The Hotline mailbag publishes weekly. Send questions to wilnerhotline@
And if you missed it, last week’s mailbag examined the immense cash available to the 24 or 30 teams that could form a college football super league.
If the Senate passes the Protect College Sports Act with 60 votes, how likely is it the SEC, Big Ten, and Big 12 will immediately attempt to add ACC schools within the next six weeks? — @JimSkin70758794
Essentially, the question is asking if the Senate bill will spark another round of realignment — the very thing it is designed to prevent.
Alas, college sports is the land of unintended consequences, so we would not rule out the possibility.
That said, this is a complicated issue within an intricate, evolving, controversial bill. And we should step back from the details of a pending ACC implosion and offer some vital context.
Initially, the Protect College Sports Act, co-sponsored by Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Maria Cantwell (D-Washington), prohibited conferences with $1 billion or more in annual revenue from expanding. That was obviously directed at the Big Ten and SEC because they are the only leagues that meet the threshold.
After pushback from the two conferences, Cruz and Cantwell changed the provision. It now prevents any conference that clears $700 million in revenue from adding schools from other conferences that clear $700 million in revenue.
In other words, the SEC and Big Ten cannot poach the ACC or Big 12, and the ACC and Big 12 cannot poach each other.
Which means the Power Four would be locked in place relative to each other.
For this reason, there has been speculation in various nooks and crannies of the industry that Florida State, Miami, Clemson and North Carolina — the schools hoping to leave the ACC in the 2030s — would accelerate their plans and flee to the Big Ten or SEC before the PCSA becomes law of the land. (None of them are going to the Big 12. That would constitute a step down in revenue.)
However, there are several hurdles we should acknowledge:
— The PCSA is not expected to pass, at least not in the current form that targets the SEC and Big Ten.
It generated notable opposition in the Senate Commerce Committee, needs 60 votes in the Senate to clear the filibuster and then must survive intact through the House, where both the Speaker (Mike Johnson) and the Majority Leader (Steve Scalise) are from a state (Louisiana) representing a school (LSU) in a conference (SEC) that adamantly opposes the legislation.
If using a point spread to illustrate the situation, we would make the PCSA becoming law, with the no-expansion provision intact, a double-digit underdog.
There is also the matter of timing: Can a bill with staunch opposition become law in a mid-term election cycle? Because if the Democrats take control of the House in 2027, the odds of passage become that much longer.
— But for the sake of this exercise, let’s presume the Power Four schools become convinced the bill will become law later this year.
Would the quartet of flight risks in the ACC attempt to secure entry in the Big Ten or SEC within the next few weeks or months? Perhaps. We would not put anything past Florida State and Clemson. They took the ACC to court over this very matter.
And if you’ll recall the settlement terms of that lawsuit, the fee to leave the ACC drops substantially in 2030.
The cost to leave now, however, is exorbitant: roughly $950 million per school, based on the Hotline’s back-of-the-envelope math.
Now, you could argue that admission to the Big Ten or SEC is worth whatever it takes if the alternative is a multi-decade existence in the ACC. But particularly for the public schools, the price seems unrealistic, especially because the true cost would be even greater.
— Under the scenario laid out here, the SEC and Big Ten would understand the desperation level of the ACC schools and charge a premium for entry.
That charge, of course, would come in the form of a reduced media rights share — the same entry tax the Big Ten slapped on Oregon and Washington.
So Florida State and Clemson, for instance, would not only have to pay approximately $950 million to leave the ACC, they would then enter the Big Ten or SEC with just 50 percent shares of the annual revenue. And 50 percent shares of the annual revenue in the Big Ten and SEC would relegate the schools to roughly the same cash deficit they would face by remaining in the ACC … just without forking over the $950 million.
Now, to be clear: We are making a slew of presumptions, starting with the details of a revised PCSA.
But if there’s panic in the streets of Tallahassee, prompting the Seminoles (and others) to attempt to join the Big Ten or SEC before the bill becomes law, the true cost would land somewhere between exorbitant and unfathomable.
Which doesn’t mean we should ignore the possibility. It’s realignment, after all.
You have rightly criticized Senator Ted Cruz’s misapprehension that the SEC and the Big Ten will unify. What are your thoughts on both conferences expanding to 24 teams? Under this format, they could play all games within their own conference. You could even have 12-team divisions. The top 12 teams from each could be in a playoff in an NFL-style format. — John P
The standard conception of a super league has been wrong all along, in our view. Cruz and others have suggested it would arise from a combining of the SEC and Big Ten (and Notre Dame) to create a 35-team entity.
That doesn’t make sense legally, because it would be extremely vulnerable to antitrust litigation. Nor does it make sense financially, because the media companies would not pay top dollar to broadcast Mississippi State vs. Maryland.
The path to the jackpot is a 32-team league in which the blue bloods in the Big Ten and SEC leave their conferences behind and create something new, perhaps with the help of private equity.
But let’s say the PCSA somehow passes with provisions that block a super league but allow for realignment.
In that case, yes: The Big Ten and SEC could very well expand in the early 2030s, when the current TV contracts expire. (Those decisions would be made well before that point, however.)
From a numbers standpoint, 24 makes sense. Each conference could have two 12-team divisions or four six-team divisions. (If you add Cal and Stanford to USC, UCLA, Oregon and Washington, the Big Ten would have a western wing that makes far more sense than the current structure.)
And sure, the NFL-style playoff sounds great.
Essentially, you have described an NFL/AFL scenario.
But are there enough schools with the requisite value? To reach 24, the Big Ten would need to add six and the SEC eight. And there simply aren’t 13 schools available in the ACC and Big 12 to make expansion make sense. (Notre Dame would take one of the 14 spots.)
