Mailbag: Coaches support a 24-team CFP (a good reason to not expand), Group of Six breakaway(?), what-if with the Pac-12/MW and more
The Hotline mailbag publishes weekly. Send questions to wilnerhotline@
And if you missed it, last week’s mailbag examined the stalemate between the SEC and Big Ten over playoff expansion and the behind-the-scenes influence of ESPN and Fox.
What should we make of the coaches backing the 24-team playoff? And how many teams does the Group of Six get in that format? — H Hughes
Postseason expansion dominated much of April and is doing the same with the first half of May. The same week the NCAA Tournament formally (and unfortunately) became a 76-team event, the College Football Playoff took an unofficial but significant step toward doubling in size.
The American Football Coaches Association (AFCA) voted in favor of a 24-team field, the elimination of conference championship games and ending the CFP earlier in January, according to a Yahoo report Tuesday.
In reality, only the Big Ten and SEC have the authority to make changes, although they are required to consult with the other conferences. But the AFCA isn’t without influence, and news of its position reverberated through college football until March Madness intervened with news of its own Thursday morning.
That’s unfortunate, because coaches are perhaps the one industry cohort that should have no influence on major strategic decisions. None, zero, zip.
Coaches will support any policy that helps them win games and remain employed. The greater good simply isn’t on their radar— most of them don’t even recognize there’s a distinction between the greater good and their needs.
Of course they want a 24-team playoff. The larger the field, the better their chances to qualify. And if they qualify, job security and performance bonuses follow.
Never mind that fans don’t want a 24-team playoff.
Or that the bloated version could undermine the drama of the regular season.
Or that no other sports league in the country would triple the size of its tournament (from four teams to 12) and then, after just two years, approve another massive change.
Remember, the coaches also pushed for the early-signing window in December, which created all sorts of cascading issues.
And for the January transfer window, which led to the sport’s version of free agency during the playoff.
Were the Hotline in charge of the sport, we would ask the coaches for formal recommendations on policy and strategy, then do the opposite in many cases.
Yes, the national championship game should be played as early in January as possible, partly to limit the overlap with the oxygen-sucking, attention-gobbling NFL playoffs and partly because the event is just too damn long: Next season, for example, the 12-team CFP begins Dec. 18 and ends Jan. 25.
But the AFCA’s recommendation to end the playoff earlier conveniently ignored perhaps the most vexing piece of the calendar change: The major bowls.
The only way to consistently play the title game on the second Monday in January is to stage the semifinals on New Year’s Day — that would presumably be the Rose and Sugar Bowls — and the only way to stage the semifinals on New Year’s Day is to move the quarterfinals to the Friday and Saturday before Christmas.
The Fiesta, Cotton, Peach and Orange Bowls want no part of pre-Christmas windows. But would the CFP take a hard line with its longtime partners and insist on the change? We’re skeptical.
Industry leaders have no problem pairing UCLA and Rutgers in the same conference, but they don’t have the gumption to tell the Peach Bowl to pound sand.
Unless the quarterfinals are moved, the championship game will remain in mid- or late January.
As for the Group of Six access to the playoff, we should note the AFCA did not offer a position on the makeup of a 24-team event. But it’s fair to assume the organization is divided on the issue:
— Coaches in the ACC, Big 12, Big Ten and SEC would prefer 23 at-large teams and one automatic bid for the best team in the Group of Six.
— Coaches in the American, MAC, Conference USA, Mountain West, Pac-12 and Sun Belt would favor 22 at-large teams and two automatic bids for the best of the Group of Six.
Again, the Big Ten and SEC have ultimate authority.
The current breakdown, with the Group of Six having one bid secured in a 12-team event, suggests two in a 24-team field would be the fair outcome.
As one industry source noted, “It’s an easy win for the sport.”
But the Big Ten and SEC have shown little inclination to support for anything that doesn’t better their competitive and financial position.
After all, that’s precisely why the NCAA Tournament is expanding to 76 and the CFP likely will grow to 24 in two or three years: Engorged by realignment, which was nothing but a cash grab, the Big Ten and SEC want more access and more money.
