams and nine conference games. If three slots are blocked for the permanent opponents, that leaves six openings for a pool of 14 rotating teams, and 14 isn’t cleanly divisible by six.
Now, if the Big Ten played a 10-game conference schedule, the math changes: Three spots for permanent foes, seven spots for the 14 rotating opponents, played in every-other-year fashion.
Would the Big Ten possibly move to a 10-game conference schedule?
We haven’t heard of substantive discussions.
But 10 conference games would be an improvement over the current situation, with nine league games and too many teams stocking their non-conference schedules with three cupcakes (hello, Penn State and Indiana).
The key number is 10.
Schools in the ACC, Big 12 and SEC have committed to play 10 games against Power Four teams each year (through conference and non-conference matchups). The Big Ten has not, and it’s a bad look — just as the SEC playing eight league games for all those years was a bad look.
Maybe the Big Ten and SEC will agree to an in-season series.
Maybe the Big Ten will require its membership to play 10 Power Four opponents (nine within the conference, one outside the conference).
Or maybe it will add a 10th conference game (doubtful).
The scheduling landscape is extremely fluid. But based on the current structure, a model with three permanent opponents would be difficult for the Big Ten to create.
Granted, Stanford is struggling right now. But doesn’t it seem odd that the Big Ten didn’t take the Cardinal along with USC back in the summer of 2022? That would have given the conference both of the big California media markets. Meanwhile, the Pac-12 would’ve retained the L.A. market and survived. — @DonLoving18
In many ways, everyone would have been better off under that scenario.
The Big Ten would have taken two private schools, thus avoiding the bureaucratic issues with the University of California Regents that accompanied UCLA’s move (and thus saved the Bruins $10 million annually).
And yes, the Bay Area media market, with all the access to major tech companies, would have been added to the Big Ten’s footprint.
And the Pac-12 would have survived.
But Fox was the prime driver of the realignment decision. It effectively owns the Big Ten through its majority stake in the Big Ten Network, which holds the conference’s grant-of-rights.
By adding both UCLA and USC, Fox was able to box ESPN out of the second-largest media market in the country.
Did Fox care about creating an existential crisis for the Pac-12? Nope. And neither, it seems, did the Big Ten presidents who approved the deal.
Another factor: The Trojans wanted UCLA to accompany them. The schools might be rivals on the field, but they are institutional partners at the highest level, at least with regard to athletics.
Would USC have made the move with Stanford? We can’t state definitively either way, but the Trojans’ preference was a component to the ultimate decision by Fox and the schools.
Had Big Ten expansion to the West Coast unfolded in the early-to-mid-2010s, Stanford and Cal would have been vastly more attractive candidates — the six-school western arm that makes so much sense might have become a reality.
But the Bay Area duo had become largely irrelevant by the early 2020s, mostly due to terrible leadership and institutional indifference.
When it came time for Big Ten expansion, Fox had no interest in spending a dime on the Cardinal and Bears, even though Big Ten invitations would have made the most sense on multiple fronts and been, by far, the best outcome for the athletes in all sports.
With six western schools and the resulting intra-region game inventory, there would be far less cross-country travel for both the newcomers and the 14 continuing members.
Are the merger talks between Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) and Paramount holding up a potential media deal between the Turner networks and the Pac-12? — @ColAthAdv_Will
For those unfamiliar, Paramount Skydance, which owns CBS, reportedly plans to make an all-cash offer to purchase WBD, which owns TNT and TBS.
So yes, it’s easy to conclude the corporate developments are impacting Pac-12 media rights negotiations. The conference has deals with CBS and The CW and wants at least one more partner. WBD is believed to be an option.
But is that the right conclusion?
We have not confirmed that corporate merger talks are delaying the next phase of the conference’s media deal. (The circle of conference and campus officials who are privy to that level of detail is extremely tight.)
Keep the timeframe in mind: The CBS partnership was announced in late June. The CW piece was finalized two months later. If that timeframe holds, phase three would not be wrapped up until late October.
In the two weeks since the merger news broke, Paramount reportedly has not approached WBD with a formal offer. It would be unwise for WBD executives to presume success — they must move forward with media rights negotiations regardless, in our view.
Also, keep in mind that any partnership with the Pac-12 would cost pennies compared to other media deals currently in the WBD portfolio.
While we cannot dismiss the possibility of the merger talks delaying the next step in the Pac-12’s media right march, the delay might not be a delay at all. It might simply track with the timeframe between the deals with CBS and The CW.
Will the top college football brands insist on switching to the Major League Baseball model when the next round of TV contract negotiations come up? — @TerryTerry79
By “model,” we assume you’re referring to unequal sharing of revenue, with the so-called “big market” and “small market” divide. (MLB allows teams to keep approximately half of their local revenue, which includes the lucrative TV deals; the other half is pooled and split equally.)
And yes, we do expect that in college football, largely because it’s already happening.
The revenue distribution model established by the ACC in the settlement with Clemson and Florida State is essentially based on markets. Except local markets aren’t central to the calculation.
Instead, the ACC created what it calls a “brand initiative,” in which 60 percent of the total TV revenue will be distributed based on ratings. The remaining 40 percent will be shared equally.
The largest brands (e.g., FSU, Clemson and Miami) will undoubtedly generate the largest audiences and the highest ratings and receive larger revenue shares. They are the Yankees, Dodgers and Red Sox.
It’s safe to assume other conferences will adopt comparable models for the next round of media rights contracts.
In the SEC, Texas and Alabama will decline to share equally with Mississippi State and South Carolina.
