The Hotline mailbag publishes weekly. Please send questions to wilnerhotline@
In case you missed it, last week’s mailbag graded each of the Pac-12 teams and the conference writ large based on the results thus far.
Do you think the 20-team cap mandated by the Protect College Sports Act will trigger another round of realignment? Is this language to keep the SEC and Big Ten from absorbing too much, or should current Group of Six schools be excited? — @occamsbogey
The Protect College Sports Act, which passed the Senate in late September, is jammed with requirements and stipulations that college sports fans care little about.
But the vast majority are interested in the so-called expansion provision because of the impact it could have on future realignment and the potential formation of a super league.
(That is the Hotline’s chief point of interest in the bill, as well.)
As currently written, the PCSA would limit membership in the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12 and SEC to 20 schools. Anyone wanting to move within those leagues would need to spend three years competing as an Independent. Clearly, it’s designed to tamp down movement and protect the ACC from attrition.
Why? Like everything else on Capitol Hill, the bill was crafted with self-interest in mind by various politicians and their donors.
The 20-school cap means there are six spots available between the Big Ten (two) and SEC (four).
But there are two immediate problems with the language: 1) The schools don’t want Congress dictating where they can and cannot move; and 2) More than six schools in the ACC are interested in eventually joining the Big Ten and SEC.
The schools, including Miami and Florida State, plus Clemson and North Carolina, have lobbied their representatives in an attempt to either remove the expansion provision or increase the cap to 22 members per conference. At that level, the Big Ten would have room for four additions and the SEC for six.
There is also a push to eliminate the waiting period (three years competing as an Independent) from the bill.
In terms of any impact on the Group of Six schools, we don’t see the expansion provision as helpful.
The ACC and Big 12 are unlikely to add a single school because no individual Group of Six football program has enough media value to make the move worthwhile.
Instead, schools in the American and Pac-12 need mass chaos on the higher tier to force the ACC and Big 12 into backfilling with multiple schools.
If a cap is placed on membership at the top of the sport, it could stifle upward movement.
That said, we do not expect a sudden round of realignment. The Big Ten and SEC don’t have interest right now, and the PCSA has little-to-zero chance of surviving the House, as written, when the chamber returns after the midterm elections.
We suspect the restrictions on player compensation will be lifted and the expansion provision altered or removed — or the bill will die.
Put another way: Whenever this process ends, the SEC and Big Ten will not be bound by 20-team membership caps.
And in our view, the window for realignment remains the early 2030s, when the media rights contracts holding college sports together expire as dominoes fall: The Big Ten’s media deal expires first (2030), followed by the Big 12 (2031), the College Football Playoff and NCAA Tournament (2032) and the SEC (2034). The ACC’s deal extends to 2036, but the penalty for leaving the conference plunges to $75 million starting in 2030.
In the spring of 2025, after the ACC settled lawsuits with Clemson and Florida State, the Hotline set the college sports Doomsday Clock for March 1, 2030.
That’s a few months prior to the expiration of the first contract (the Big Ten’s deal with Fox, CBS and NBC) because realignment moves are typically made well in advance of the start of new contract cycles.
All of which means that regardless of a 22-school cap in the PCSA or no cap whatsoever, realignment will start to churn in the 2028-29 window — but only in the darkest shadows, where all the momentous decisions are made.
How can Congress limit conference membership to 20 teams? That’s like capping the number of stores Walmart can have. Would it stand up to a court challenge? — @BakerMeow
Several attorneys with expertise in sports law have questioned the legal standing of the Protect College Sports Act on numerous fronts. Conference membership is one; limiting athlete pay is another.
More than any specific issue in the bill, this topic — why in the world is Congress meddling in college sports? — is the heart of the problem.
The industry could not police itself and is now experiencing the careful-what-you-wish-for moment. Once you ask Congress to get involved, it becomes the proverbial box of chocolates.
Also, it seems quite hypocritical for Republican members, purported supporters of the free market, to push for so much regulation.
But know this: The provisions designed to limit expansion and prevent a super league are the work of co-sponsor Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and one of his donors, Texas Tech booster Cody Campbell, who doesn’t want the Red Raiders (and other schools in the Big 12) to get left behind in another round of realignment.
On the other side of the aisle, Maria Cantwell (D-Washington) is working to protect the interests of Washington State and peer schools in the Pac-12, including Gonzaga.