Whether expansion is actually good for the basketball and football postseasons — not to mention their regular seasons — is merely a secondary consideration.
Does college basketball offer analogies for the possible loss of interest in the college football regular season if the CFP expands to 24 teams? My hunch is that, like March Madness, the expanded horizon of championship hope would more than make up for any negative impact. — Scott K
This topic is highly relevant but also unknowable because the structures of the regular season and postseason are so different across the two sports.
The Michigan-Duke collision in late February was one of the highest-rated college basketball games in ESPN history (4.3 million viewers), and both teams were locks for the NCAA Tournament.
How many fans would have watched if both teams were on the bubble, fighting for a tournament berth in the equivalent manner of three-loss football teams squaring off in November?
Not as many, because bubble position in basketball naturally equates to unranked teams with loads of losses and, thus, tepid interest.
The CFP powerbrokers at least recognize they aren’t currently positioned to understand the impact of an expanded playoff and are awaiting more data. We suspect the decision-making process will play out for six months. (The deadline to inform ESPN of any changes for the 2027 season is Dec. 1.)
Here’s our hunch: An expanded playoff would do exactly what its chief supporter, Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti, contends: increase the quantity of meaningful games late in the season.
Matchups of three-loss teams (Iowa vs. Illinois, Missouri vs. Tennessee, Houston vs. Arizona State) would become playoff elimination games. Perhaps they draw 5 million viewers instead of 3 million.
But here’s the downside: Marquee matchups of one- or-two loss teams that are CFP elimination games under the existing 12-team format (USC vs. Oregon, Texas A&M vs. Alabama) would lose significance because both teams are assured of making the playoff field. Instead of drawing 7 or 8 million viewers, maybe they draw 5 or 6 million.
The tradeoff is risky. If the marquee matchups so vital to the sport’s appeal (with fans and media partners) end up losing value, the long-term ramifications would be immense.
College football cannot become a mini-NFL. It must maintain a distinctive feel and structure. That contrast diminishes with a 24-team format.
Would a supposed super league still be created if the Group of Six just agreed to take less CFP money? — @NateJones2009
Under the CFP revenue distribution model that begins in the fall, and coincides with the start of ESPN’s new contract cycle, the Group of Six schools will collect about $1.8 million per campus. That’s less than 10 percent of the take-home pay for the SEC and Big Ten members.
We don’t foresee CFP money, or lack thereof, as the driving force behind a super league. Heck, the Group of Six would not be a major factor, either.
Instead, the super league would result from the sport’s biggest brands deciding they are finished subsidizing schools in their own conferences: Ohio State no longer wants its media value to subsidize Purdue; Texas no longer wants its media value to subsidize Arkansas; and the blue bloods determine maximum dollars are available only through a breakaway.
(That could mean a 32-team super league. Maybe it’s 36 or 42 or even 48. But it won’t be 60 or 70 teams. That would undercut the purpose.)
The SEC and Big Ten used the threat of a breakaway to grab control of the CFP two years ago — the other conferences should have called their bluff — but the spark for a super league will come from inside their own ranks: Blue-blood schools frustrated by subsidizing their peers.
The West Coast Conference would be a good candidate to join the Mountain West and other mid-majors and cut away from the NCAA, form their own organization and hold their own championships with their own TV contracts. They really don’t need the NCAA anymore. — Larry E
They don’t need the NCAA, although life could be more complicated without the governing body. And to be fair, the NCAA does a first-class job with championship events in the sponsored sports.
But the Group of Six schools in football and the mid-majors in basketball do need a connection to the power conferences. Without that, their media value would evaporate, budgets would crater and a doom cycle would begin.
To be clear: A postseason basketball tournament featuring the best 24 or 32 teams from outside the power conferences would be compelling — just as a Group of Six playoff is enticing — but the event would generate limited dollars from ESPN or whichever media company wanted the rights.
That said, a structural rupture is coming to major college sports. The trigger mechanism? That’s easy: The expiration of the media rights contracts, starting with the Big Ten in 2030, that are holding everything together.
