The Hotline mailbag publishes weekly. Send questions to wilnerhotline@
And if you missed it, last week’s mailbag examined the future of the NCAA Tournament and College Football Playoff, which could be replaced by a unified postseason structure if the power conferences get their way.
Wouldn’t it make sense for former Pac-12 schools to schedule each other? Feels like there would be dual benefits if they scheduled home-and-home series in as many sports as possible. — Will D
In theory, it makes loads of sense. Matching the Pac-12 legacy schools would cut down non-conference travel (and costs) and help maintain the regional competitions that are critical for the overall welfare of college sports.
But from a practical standpoint, there are obstacles — particularly in football, where non-conference scheduling is vastly more complicated than the basketball version.
Let’s drill down on the latter, because the entire system is designed to motivate coaches to schedule quality non-conference matchups.
For one thing, there are plenty of dates: The NCAA is moving to a 32-game regular season in 2026-27, meaning each team will have at least 12, and as many as 16, dates for non-conference matchups.
Also, the multi-team events at neutral sites in November and December would offer opportunities for the legacy Pac-12 teams to square off when a home-and-home series cannot be crafted.
But the most important component is the NCAA Tournament selection process, which rewards teams for playing quality opponents. There’s every reason in the world for Washington to play Arizona State and Stanford to play USC, for example.
The process is refreshingly transparent and leans into metrics that account for opponent and location. Arizona and UCLA should play each other for eternity because it’s good for the sport. But they are incentivized by the system, as well.
The situation is more fraught in football, where the selection committee process is purposefully opaque and the logic often nonsensical.
First, Hotline readers should be aware that several Pac-12 legacy matchups are on the books for the rest of the decade:
— UCLA and Cal have a four-game series starting this fall. (Thank you, UC regents.)
— Arizona and Washington State play home-and-home in 2026-27, with the first game in Pullman.
— Stanford and Arizona State are scheduled to meet in 2031-32.
— Utah and UCLA will complete the back end of their series in 2030.
— And the Apple Cup is set for the next three seasons. (Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the Civil War.)
But as far as we know, that’s the extent of the Pac-12 legacy matchups in football. There are several reasons, but it all starts with a postseason selection process that simply isn’t designed to encourage high-level games.
It’s the opposite, in fact: Reams of evidence suggest the CFP selection committee is obsessed with loss totals, which has made coaches and athletic directors wary of scheduling more than one A-level non-conference game per year. And many teams don’t even play one.
As we noted in December, the final CFP rankings effectively listed teams in order of losses: Undefeated Indiana was No. 1; the next six teams all had one loss; and six of the next eight had two losses.
(And don’t forget, this came after the SEC had rammed through a tweak to the process that was supposed to reduce the impact of quality losses.)
Another difference between football and basketball scheduling: The former unfolds six or eight years in advance — in some cases, games are scheduled a decade out — which leaves few workable windows for the Pac-12 legacy teams.
But again, the CFP model offers little motivation to get creative or aggressive. Utah already has Wisconsin on the schedule in 2028 and Arkansas in 2029. Why would the Utes add a second A-level opponent? They would have 11 games against Power Four teams knowing full well that a third loss is problematic for the selection committee.
That said, recent decisions by the SEC and ACC to play nine conference games could prove beneficial. The change has forced SEC schools to cancel home-and-home matchups with power conference opponents, thereby opening windows that didn’t exist.
For example, both Florida and Texas called off two-games series with Arizona State, creating dates for the Sun Devils to play Stanford in the early 2030s.
But unless the CFP adjusts the process, there’s no reason to expect a flurry of Pac-12 legacy matchups to arise, unfortunately.
College basketball is proving that big dollars (Kentucky) and inherent advantages (UCLA, Kansas) don’t always matter. Will we see a rise in the number of paper juggernauts (e.g., Dallas Cowboys and New York Mets) that spend big but flail, leaving gaps for smaller-market teams that spend wisely? — @beardownbaby99
A terrific question and fascinating topic for the new era of college basketball (and football).
Dead money is a real thing, with Kentucky as perhaps the best example. The Wildcats reportedly spent more than $20 million on their roster, and all it got them was a blowout loss in the second round of the NCAA Tournament. (They would have lost in the first round, to Santa Clara, if not for a game-tying buzzer-beater.)
Compiling talent isn’t enough; the pieces must fit together. In that regard, the challenge for coaches is to assess potential transfers in a more condensed timeframe than they had in the pre-portal era, when coaches spent years evaluating high school recruits. The skill set has changed.
Michigan started four players who joined the program last spring, but Dusty May’s evaluation of Yaxel Lendeborg, Aday Mara, Elliot Cadeau and Morez Johnson within the Wolverines’ system and culture was phenomenal.
Another example: Indiana football.
The Hoosiers were the undefeated national champions, but numerous teams had more expensive rosters, including Oregon — and the Ducks lost to the Hoosiers twice.
Curt Cignetti, like Michigan’s May, was able to watch film and assess both the potential of individual players and the manner in which they fit together within his system. In our view, he evaluates talent better than any coach in college football.
We are curious to watch the trajectory of dead money in the system: Will it increase over time, or will coaches become more adept at deploying NIL funds?
Are academics no longer required by athletes? Are there no longer any requirements to go to class, do the work? You know, be a student? — Larry E
The requirements remain in place: Transfers must be academically eligible, which means they must select schools that accept the credits earned at the previous institution — at least, that’s the way the system is supposed to work.
