The Hotline mailbag publishes weekly. Send questions to wilnerhotline@
Last week’s edition examines the potential impact that a football super league would have on college basketball.
Can you imagine the World Cup reversing course and changing the format from 48 teams down to 24? — Bud R
For college football fans, the parallels were difficult to ignore: Here was an expanded World Cup, with 48 teams instead of 32, playing out in riveting fashion across North America while college sports executives mull expanding the playoff from 12 to 24 participants.
If the former worked, why wouldn’t the latter?
We pondered the issue frequently while watching Cape Verde hold its own against Spain and Argentina and always came to the same conclusion: The comparison is invalid.
As the question suggests, FIFA would never downsize the World Cup and leave money on the table. In fact, the 48-team event was so successful that soccer’s governing body is considering another expansion, to 64 teams, for the 2030 tournament scheduled for Spain, Portugal and Morocco.
Many within college sports believe doubling the CFP field would generate a significant increase in TV revenue, as well. However, the financial piece remains somewhat murky.
The CFP has asked its media advisors to assess the market for a 24-team field, which would feature multiple broadcast partners. As SEC commissioner Greg Sankey noted earlier this week, that process is ongoing.
(Notably, it features a complication that did not exist with the World Cup expansion: A 24-team playoff would require conferences to eliminate their valuable championship games, so any increase in media rights for the additional playoff inventory must offset the loss of cash from axing the title games.)
There are crucial differences between World Cup expansion, to 48 or 64 teams, and doubling the size of the CFP, none more significant than this: FIFA’s change increased access for countries everywhere; CFP expansion is designed to benefit two conferences, the Big Ten and SEC, to a far greater degree than everyone else.
Sure, the ACC and Big 12 might receive one or two more spots in a 24-team playoff, but the Big Ten and SEC would swallow the vast majority of additional bids. (Most likely, they would account for at least 16 of the 24.) That’s why the Big Ten began pushing for 24 in the first place.
World Cup expansion created greater access for every continent. The 2026 event featured teams like Curaçao, Cape Verde and Uzbekistan that would not have made the 32-team field. And guess who didn’t qualify? Italy, the four-time champions.
Yes, there would be a few more teams from Europe and South America if the World Cup expands to 64. But Africa and Asia would have greater representation, as well — the equivalent of a 24-team playoff having more teams from the Group of Six conferences.
As FIFA president Gianni Infantino said recently of expansion:
“I think it is important that when you want to organize a World Cup, you do it for the whole world – not just Europe and South America. If you don’t give smaller countries a chance to participate in the World Cup, they’ll lack the incentive to keep improving.”
Can you imagine Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti telling reporters: “We need more access for Conference USA and the Sun Belt to help grow the sport nationwide.”
He would not utter that sentiment in 10 billion years. CFP expansion is entirely about more bids for the behemoths — for the college football versions of Europe and South America — and not about access for the little guys.
It’s not just Petitti, either. None of the power conference commissioners want more access for the Cape Verdes of college football.
That’s why any comparison between World Cup and CFP expansion is deeply flawed. One is truly committed to increasing access for the little guys; the other has one goal in mind: Let the rich get richer.
What are your thoughts on the reported death of the Protect College Sports Act, and what do you see as the next steps should it fail to pass? — @NILnotNLI
Yet another challenge has materialized for the most consequential piece of federal legislation in college sports history. The Protect College Sports Act is running out of time.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune told reporters on Thursday that the PCSA (and a second bill unrelated to college sports) probably won’t be brought to the Senate floor before the August recess at the end of next week.
“I don’t think we’ll be able to get them done,” Thune said.
That’s deeply problematic for the bill, which addresses issues ranging from player eligibility and agent regulation to conference expansion and a super league.
Once Congress returns from its August recess, the midterm elections will dominate Capitol Hill.
Democratic control in 2027 of either the Senate or House of Representatives stands as a serious threat to the PCSA. As written, the legislation is viewed as friendlier to the schools than the athletes, particularly with their limited ability to pursue employment status.
Thune’s comments don’t necessarily mean the PCSA is dead. But clearly, the legislation is on life support.
And to many observers, this was always the most likely endgame given the lack of support from Democrats on the employment piece. (Any changes to entice Democrats would jeopardize backing from Republicans.)
Meanwhile, opposition from the SEC and Big Ten means the PCSA faces long odds in the House, where Speaker Mike Johnson and Majority Leader Steve Scalise represent a state (Louisiana) with a school (LSU) staunchly opposed.
Certain aspects of the PCSA have widespread support from college executives. Unified rules for NIL and a one-time transfer are but two examples.
But from the moment the bill was introduced by Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Maria Cantwell (D-Washington), the SEC and Big Ten have opposed a provision that places restrictions on conference expansion.
That said, the conferences are desperate for Congressional help in ending the Wild West nature of college sports, where disgruntled athletes simply need a supportive local judge to block application of NCAA rules, particularly on eligibility.
What happens if the PCSA dies? The SEC has been remarkably public about Plan B: a self-governing model in which the conference would create and enforce its own rules.
“People have talked about that,” Sankey said earlier this week. “They have opined about the frustrations that bring them to the point of saying we should look at something significantly different … (The NCAA) must function in a healthy manner.”
“Otherwise,” he added, “that simmering will continue.”
Does that mean the SEC would break away from the NCAA and compete against itself? Not necessarily.
But whatever path the SEC takes, the Big Ten is sure to follow. And self-governance could very well be the initial step in a full breakaway.