But the final form is not yet obvious. We suspect whatever takes shape will feature a greater separation between the mid-major basketball schools (and Group of Six football schools) and the top tier programs.
And we should add that some, if not most schools in the ACC and Big 12 are at risk of becoming part of the lower tier.
The desire to avoid that fate is fueling the roster spending spree that has motivated schools to seek new sources of cash — like expanded postseasons.
If the Pac-12 and Mountain West merged, what would have happened over the next few years? Would Gonzaga have joined? Would Washington State and Oregon State have used their war chests as a competitive advantage? — @cougsguy06
Never say never with realignment, but it seems extremely unlikely that Gonzaga would have joined a conference featuring the 12 Mountain West schools and WSU and OSU.
It would not have offered the Zags a competitive option that was markedly better than the WCC.
The primary reason Boise State, Colorado State, Fresno State and San Diego State (and later, Utah State) made the move to the Pac-12 was to leave the bottom performers in the Mountain West behind. It was about creating a more exclusive entity with better competition and more lucrative financial opportunities.
The same goes for the Zags. They want to move up, and a merged conference would not have provided that.
We are just guessing at the manner in which WSU and OSU would have allocated their cash in a full-merger situation. But it’s reasonable to think a portion of the war chest (more than $200 million over time) would have been used for talent acquisition.
Would it have been enough for them to dominate in a conference with Boise State football and San Diego State basketball? We’re skeptical.
Will this hentai virus affect how much Cal’s more anime-inclined football players are able to condition over summer? — @ToshingMyLupoi
Hopefully, the Hantavirus outbreak is contained and doesn’t turn into anything remotely resembling Covid.
Also, we get the joke.
Cal and Stanford arguably were impacted more by public health restrictions during Covid than any other schools in what was then the Power Five.
In fact, you can make the case that both schools would be in the Big Ten right now if not for the pandemic.
The Bears were on the upturn, winning eight games under Justin Wilcox in the 2019 season.
The Cardinal slumped in 2019 but was nonetheless relevant with at least nine wins in four of five seasons when Covid hit.
The pandemic crushed institutional and community interest in college football in the Bay Area for a multi-year period that coincided with the Big Ten’s westward look.
It would have made far more sense for Cal and Stanford to join USC, UCLA, Oregon and Washington as the western wing.
With more intra-regional competition available for conference games, the travel demands on athletes — both on the West Coast and on the 14 Midwest and East Coast campuses — would have been greatly reduced.
How many subscriptions will I need to see Pac-12 men’s basketball this coming season? Answer: The NCAA has screwed this up totally. Forget student athletes and just get fans to buy every possible sports network until they’re broke. — John P
That depends on how you receive content. If you have the cable bundle through Xfinity or Spectrum or Cox, for example, one subscription should suffice for Pac-12 conference games, which will air on CBS, CBS Sports Network, The CW and USA Sports.
Non-conference games played on the road (or neutral courts) are not owned by the Pac-12 and would be available through the media partner of the home team (or event host). That could mean subscriptions to ESPN+ and Peacock are required.
It’s a challenging situation for consumers that is getting worse as college and pro sports increasingly move to streaming services.
Sports fans need a streaming version of the cable bundle. Hopefully, that will arrive, in force, within a few years.
How come you don’t do a regular ACC column like you cover the Big Ten and the new Pac-12? — @alpha1906
Here’s the honest answer: The Hotline’s primary audience — that would be direct subscribers and our syndication partners — is located west of the Rockies. We simply haven’t detected a clamoring within the region for regular ACC football content unrelated to Cal and Stanford.
(The Mercury News covers the Bears and Cardinal, especially during the season.)
Now, to be clear: Issues that unfold at the conference level in the ACC are relevant everywhere, and we do our best to address those and explain their national impact.
For example, the ACC’s settlement with Clemson and Florida State last year was a major story that had sweeping ramifications, and we plunged into the issue.
Appreciate the question.
*** Send suggestions, comments and tips (confidentiality guaranteed) to wilnerhotline@
*** Follow me on the social media platform X: @WilnerHotline