Everyone tries to expose the loopholes, and many succeed.
We’ll gain clarity this spring, when the NCAA releases the Academic Progress Rates for the 2024-25 school year — the APRs track both retention and eligibility — and should have a solid grasp of the situation when Graduation Success Rates (GSR) are disclosed in coming years.
The NCAA tracks students based on a six-year window for graduation. The first wave of athletes to compete in the free-transfer era won’t be accounted for until the GSR reports are released in the early 2030s.
Cross-matching the graduation rates with football performance will be a fascinating exercise.
Our hunch is that the same coaches who possess the best talent evaluation skills will also produce the best graduation rates. In the end, they are evaluating character and establishing culture, and what works on the field works in the classroom.
A question that begs repeating over time: How are things working out for Cal, Stanford, UCLA and USC in their East Coast and Midwest conferences? — @CelestialMosh
This question arrives on the Hotline’s doorstep quite often, but we answer infrequently. The reasons: 1) Nothing has changed; and 2) even if something changed in the level of competitive success, it would not matter.
Every school is making the best of its situation, and nobody is making plans to return to the Pac-12. They are all under contract, through grant-of-rights agreements, until the 2030s.
If you were hoping for a different response, we’re sorry to disappoint.
The Hotline calls ’em like we see ’em, and a reconstituted Pac-12 with most (all) of the legacy schools competing in football remains extremely unlikely.
Yes, the Olympic sports and basketball eventually could reorganize along regional lines, especially if football becomes a separate entity, distinct from the NCAA.
But we don’t see a scenario in which the best option for USC, Oregon and Washington (and perhaps Utah and Arizona State, as well) is to join a future version of the Pac-12.
(If the ACC implodes, which could very well happen given the decrease in exit fees in 2030, then Cal and Stanford will do everything possible to join the Big Ten.)
In our view, there will be better football options for the top schools in the 2030s.
And to be clear, the status quo is certainly on that list of possibilities.
If the power conferences are going to screw up college athletics, why don’t we let them move and let the Olympic sports return to regionality? Why are we trying to save a system that’s going to fall apart! — H Hughes
Many within college sports believe exactly that: The endgame is inevitable — the top football schools will form a separate entity — so let’s just rip off the Band-Aid and save everyone the time and money of a frustrating interlude.
But the industry has moved incrementally for eons.
Ponder how much better off college football and basketball would be today, in every aspect, if the NCAA had been proactive with NIL instead of fighting for every inch through the court system.
Campus executives from Seattle to Miami and Syracuse to Tucson recognize that Olympic sports athletes have no business competing in bi-coastal conferences. (If they won’t admit it, they’re lying.)
But until there’s a breaking point — the potential causes range from athlete employment to congressional action to a football super league — the current structure will remain in place.
Do you think lack of familiarity with Texas State football for all the western teams will help or hurt competitively in Year 1 of the new Pac-12? — @cutegirlscorp
It certainly won’t hurt the Bobcats, but the degree to which it benefits coach GJ Kinne’s program is unclear.
Why? Because Texas State is Kinne’s program. He has been in charge for three years, which means the scheme and style of play will be largely unchanged once the inaugural Pac-12 season begins.
When conference opponents prepare for the Bobcats, they will have years of film to assess. Scouting is more difficult when the opponent has a new head coach or coordinators and is using a different playbook.
In that regard, Texas State’s defense, under first-year coordinator Will Windham, could be tricky — opposing coaches will be forced to watch film from Windham’s tenure at South Alabama and attempt to guess how that scheme will work with the Bobcats’ personnel.
Of course, the same is true across the Pac-12, where Washington State, Oregon State, Colorado State also have new head coaches.
In general, preparation is challenging for everyone in the FBS because of depth chart mayhem made possible each spring by the transfer portal.
But the number of analysts and assistant coaches employed within each program has grown, as well. So there are more eyeballs available to track down and study film.
Does Santa Clara have the money to keep most of the team together like the Broncos did last year, not counting guard Christian Hammond? — @RUthreteningMe
Hammond has committed to NC State, and star big man Allen Graves has declared for the NBA Draft. (If he returns to college, Graves will be highly coveted. Watch for LSU to make a strong push.)
As for the rest of the roster, yes. The Broncos have a reasonable chance to retain key contributors and enter the season as the frontrunner.
With Gonzaga moving to the Pac-12 and Randy Bennett leaving Saint Mary’s, the West Coast Conference race is wide open.
The combination of SCU’s resources and coach Herb Sendek’s mastery of his craft make the Broncos a candidate to fill the void.
The Mountain West announced it will stream (behind a paywall) all sports not picked up by national partners. Has the Pac-12 decided how to air its Olympic sports? — @NateJones2009
Not formally, but we would bet heavily on the remaining inventory — any Pac-12 home games that aren’t scheduled for CBS, The CW and USA Network — to be made available through Pac-12 Enterprises.
After all, the state-of-the-art facility in San Ramon can produce high-quality broadcasts cheaply and offers flexibility with scheduling.
That’s one of many unresolved issues for the inaugural year of competition that were on the agenda this week at conference meetings in Corvallis.
We expect an announcement in the coming weeks.
*** Send suggestions, comments and tips (confidentiality guaranteed) to wilnerhotline@
*** Follow me on the social media platform X: @WilnerHotline
Leave a Reply