In the Big Ten, Ohio State and Michigan will refuse to subsidize Purdue and Minnesota. (Buckeyes president Ted Carter suggested as much in a recent interview with USA Today.)
The Big 12 is devoid of big brands, which is both blessing and curse. But don’t rule out the eventual implementation of a performance- or ratings-based model.
The alternative to unequal revenue sharing in the 2030s is extinction. If denied the cash, the biggest brands would simply leave their current homes, destroying the conference structure as we know it, and form a super league of the top 28, 32 or 36 teams.
Do you think media rights deals in the future will get bundled, instead of by conference? — @NateJones2009
The Big 12 and ACC would love for the major conferences to negotiate collectively, which explains why Texas Tech booster Cody Campbell is pushing for a change to the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961, which currently prevents the pooling of college football rights.
If they negotiated as a single entity, thereby limiting supply, the Power Four could command exponentially more annual revenue from the media networks.
But the SEC and Big Ten have little incentive to play along. For the two heavyweights, a relative advantage in dollars (over the ACC and Big 12) is more important than an increase in raw dollars and leveling of the competitive field.
Put another way: They would rather have $100, with the ACC and Big 12 earning $50, than have everyone collect $200.
We don’t expect changes to the Sports Broadcasting Act. But if Campbell somehow succeeds, the SEC and Big Ten undoubtedly would consider drastic countermeasures.
Is the transfer portal leading to top-tier programs hoarding even more of the talent? Or does the portal operate more like a market system, moving positional talent from where it is abundant to where it is scarce — and thus leading to greater competitiveness? — Tim F
Yes, and yes.
We see two dynamics at play with the portal and NIL, which act as inseparable forces because of the way NIL money impacts portal decisions.
The talent is flowing upward and outward:
— The disparity between rosters in the Power Four conferences and everyone else (both the Group of Five and FCS) is expanding. That gap will only grow over time as revenue-sharing takes hold.
— The talent disparity between the best of the best within the Power Four and the next-level schools within the Power Four is shrinking.
Imagine the top tier of the sport as a country club. There are now more members than there were five years ago — a higher percentage of the sport’s upper class is able to join. But the club is less affordable to the middle and lower classes.
At least, that’s how we see the dynamics.
Admittedly, the sample size is fairly small. By the end of the 2027 season, we should have full clarity on the impact of the portal, NIL and revenue sharing on the competitive balance across the sport.
What the heck was USC thinking by trying to sell the rights to the Notre Dame game to Netflix? This appears to be a very bad look. — @SirTrojan
We had the very same reaction upon seeing the news, first reported by Puck, that USC had attempted to circumvent the Big Ten’s ownership of its membership’s media rights.
By moving their biennial home game against Notre Dame to Mexico, the Trojans would be creating a neutral-site matchup not covered by the Big Ten’s media deal. They could then sell it separately to Netflix.
That cannot have played well with commissioner Tony Petitti (or the other universities).
The only explanation for USC’s strategy is that an explanation actually exists — that a crucial piece of evidence currently hidden from the public would make the situation make sense.
Whether that element will ever see sunshine, we cannot say.
And if it doesn’t exist — if the Trojans simply went rogue — then it’s as dumbfounding as it appears.
UCLA’s committee of bright minds worked so hard on planning the future of the football program that it published a job opening to be the Director of… Baseball. In all seriousness, how shocked are you that athletic director Martin Jarmond appears to be making this next hire? — Will D
We aren’t shocked at all.
Here’s why:
— UCLA chancellor Julio Frenk, who has plenty of experience with major college football from his tenure at Miami, had two options: Allow Jarmond to take a leading role in all aspects presented to the public, or fire him.
Related Articles
Blue chip recruit will be on hand when Washington faces Ohio State
Washington’s Jedd Fisch uses NFL models to determine roster revenue sharing
College football picks: Georgia, Penn State, Washington, USC cover
Why Kenny Dillingham’s contract is a bargain for Arizona State
Holy Score: BYU-Colorado: First test for undefeated Cougars, QB Bear Bachmeier
You simply cannot remove the leader of the athletic department from any involvement in the department’s most important hire. His authority on all matters would be undercut beyond the point of repair.
And clearly, Frenk isn’t ready to make a change or doesn’t want the public to know there’s a change coming.
— Skepticism that Jarmond will, in fact, make the hire.
It’s not difficult to envision the five-person search committee identifying a few candidates, only to have three members (donor Casey Wasserman, former Warriors GM Bob Myers and current Commanders GM Adam Peters) make the final recommendation to Frenk.
In other words, Jarmond would play little to no role behind the scenes, where the important decision would be made.
UCLA fans distraught over the apparent influence Jarmond will have in the process should not presume that public appearances are the private realities.
Which game is going to be better: Oregon at Penn State or Indiana at Oregon? — @MrEd315
Had you asked this question a week ago, the Hotline would not have hesitated with an answer: Oregon-Penn State.
And we continue to believe that, just with a little less conviction.
Why? Because Indiana looked like a playoff team during its Sept. 20 obliteration of Illinois. Granted, the Illini aren’t nearly as talented as the Ducks. And yes, Indiana was at home, whereas it plays Oregon in Eugene.
But it’s not difficult to envision either the Ducks or Nittany Lions having the game in hand with two minutes left Saturday night and the Oct. 11 matchup at Autzen Stadium going to the wire.
Our preference would be two thrillers, not one.
*** Send suggestions, comments and tips (confidentiality guaranteed) to [email protected] or call 408-920-5716
*** Follow me on the social media platform X: @WilnerHotline