The Hotline mailbag publishes weekly. Send questions to wilnerhotline@
And if you missed it, last week’s mailbag explained the role Notre Dame could play in the formation of a college football super league.
What makes you think the Pac 12-Mountain West settlement will come in heavily under $65 million? — @willmbetts
Let’s clear this up immediately, because my comment on the social media platform X has been misinterpreted. (Shocking, I know.)
The Hotline did not, in fact, suggest the settlement terms of the combined lawsuits would come in “heavily under $65 million.” Rather, it said that I would bet heavily that the amount was under $65 million. There’s a huge difference.
To be clear, the term sheet has not been made public, while the long-form agreement hasn’t been finalized.
Remember, there was approximately $155 million at stake in the combined lawsuits — the poaching penalty suit filed by the Pac-12 against the Mountain West ($55 million) and the exit fee lawsuit filed by three departing schools against the Mountain West (approximately $100 million).
The parties reached what’s called a global settlement, meaning it covered both lawsuits.
A settlement that splits the amount 50/50 would result in the Mountain West receiving $77.5 million. The Hotline has spoken to several sources with knowledge of the terms and is confident (highly confident) that the amount favors the Pac-12.
Does that mean $77.4 million or closer to $50 million?
Did the Mountain West lose a close game or get blown out?
Based on the feedback received, I suspect it was fairly lopsided — to the point that it’s worth wondering whether the terms were available to the Mountain West much earlier in the process and the conference decided to plow forward, thus racking up millions in needless legal fees.
From our standpoint, the key question is whether the amount will impact the stability of the Mountain West. It’s probably too early to know. But those same sources believe UNLV will receive the initial $14.9 million promised in the conference’s grant-of-rights and little, if anything beyond that.
Will the suboptimal outcome prompt the Rebels to seek admission into the Pac-12? That’s unclear. The evidence suggests UNLV’s administration prefers to remain in the Mountain West and use the big fish/little pond strategy as a means of eventually gaining admission to the Big 12.
And don’t forget, the Pac-12 doesn’t view UNLV as a must-have piece to its new structure. The Rebels themselves are less valuable to the Pac-12 than the Las Vegas market. But the geographic benefits aren’t enough, in our view, for the schools to split the revenue pie into a 10th slice.
It’s not like there’s a provision in the Pac-12’s media rights deals with CBS, The CW and USA Network that permits the Rebels to enter the league on a pro-rata basis — that the total revenue will increase by an amount that keeps the other nine members whole.
UNLV’s financial impact on the collective would be extremely limited.
So let’s conclude this section where it began, with a forecast: The Hotline would bet UNLV doesn’t end up in the Pac-12 as a result of the settlement.
The Mountain West exit fees were $20 million for each of the five departing schools, and usually exit fees are settled for about 50 cents on the dollar. The poaching fees are an antitrust violation, so the Pac-12 pays zero. How much do you think the settlement is? — @RanchoDeluxe22
This is the most reasonable view — and the basis for my comment about betting heavily on the settlement amount being below $65 million.
Based on our discussions with legal experts unaffiliated with the case, the Pac-12 had a strong case that the poaching fees, which were included in the 2023 scheduling agreement, constituted an antitrust violation.
Meanwhile, there is precedent for settling exit fees for roughly 55 cents on the dollar.
That would leave the Mountain West with $55 million from the exit fee case and nothing from the poaching penalty case.
Maybe the former is a tad higher and the Mountain West walks away with $60 million. Our educated guess is the figure is somewhere in that range.
Again, was that amount available at some point in the past year?
Was it offered in mediation?
We’ll probably never know. But as always, billable hours are the big winner in realignment.
Any guesses as to what’s so damning in the Mountain West executive emails that the discovery was the impetus for a settlement? Juicy, lurid illegalities? Drunken ramblings? All of the above? — @BonitaVista1971
Not really, but discovery loomed over every step of the legal process. University presidents have no interest in their private emails going public, which is why the Mountain West initially balked at providing them.
One of the key moments in the saga came March 31 when, as the Hotline reported, U.S. magistrate judge Susan van Keulen granted the Pac-12’s request and compelled the Mountain West to make communications by the presidents available in discovery.
Per the ruling: “To the extent the MWC is claiming no control over the documents of a school’s Chief Executive Officer who was a member of the Board of Directors or an Officer during the relevant time period, that assertion is unsupportable given the significant role assigned these members in the Bylaws.”
A discovery hearing was set for May 19. The settlement was reached just prior to that date.
Anyone who thinks the Mountain West got the better of the deal (i.e., more than half the $155 million) hasn’t connected the dots.
The Hotline mentioned on ‘Softy and Dick’ on KJR radio in Seattle that if BigTen/SEC break away from the NCAA, there will be lawsuits for collusion. Collusion is not a legal term. Did you mean antitrust law? — @jimmy0726
I wasn’t speaking in formal legal terms but, rather, describing the risky conditions that would surface if the SEC and Big Ten decide to break away from the NCAA and implement self-governing structures.
That endgame is becoming more plausible by the week as frustration mounts over the College Sports Commission’s inability to process NIL deals at the rate desired by the two conferences.
Georgia president Jere Morehead has been open about SEC self-governance, and the issue was discussed at the Big Ten’s spring meetings this week in Rancho Palos Verdes.