The bill is entirely structured on self-interest, which makes it exactly like so much else on Capitol Hill and across college sports.
Curious for your thoughts: Washington State got left behind in realignment despite good TV ratings, yet two of its first four games were on broadcast TV. No legacy school can beat that. — Rob S
The Cougars were on NBC for the opener in the Apple Cup; TNT for their visit to Kansas State in Week 2; CBS for the home date with Arizona in late September; and USA Network for the Duquesne blowout and the conference opener against Fresno State.
That’s two games on broadcast networks and all five on linear television, which is first-rate exposure. Unfortunately, the Cougars didn’t take advantage, losing four and looking inept offensively in most of them.
(Not for nothing: The Apple Cup drew 5.5 million viewers in its stand-alone Sunday window on Labor Day weekend. The teams should play in that slot every year.)
To a degree, the media exposure speaks to Washington State’s value. It also reflects a challenging schedule, with three matchups against Power Four opponents, and the Pac-12’s media contract.
The partnership with USA Network, The CW and CBS means all home games for the conference will air on linear TV. No other Group of Six conference can make that claim. Of course, there’s a tradeoff: The Pac-12 doesn’t have ESPN as a partner.
Over the past decade, the Cougars have fared well in the ratings game — better, in fact, than some former Pac-12 schools that now have homes in the Power Four.
However, that doesn’t mean WSU’s media value supported membership in the Big 12 or ACC, especially when geography was added to the calculation.
The Cougars did not fit for a variety of reasons, and the same was true of Oregon State.
With millions of dollars and conference pride at stake — and with a College Football Playoff selection committee that focuses on losses — what financial sense does it make to schedule out-of-conference games against quality opponents? — Jon J
No doubt, Ohio State could have scheduled two home games against Mid-American Conference teams instead of the home-and-home series with Texas. But there are campus-level financial benefits (marketing, fundraising, etc.) to the marquee matchups.
That’s not necessarily the case on the competitive front: Texas and Ohio State arguably would have been better off playing two creampuffs than scheduling each other for the two-year series. And that is a huge issue. The CFP simply doesn’t place proper emphasis on strength-of-schedule — on rewarding teams for playing rigorous non-conference matchups in a fashion comparable to the NCAA Tournament selection committee.
Which is one reason you see so few of them, especially in the Big Ten, where five teams (Penn State, Indiana, Washington, USC and Nebraska) did not schedule Power Four opponents outside of conference play.
Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti said Thursday that if the CFP expands, his league would commit to better September schedules.
“We get the 24-team playoff,” he told reporters at a Big Ten basketball event, “you’re going to see many more competitive games scheduled.”
That argument is flawed. Deeply flawed. They could fix the problem without expanding the CFP: Just add provisions that incentivize teams to play tougher schedules … or punish the teams that don’t.
I don’t care about wins and losses or airline miles; I am concerned about the real costs of Cal and Stanford playing in the ACC: Graduation rates, time to degree, mental health issues. We need to end the nonsense and return college football to the land of the student-athlete. — Bill G
Some would argue that the student-athletes have never had it better: They can transfer as often as they like without penalty and receive unlimited compensation through revenue sharing and NIL (uncapped).
Yes, realignment has created ridiculous conference schedules and travel demands.
In some ways, the athletes are better off; in others, not so much.
With regard to Cal and Stanford specifically, we fully concur that life in the ACC is ludicrous, especially for the Olympic sports. The football teams make three or four trips to the East Coast each fall, but they last a maximum of two nights and include chartered flights.
Many of the Olympic sports fly commercial and spend three or four nights on the road, often traveling to multiple cities or college towns.
If you gave executives on both campuses shots of truth serum, they would readily admit the situation is nonsensical. We suspect there will be a change in the 2030s, or whenever the next round of realignment unfolds.
In many ways, the Big Ten would be a far better home for the Bears and Cardinal, because the ability to compete against four conference peers on the West Coast would greatly reduce the cross-country travel.
Did Oregon State and Washington State schedule too many power conference teams this season? I understand the thinking. But if they fall just short of bowl eligibility, did they shoot themselves in the foot? — @cougsguy06
It’s easy to sketch a scenario in which Washington State (1-4) misses the bowl season because of its non-conference schedule, which featured one cupcake (Duquesne) and three Power Four opponents (Washington, Kansas State and Arizona).
