The Hotline mailbag publishes weekly. Send questions to wilnerhotline@
And if you missed it, last week’s mailbag explained why the coaches support a 24-team College Football Playoff but are deeply compromised and should not have a voice in the decision.
If the ACC implodes, where will Notre Dame take its Olympic sports: The Big Ten, SEC or Big 12? Would the Big Ten force the Irish to include football with a Big Ten membership? — @JimSkin70758794
There are so many layers to this issue, we aren’t sure where to start.
Let’s try this: If the ACC implodes, the timing would coincide with a massive restructuring of college sports.
The penalty to exit the conference plunges in 2030 to a manageable $75 million per school. That date was established on purpose: It’s the same year the Big Ten media rights expire, one year before the Big 12’s media rights expire and two years before the NCAA Tournament and College Football Playoff media deals expire.
The biggest brands in the ACC — we’re talking North Carolina, Florida State, Miami and Clemson — want an escape hatch available in the early 2030s in order to join the Big Ten, SEC or a super league.
Notre Dame stands as a key player in whatever structure arises.
Its relationship with the ACC appears to be wearing thin as administrators across the conference grasp the lopsided nature of the arrangement, which includes the football scheduling agreement (five games per season), in favor of the Irish.
But given the carveouts in place for Notre Dame in the College Football Playoff, there is no reason for the school to end its football Independence. (The Irish are guaranteed a berth with a top-12 finish and get paid as if they are a member of a conference but don’t have to share the money.)
If the ACC implodes, the situation changes.
We see little chance of Notre Dame joining any conference other than the Big Ten. Everything about the school fits with the Big Ten, including the huge alumni base in Chicago, far more than with the SEC.
At the same time, it’s extremely difficult to envision the Big Ten allowing Notre Dame to park its Olympic sports in the conference and remain Independent in football. It would be all-or-nothing, and the Irish would take the offer.
But an odd number of schools doesn’t work, especially for basketball. So the Big Ten would want at least one more new member.
That’s when a major wave of realignment enters the chat, with the Big Ten offering membership to not only the Irish but at least one and perhaps three ACC schools. North Carolina would be atop the list, in our view, with one of the Florida schools and Georgia Tech under consideration, as well.
The SEC would respond with expansion of its own, leading to a crumbling of the Power Conference structure as we know it.
But there’s another option: Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State and USC — just to name four — decide they no longer care to subsidize the lesser brands in the Big Ten and work with the Irish, plus a handful of schools in the SEC, to create the long-theorized super league.
The details and sequence of events are difficult to predict. And our guess is the super league would not emerge as a competitive entity until the 2033-34 window. But the endgame is easy to identify: Between 32 and 42 of the top football schools with their own media rights agreement and their own governance structure — no more NCAA oversight — and everyone else cast to a lower tier.
Nobody knows exactly what’s coming for college football, but everyone knows something is coming.
The status quo won’t hold through the 2030s. There are too many pressure points, too many shifting dynamics, for the current power conference model to last.
And that, too, is why the Big Ten’s attempt to secure private capital and extend its grant of rights to 2046 made zero sense for the top football schools: They would have relinquished critical flexibility just as the industry approaches the window for monumental change.
Whatever happens, Notre Dame will be a key player, as will the Big Ten. And the ACC stands as the most likely victim.
With all the rumblings around the restructuring of the college football and basketball postseasons, is the Pac-12 considering expanding only its basketball membership? Is the math more favorable for a bigger league for March Madness access and maybe a smaller league for football? — @Coog2Knight518
The math favors remaining lean in both sports because of the vital role schedule strength plays in the selection process for the College Football Playoff and, especially, March Madness. (We took a deep dive into the topic earlier this week, using comments from Pac-12 officials as the guide.)
Yes, the Pac-12 would prefer nine schools for football and 10 for basketball. But adding a member simply to make conference scheduling easier would be a gigantic mistake if there’s a reasonable chance the newcomer would lower the competitive bar.
As Colorado State athletic director John Weber told reporters last month:
“What we don’t want to do is arbitrarily add schools to get to a specific number or to build, whether it’s specifically in the West or whether it’s a cross-country focus — we’re not doing that.”
The preference, clearly, would be a school that competes in both football and basketball. The basketball-only options (e.g., West Coast Conference schools) won’t bring the needed media value and are of questionable competitive value.
Honestly, the conference has limited options unless the poaching penalty lawsuit triggers instability in the Mountain West.
Saint Mary’s is off to a hot start under new coach Mickey McConnell after recruiting McDonald’s All-American Darius Bivins. The Pac-12 needs a stronger basketball side and a massive rivalry like Gonzaga-Saint Mary’s. How much longer are you going to pretend this isn’t gonna happen? — @Jimmyt_69
If the Pac-12 wanted to add Saint Mary’s, it would have done so already.
It would have grabbed the Gaels immediately after Gonzaga agreed to join the conference in the fall of 2024 or at any point in the last 18 months.
But the Pac-12 doesn’t view Saint Mary’s as a value play. The bar for a non-football member to carry its weight financially is extraordinarily high. The only available school capable of meeting the standard, Gonzaga, has been added.
Could the situation change in the 2030s, especially if McConnell continues the success established under Randy Bennett? Sure. There is no telling what the Pac-12 might look like at that point. The western third of the country could have an entirely new conference structure by then.
But for the current media rights cycle — the Pac-12 has a five-year deal with CBS, The CW and USA Sports — we see little chance of the conference reversing course and adding Saint Mary’s.