In fact, we aren’t sure there are seven schools that make the math work even at reduced revenue shares.
Florida State, Miami, Clemson and North Carolina are obvious. Beyond that, the pickings are extraordinarily slim. Cal and Stanford fit the engorged Big Ten geographically and institutionally but not competitively. Utah and Arizona State make sense if you contort the threshold enough. And there are no schools in the Big 12 that are considered must-haves by the SEC. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Keep in mind that the media companies, either this year or in a few years, will have to spend billions to extend their NFL broadcast contracts. The dollars remaining for everything else will be allocated to entities that generate maximum ROI.
If the power conferences get their membership frozen, what does that mean for the Pac-12 and the Group of Six? — @brycetacoma
This is yet another layer of the Protect College Sports Act: the implications for conferences not named the SEC, Big Ten, ACC or Big 12.
According to what we know of the current language in the bill — again: that could very well change during the legislative process — conferences that generate at least $700 million in revenue would be barred from adding schools from other conferences that generate at least $700 million in revenue.
No expansion within the Power Four.
But the Group of Six leagues don’t clear $700 million. The American, for example, generated about $150 million two years ago. And the rebuilt Pac-12 will be on the very same sub-$200 million tier.
That suggests Power Four conferences could add schools from the Group of Six if the bill passes in current form. And the only Power Four league that remotely makes sense for the Pac-12 schools is the Big 12.
But would the Big 12 add from the Pac-12?
There’s certainly a path for Gonzaga as a basketball-only member. But otherwise, Pac-12 schools would only become candidates if the Big 12 feels a need to fortify itself.
And if the conference doesn’t lose schools to the SEC and Big Ten, it probably won’t have a need.
Is former Texas Tech quarterback Brendan Sorsby draftable, even in a supplemental draft? Why would NFL teams want a player who might bet on a game and then sue the team/league if he gets suspended for it? — @draywilson29
The supplemental draft works differently. Any team interested in Sorsby must submit a bid: Team X offers a third-round pick for him; Team Y offers a fifth rounder.
The highest bid wins his rights and must forfeit that pick in the 2027 draft.
He has high-level skills, for sure, and teams in need of a quarterback might view Sorsby as worthy of a mid-round selection in the supplemental draft. (The threat of a lawsuit by Sorsby doesn’t exist because of the NFL’s collective bargaining agreement.)
But we suspect many will be wary. NFL teams conduct background checks that would make the KGB proud. They will have a strong sense for the risk level with Sorsby.
Seeking treatment for the gambling addiction doesn’t make him clean forever. He will be in recovery the rest of his life.
Why aren’t Indiana and Cincinnati in some kind of trouble for Sorsby’s betting scandal? — George L
A question many Texas Tech fans have asked: Why aren’t Indiana and Cincinnati being investigated by the NCAA given that Sorsby was gambling during his time on those campuses?
First, we should mention that Sorsby was long gone from Bloomington before there was a hint of impropriety.
Second, the Bearcats never had evidence of wrongdoing. Anyone who believes they would have allowed Sorsby to play despite knowing he wagered impermissibly has a screw loose.
There is no chance of schools taking that risk given the potential repercussions, which would be vastly more serious than transgressions related to NIL payments or tampering.
Nobody wants the FBI on campus.
Why can’t the March Madness concept of quality wins be brought to the College Football Playoff? — A Stevens
That is exactly what SEC coaches and athletic directors would like to know. They don’t believe the CFP selection committee properly rewards schools for the rigorous schedules and instead focuses far too much on loss totals.
(We agree. The final CFP rankings in 2025 effectively listed teams in descending order of losses.)
The process absolutely would benefit from greater emphasis on both qualitative criteria and transparency — two aspects the NCAA Tournament selection committee gets right.
However, there are limiting factors on the football side because of the nature of the sport.
In basketball, every possession can be reasonably measured: The offense scores or doesn’t score; the defense prevents points or allows points.
But how do you measure six yards on first down? That’s a successful play lacking a quantifiable result.
Also, there are fewer data points (games played, possessions, etc.) in football than basketball.
As much as we’d love to have a football version of the Pomeroy Ratings or the NET rankings to inform the selection process, it’s not quite as easy as it seems.
Why is Cody Campbell such a cornball? — @utahfootballgm
Texas Tech’s billionaire booster and board chair has become perhaps the most polarizing figure in college sports due to his NIL funding, support for Sorsby and influence on Capitol Hill.
Imagine if Phil Knight or the late T Boone Pickens had attempted to use their influence to publicly and politically shape college sports in ways that specifically benefited Oregon and Oklahoma State, respectfully.
That’s Campbell.
He’s definitely no cornball, but he is a hypocrite.
There is no other way to describe someone who claims to want to save college sports while also supporting the return to competition of a player who gambled on his own team.
Those things are inherently antithetical.
Sorsby’s return would have been a disaster for the industry.
Campbell, whose fingerprints are all over the Protect College Sports Act — especially the provisions that attempt to limit the Big Ten and SEC — is not out for the greater good. He wants what is best for Texas Tech.
And that’s fine. But he should drop the pretense.
Authenticity is always best.
When do you expect the Trump Administration to stage college football games on the White House lawn? — @schmedvig
We greatly appreciate the humor, and after the UFC event, there’s no telling what could come next.
However, the Hotline is skeptical about the logistics — a football field, with sidelines and room for fans, would simply be too large for the South Lawn.
The National Mall would make a more suitable location.
Perhaps the administration could arrange for Army-Navy to be played on the Mall given President Trump’s affection for that game and its prized place in the sports ecosystem.
*** Send suggestions, comments and tips (confidentiality guaranteed) to wilnerhotline@
*** Follow me on the social media platform X: @WilnerHotline