Oregon State lined up two cupcakes (UTEP and Montana) and clearly has a better team than WSU. The Beavers (3-2) seem likely to qualify for a bowl berth no matter what.
In our view, the schools were wholly justified in their approach.
At the time, in 2023-24, they were facing uncertain futures and wanted to remain relevant. One of the best means to that end? Schedule power conference opponents.
Those matchups provided the Cougars and Beavers with the opportunity to beat Power Four foes, and they created inventory that was sure to air on linear TV — the exposure piece was critical.
Unfortunately, there will be fewer chances for Group of Six teams to face Power Four opponents because of changes to conference schedule models.
How much more madness, mayhem and legal chaos can we expect in the near future regarding the NCAA? And to what extent? — Ed H
Mayhem is all but assured. The extent of it depends on the fate of the Protect College Sports Act.
It won’t end all the legal entanglements and, in fact, could create problems that don’t currently exist.
The Hotline believes college sports would be far better off if the PCSA fails, because it would force the schools to confront the only endgame that truly solves the issues: collective bargaining.
It would not be easy to implement.
Would tennis players and football players bargain together?
Would Alabama and South Alabama bargain together?
But it would create the framework for a manageable system.
If Congress doesn’t pass the PCSA, the SEC and Big Ten likely would create self-governing models, with collective bargaining a distinct possibility and the conferences themselves potentially serving as the employer.
Yes, that’s tricky. But it stands as a more sustainable solution than anything else.
Can UCLA really run the ball like they have been (i.e. can they do it at Oregon)? Is the scheme that good? — @WorkishFromHome
The Ducks pose the most difficult test yet for Bob Chesney and the Bruins by a factor of 10.
UCLA is undefeated and even has some low-level playoff buzz, with comparisons to 2024 Indiana, because of the soft conference schedule and the parallels between Chesney and Hoosiers coach Curt Cignetti, who were at James Madison before accepting their current gigs.
But the Bruins have not played an opponent that currently sports a winning record: Cal, San Diego State, Purdue and Maryland are all 2-3 and all rank in the bottom half of the FBS in defense.
That said, the Ducks have been inconsistent defensively despite a unit stocked with future NFL draft selections, particularly on the line.
(We view UCLA’s defense as the key to the affair Saturday afternoon. If the Ducks score early and often, the Bruins might not have the luxury of sticking with their running game.)
Regardless of the result in Eugene, UCLA’s competent coaching has opened a road to relevance. If quarterback Nico Iamaleava is merely efficient — he doesn’t need to be sensational — the Bruins could win eight or nine games.
And frankly, seven or eight wins should be the floor for the program given everything it has to offer.
Is it fair to state that Washington’s excuse for a slow start to the season is the number of freshmen in the starting lineup? You probably were in high school when Don James said, “the best time to play a freshman is when they are a junior.” — Dean H
There are several reasons for Washington’s suboptimal opening month, including injuries to the tailbacks, porous play on the offensive line and, yes, a heavy reliance on underclassmen.
By our count, the Huskies have 12 freshmen and sophomores in the lineup.
Why the lack of experience after three recruiting cycles for coach Jedd Fisch?
Well, the NIL situation plays a role. Washington’s payroll this fall is less than $25 million. That’s on the bottom tier of the Big Ten and makes it difficult to both retain top players and attract coveted upperclassmen in the transfer portal.
(The school’s half-share status in the Big Ten doesn’t help matters.)
But we don’t view the inexperience and injuries as the only explanations for Washington’s woes. After all, it’s not like Minnesota is outspending UW by tens of millions of dollars, and the Gophers were far superior when they met two weeks ago.
Quarterback Demond Williams Jr. simply hasn’t progressed since last season. Was his dalliance with the transfer portal in January a clue that something isn’t quite right?
And as we have stated previously, it’s not unreasonable to wonder if the Huskies need a full-time offensive coordinator. Fisch’s duties are expansive over and above the commitment required to call plays.
*** Send suggestions, comments and tips (confidentiality guaranteed) to wilnerhotline@
*** Follow me on the social media platform X: @WilnerHotline
The post Mailbag: The Protect College Sports Act and the next realignment wave, Pac-12 scheduling, ACC travel and loads more first appeared on Sports360AZ.
Leave a Reply