What is college football’s solution to the NFL scheduling games on the third Saturday in December, the same day as the CFP’s opening round? — @ddevries03
It’s a major issue for the College Football Playoff using the 12-team format and would be that much more challenging if the CFP expands.
In recent years, the NFL has aggressively scheduled into broadcast windows that were once the domain of other sports, with Black Friday (college football) and Christmas Day (NBA) the prime examples.
But the Saturday before Christmas has been NFL territory for ages. CFP expansion (to 12) in the 2024 season created the conflict, not NFL encroachment. The only solution is to back off entirely, but that’s not feasible with the current postseason calendar.
Commissioner Roger Goodell and Co. responded aggressively to the CFP’s move onto the Saturday before Christmas by placing two marquee matchups on that day last season, Eagles-Commanders and Packers-Bears. Predictably, the CFP ratings suffered.
The NFL schedule released Thursday features the same tactic: Seahawks-Eagles on Fox at 2 p.m. (Pacific) and Bills-Bears on CBS at 5:20 p.m. — a daunting doubleheader for the CFP in the fight for eyeballs.
One of the oft-overlooked problems with playoff expansion to 24 teams is the lack of premier TV windows that would be available for the 12 additional games.
Many of them would need to be played on Thursday and Friday nights, except the NFL already owns Thursday.
I disagree with NCAA Tournament expansion but am more concerned with the women expanding to 76 teams. There were a lot of blowouts in the 2026 event. I stopped watching. Now with the expansion, it will get worse. What are your thoughts? — Denesio G.
Our thoughts are similar, if not identical.
The NCAA had no choice — expansion of the men’s tournament required expansion of the women’s tournament, even if the competitive equity is not the same.
The gap between the best and worst teams on the women’s side is far greater than on the men’s side, and that disparity isn’t likely to change. If anything, it will increase: NIL plays a much greater role in the men’s game — and therefore is more likely to flatten the sport — than on the women’s side.
Adding more mediocre teams from the power conferences will result in more early-round blowouts.
Expansion was wrong for the men and for the women. The impact could be felt more deeply with the latter.
Would adding Hawaii help the Pac-12 as a recruiting tool? The other teams could tell their players that they will have games there! — Stevens Q
The Hotline has always viewed Hawaii’s football program as carrying more value than is commonly assigned to it, especially in realignment decisions.
We don’t know how seriously the Pac-12 considered the Rainbow Warriors during its expansion phase in the fall of 2024, but they would have been high on our list.
Their primary reason is tied to recruiting, but not, as the question suggests, as a means of attracting players from the Mainland to other Mainland schools.
Instead, the value lies in the increased access Mainland schools would have to prospects in Hawaii and across the Pacific Islands.
It would be similar to adding Texas State as a way of gaining access to recruits in the Lone Star State, albeit on a much, much smaller scale.
Additionally, Hawaii would have given the Pac-12 another kickoff window for TV partners.
That said, the Rainbow Warriors were not a no-brainer addition in the same manner as Boise State or San Diego State.
Given how the College Football Playoff changes every year, could it alter the selection process for semifinal sites? Or is a Jan. 2 announcement for those games too late? — Will D
The CFP is, in fact, making a tweak in this regard.
SEC commissioner Greg Sankey told ESPN’s Paul Finebaum late last month that the No. 1 seed will be given the opportunity to select its quarterfinal and semifinal path, as will the No. 2 seed.
That change adds significance to the conference championship games, which are rapidly losing support among coaches and athletic directors but are, in fact, contractual realities for the next few years.
Bottom line: The commissioners are constantly fiddling with the format, which is something you don’t see in other sports.
With the College Football Playoff probably expanding to 24 teams, how many automatic bids for the non-Power Four conferences does the Pac-12 want and expect? — @SSN_TexasState
The Hotline isn’t convinced the 24-team playoff is inevitable, at least not without a few bridge seasons with a 16-team format.
Remember, the TV dollars available for the additional 12 games must offset the loss of the conference championships. The SEC title game is worth at least $80 million and perhaps $100 million. Would an opening round of lower-quality games (No. 9 vs. No. 24, No. 10 vs. No. 23, etc.) generate enough new revenue? We shall see.
But let’s assume the math works and the SEC and Big Ten agree on 24.
The Group of Six conferences, which includes the Pac-12 and Mountain West, are in favor of expansion and would push for two automatic bids in a 24-team field to retain the access they currently possess (one automatic spot in a 12-team event).
Our hunch is that pressure would be for naught.
The format most likely to be adopted features 23 at-large bids and one automatic berth for the top team in the Group of Six, effectively cutting its access in half.
That might not seem fair, but we don’t foresee the Big Ten and SEC, which control the format, suddenly turning magnanimous.
How hard is underwater basket weaving? — @Kmasterman
For those unfamiliar, the question refers to Texas coach Steve Sarkisian’s recent disparagement of Mississippi’s academic standards while propping up the academic bar in Austin.
“All you have to do is take basket weaving,” he told USA Today, “and you can get an Ole Miss degree.”
An unnecessary shot? Sure.
The comment would not have been nearly as inflammatory if Sarkisian had used the term without naming a specific school. But why include Mississippi? Plenty of SEC schools are on a lower tier than Texas, which is one of the top public schools in the country.
One possibility: There’s something behind the scenes, most likely involving recruiting, that has irked Sarkisian.
*** Send suggestions, comments and tips (confidentiality guaranteed) to wilnerhotline@
*** Follow me on the social media platform X: @WilnerHotline
Leave a Reply