Executives in both conferences are frustrated with the lack of progress on Capitol Hill, where the SCORE Act has been put out to pasture after years of lobbying efforts by the Power Four leagues.
Granted, breakaway can become more plausible without becoming imminent. The likelihood of it happening in the 2020s is considerably less than 50 percent, in large part because of the immense complexity involved.
One of the complications: Avoiding an antitrust lawsuit filed by some combination of the ACC, Big 12 and Group of Six based on the perception that the SEC and Big Ten are colluding to fix the market.
We aren’t predicting the legal merits of an antitrust case against the Big Two, just pointing out the issues involved in a breakaway scenario.
Do you think the legacy Pac-12 schools are mad about being roped into the Poinsettia Bowl? Could they back out of the game if assigned, the way Notre Dame refused to play in the Pop Tarts Bowl? — @Moneyline_RAY
In case you missed the news, the website On3 reported earlier this week that the Poinsettia Bowl might rise from the dead and host a matchup featuring teams from the old and new Pac-12: One of the schools now in the Big Ten, Big 12 and ACC would face the champion of the rebuilt conference (unless it qualifies for the playoff).
The Poinsettia, based in San Diego, has been dormant for a decade. But the concept makes loads of sense given the unusual situation with the 18 schools associated with the Pac-12 in its pre- and post-realignment forms.
We have addressed the predicament previously, but it’s worth repeating.
Because of uncertainty over the future of the College Football Playoff, bowl executives and conference officials opted for the path of least resistance and kept the longstanding affiliations in place. As a result, legacy Pac-12 schools remained tied to Pac-12 games despite being members of new leagues.
But the 2026 season creates a dilemma. There have been no membership changes to the Power Four conference, but the Pac-12 is adding six schools. They need postseason options, and one of them, the LA Bowl, has shuttered.
Reviving the Poinsettia offers a destination for two eligible teams. Effectively, the pairing would mirror what existed in the LA Bowl, which matched the champion of the old Mountain West against a member of the old Pac-12.
It would be a great outcome for the new Pac-12 by allowing its champion a platform to gain legitimacy against teams from the Power Four.
The legacy schools might not be thrilled. But any team slotted for the Poinsettia likely would have four or five losses and not be in ideal position to complain.
All that said, the traditional bowl structure is crumbling and needs an overhaul. But until the future of the CFP is decided, the situation is status woe.
We want tougher non-conference matchups. What if the TV networks included cash bonuses for ratings, and the conferences shared those bonuses proportionally to TV ratings? That might entice the best teams to schedule tougher games. — @news_bling
A version of this concept exists: The ACC recently implemented a revenue distribution model that rewards teams with the highest TV ratings. Essentially, it’s a performance fund that includes on-field success and audience data.
We cannot envision Fox and ESPN altering the current media rights deals to include a ratings-related cash injection.
Yes, they want higher-quality games. That’s particularly true of Fox and the Big Ten and one reason the network would benefit from a 24-team playoff.
Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti is convinced doubling the field size will lead to teams scheduling tougher non-conference games because they would be less concerned about taking an additional loss. Not surprisingly, Fox also wants a 24-team field (for multiple reasons).
The Hotline is far from convinced. Coaches and athletic directors would rather schedule three cupcakes, aim for six wins in league play and assume that 9-3 overall would be enough for a playoff bid. Taking the tougher, riskier road runs counter to Coaching Survival 101.
That’s one reason we view the 24-team field as a colossal mistake.
Which comes first: the completion of California High-Speed Rail between San Francisco and Los Angeles or Cal in the Rose Bowl? — @GregCrawford
The high-speed rail project was approved by voters two decades ago and is scheduled for completion in the early 2030s.
(related_articles location=”left” show_article_date=”false” article_type=”automatic-
We are skeptical about the timeframe, but the odds of Cal reaching the Rose Bowl within that window are even longer.
Here’s why: The Rose Bowl isn’t tied to any conference under the current College Football Playoff format. Instead, it serves as a quarterfinal host.
That would require the Bears to:
— Reach the CFP.
— Advance to the quarterfinals.
— Be assigned to the half of the bracket that feeds into Pasadena.
If you had asked the Hotline whether Cal qualifying for the CFP would come before completion of the high-speed rail, we might have sided with the Bears.
But actually reaching the Rose Bowl requires additional steps, of which one — the bracket placement — is beyond their control.
Thoughts on the top women’s tennis players using former Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott as an advisor to get a better percentage of revenue generated by the Grand Slam tournaments for prize money. — @paulmerca70601
If you are hoping for a sarcastic response, our apologies. It makes loads of sense for the players to make use of Scott’s expertise on tennis matters — after all, he ran the WTA prior to taking charge of the Pac-12 in 2009 and remains connected to the sport.
He’s much better suited for that role than he was for leading the Pac-12, especially in the later years of his tenure.
As we have written, Scott’s time in charge of the conference can be divided into stages of early success (2009-13) and late failure (2017-21), with a bridge period in the middle.
Scott was always about Scott, first and foremost. When self-interest overlapped with a strategy that was best for the schools, everyone won. If that’s the case with the WTA situation, his involvement could prove useful.
*** Send suggestions, comments and tips (confidentiality guaranteed) to wilnerhotline@
*** Follow me on the social media platform X: @WilnerHotline