Can you explain the power conferences getting their membership frozen by the Protect College Sports Act? How does it affect the Big Ten and SEC differently than the Big 12 or ACC? — @dukestainer
The so-called “anti-expansion provision” has been the most contentious item in the Protect College Sports Act (PCSA) — to a greater degree than the provision inviting conferences to pool their media rights. Understandably, the Big Ten and SEC are wary of language that undermines their competitive and financial advantages or dictates how their business should operate.
Initially, the bill prohibited all conferences that generate more than $1 billion in annual revenue from expanding their membership. Because only the Big Ten and SEC meet that threshold, they felt targeted.
The second version broadened the anti-expansion bar to conferences clearing $700 million annually, meaning the ACC and Big 12 were also frozen. What’s more, the Group of Six schools would be prohibited from moving up the food chain into the Power Four.
As you can imagine, more pushback ensued, prompting lawmakers to remove restrictions on the smaller schools.
Then came discussions about capping the number of teams in any conference at 19 — a clear allowance for the 18-team Big Ten to invite Notre Dame if the Irish ever decide to end their Independence.
The bottom line: We don’t know what the expansion language will or won’t permit in whatever new version of the bill emerges. But as long as there are restrictions placed on the Big Ten and SEC, they are unlikely to support the legislation.
Given the harrowing path ahead for the PCSA — the Senate is tricky, the House of Representatives far trickier — we don’t expect schools and conferences to make hasty realignment decisions.
The most likely outcome? Conference membership remains fixed for several years.
Could you take a quick pulse on all the former Pac-12 teams: Is anyone happy with their current conference and circumstance? — Rance S
This isn’t a one-size-fits-all issue; considerable nuance is involved. But everything begins with the following: All 12 legacy schools would have preferred to compete in a Pac-12 that thrived on the field and was financially sound.
That’s doubly true for the 10 schools not located in Los Angeles, which stuck around for another 13 months after USC and UCLA made their decision to depart.
Since the dispersal, the 10 former members have tried to make the best of their specific circumstances, which are more difficult for some than others.
The finances work well for USC and UCLA because of their full-share status in the Big Ten.
The geography works better for Colorado, Utah, Arizona and Arizona State because of the manageable travel to most Big 12 campuses.
Oregon football and Arizona basketball were the best equipped competitively for the Big Ten and Big 12, respectively, and have thrived.
But for many schools and specific programs (hello, Stanford and Cal), the new era is exactly as arduous in every regard as we all imagined.
Put another way: There is no single, collective pulse. Every school has its own beat.
Do the financial issues at Saint Mary’s, along with Randy Bennett leaving, mark the beginning of a decline? — @RUthreteningMe
The financial issues in Moraga surfaced this week when a commission on higher education placed Saint Mary’s on “accreditation with warning” status due to fragile finances.
If you’re wondering why the Pac-12 declined to add the Gaels as the 10th basketball school — and continue their rivalry with Gonzaga — look no further than the money trouble that has plagued Saint Mary’s since the pandemic.
The double whammy of declining enrollment and rising costs turned the Gaels into a huge risk for the Pac-12, which focused expansion efforts on schools that were likely to raise the competitive level of the conference in football and men’s basketball.
Put another way: The Pac-12 wanted schools committed to investing for success.
Add Bennett’s departure to Arizona State, and there’s every reason to believe the Gaels will regress next season and beyond — perhaps not to the point of total irrelevance but certainly to a level in which reaching the NCAA Tournament becomes an annual struggle.
In our view, Santa Clara, which has more money and a proven coach (Herb Sendek), is vastly better positioned to excel in the post-Gonzaga era of the West Coast Conference.
In an effort to create more quality matchups in September and help out the West Coast schools, should the Big Ten allow teams to play conference games to start the year? It would ease the travel for November. — Will
There is zero doubt that the Big Ten is lacking marquee matchups in September. Too many of its best teams, with Penn State and Indiana atop the list, steadfastly refuse to play high-level non-conference games.
(Washington’s schedule has been disappointingly light in recent years, as well.)
So, yes: Any steps that generate must-see content warrant serious consideration. And Big Ten executives are extremely mindful of the travel.
In theory, we like the idea. But there’s a massive problem on a practical level: The schools have booked non-conference games for September for years to come.
They could buy out the contracts, but that only solves one problem. Moving conference games to the front of the schedule creates openings in the back. Teams in other leagues would not be available in November because of their own intra-conference commitments.
Could one or two games get moved in a given year? Perhaps.
But to make the plan work on a collective basis, the Big Ten would need to change its scheduling policy years in advance of implementation, thereby giving its schools time to identify options for non-conference games late in the season.
The fall semester begins next month, and the Pac-12 has yet to name a media partner for Olympic sports. Time for concern? — @NateJones2009
Not yet. Fans have been waiting months for clarity on this matter, and it’s not merely the pure-play Olympic sports that need a media distribution outlet. There are plenty of basketball games — mostly women’s but a few men’s, too — that won’t be shown on CBS, The CW or USA Sports and need an outlet.
The conference can always use Pac-12 Enterprises to produce the events and distribute them digitally. That was an attraction for the seven new schools.
Wherever the Olympic sports land, we suspect they will be made available for free. In this environment, it’s difficult to ask consumers to pay for golf and softball in a media package that does not include football.
*** Send suggestions, comments and tips (confidentiality guaranteed) to wilnerhotline@
*** Follow me on the social media platform X: @WilnerHotline
Leave a Reply