The Hotline mailbag publishes weekly. Send questions to wilnerhotline@bayareanewsgroup.com and include ‘mailbag’ in the subject line. Or hit me on the social media platform X: @WilnerHotline
Some questions have been edited for clarity and brevity.
What’s your way-too-early ranking of the Power Four conferences? — @Cargoman0363
Now that spring practices have concluded and transfer portal movement has slowed to a trickle, it’s not that early.
The easy answer would be to slot the Big Ten and SEC on one tier and the ACC and Big 12 on a second tier and move along.
But the Hotline is not inclined to offer the easy answer, ever. And on this topic, there is significant nuance. Is the order of conferences based on the number of legitimate national title contenders, likely playoff participants or bowl-eligible teams?
Do percentages matter, because the Big Ten has two more teams than the SEC and Big 12?
Also, how should we account for the disparity in schedules, given that the SEC and ACC play eight conference games while the Big Ten and Big 12 play nine?
If we filter for championship-level teams, then the Big Ten and SEC are clearly on top — each conference has three or four with the talent to win the national title. The ACC has one team, Clemson, capable of navigating the playoff successfully while the Big 12 has none.
But the Hotline considers quality depth the best measure of conference strength, especially with the differences in membership. And with that framing, it’s possible to view the Big 12 as closer to the Big Ten in quality than the Big Ten is to the SEC.
Our ranking, with explanation:
1) SEC: The list of clear playoff candidates runs four deep with Texas, Georgia, Alabama and LSU, and the quality depth is unmatched: Florida and South Carolina lead a collection of seven teams that could end next season in the Top 25. (In other words: Significantly more than half the conference.) In our view, the SEC’s weakness in 2024, elite quarterback play, will be a strength in 2025. And that strength just happens to be the Big Ten’s weakness.
2A) Big Ten: The top of the conference is stronger than the top of the SEC with Penn State, Ohio State and Oregon all squarely in the national championship hunt. But there’s a noticeable drop to the next tier, where Illinois, Nebraska, Indiana, Michigan, USC, Iowa and possibly Washington lurk. How that group performs will frame the Big Ten’s season. And we’re skeptical, in large part because so many teams are relying on new or inexperienced quarterbacks.
2B) Big 12: The strength of the Big 12, its riveting parity, is also a weakness in that none of the teams appear to possess rosters capable of winning three or four games in the CFP. But again, the number of title contenders is a secondary consideration here — our focus is quality depth, and the Big 12 has plenty of it. Brigham Young, Arizona State, Iowa State and Texas Tech are worthy of Top 25 placement, with Kansas State, Baylor, TCU and Utah helping to form a stout middle.
4) ACC: The conference very well could have the best team in the land — Clemson is absolutely loaded — but from there, the quality plunges. Miami, SMU and Louisville are atop the second tier, and we question whether any of them will end the season in the Top 25. The best hope for the ACC to bolster its depth might be a resurgence by Florida State.
We’ll re-examine the power conference hierarchy in the second half of August, but it’s difficult to envision a scenario — outside of major injuries — in which the order changes materially.
By the middle of September, following three weeks of non-conference play, there should be clarity.
The athletic departments of some former Pac-12 schools, like UCLA, Cal and Arizona, list millions of dollars (in debt) since relocating to new conferences. Will this be a perpetual problem? Or will the finances improve for these schools? — @CelestialMosh
Official financial documents for the current fiscal year won’t be made public until next winter, when the schools are required to submit statements of revenues and expenses to the NCAA. For now, we can only lean into the FY2024 information, when the legacy schools were part of the Pac-12, for conclusions.
And yes, it’s fairly bleak for many of them.
As the Hotline documented last week, athletic departments at the 10 public universities reported a combined shortfall of $110 million, based on $1.34 billion in revenue and $1.45 billion in expenses. But that includes $197.4 million in campus support that was booked as revenue.
Remove that support from the total revenue, and the collective shortfall climbs above $300 million.
While the four schools that jumped to the Big Ten and the four that moved into the Big 12 will receive more revenue than they did in the Pac-12, expenses are expected to rise with $20.5 million required for revenue sharing as part of the (presumed) House v. NCAA lawsuit settlement.
And for the Big Ten quartet, the cost of doing business — the resources required to compete — is much higher than it was in the Pac-12. Campus officials are continually seeking new revenue streams, but there is only so much cash available to tap.
Winning helps immensely, spurring ticket and merchandise sales and energizing donors. But in order to win, you need resources … or amazingly good fortune.
There are no quick and clean solutions. We expect the debt to remain fairly constant and, in some cases, increase.
Which conference was the first to ignore the number in their name and decide the name, not the number of teams, matters? How much did the Pac-12 spend rebranding from the Pac-10? — @jamesjosh2
We don’t have an answer for the second question, but it was probably more than necessary given former commissioner Larry Scott’s knack for excess spending.
To the best of our knowledge, the Big Ten established the precedent for brand value exceeding the need for accuracy when it added Penn State as the 11th school in 1990 and did not change its name.
The conference felt — and understandably so — that the Big Ten brand was immensely valuable, not just in college athletics but within the higher education space nationally and globally.
Even with 18 members, there’s incredible value in the Big Ten name.
The Pac-10 did not come to the same conclusion in 2011, rightly or wrongly, when Utah and Colorado joined the conference.
The new-look Pac-12 needs inventory and future games. Could the conference host neutral-site games over Labor Day weekend — maybe in Las Vegas — and then use the return trip as an alternative to traditional home-and-home series? — Jamie Schlosser
The neutral-and-home concept, particularly with Las Vegas as the location, is sound strategically. And in theory, Allegiant Stadium would be available for all broadcast windows over Labor Day weekend because the Raiders’ season won’t have started (unless UNLV has a home game).
And yes, the rebuilt Pac-12 needs the best non-conference inventory it can secure.
But we wonder: How many openings do Power Four teams have for Week 1 in upcoming seasons, and what is their level of motivation?
Would Indiana or Iowa or Mississippi or Tennessee be willing to play Pac-12 teams in Las Vegas? Most likely, they would be giving up a home game, so it’s difficult to see how the finances would work. There’s also the competitive calculation. Facing Washington State or Colorado State or Boise State in Las Vegas would be a difficult assignment — perhaps too difficult for comfort.
What about the new-look Pac-12 teams scheduling neutral-and-home matchups in Las Vegas against the Pac-12 legacy schools? That seems slightly more feasible.
But for the most part, Power Four schools are hesitant to commit to new contracts for non-conference games as they await 1) format and access decisions on the next version of the College Football Playoff, and 2) confirmation of an in-season series matching the Big Ten against the SEC.
If the two heavyweights commit to a series, their schools will have fewer non-conference openings for other games.
I understand why San Diego State and Fresno State aren’t included with the other Mountain West schools in suing for the exit fees. But would they benefit if any reduction or settlement does occur as a result of this lawsuit? –@AztecAlum
For those unfamiliar, let’s be clear: SDSU and FSU cannot sue the Mountain West because of San Jose State’s presence in the conference. Campuses in the California State University system cannot take legal action against each other.
Also, anything could happen with mediation, including a breakdown of talks.
However, the aim for all parties in the two lawsuits — that’s the Pac-12 (plaintiff), Colorado State, Boise State and Utah State (plaintiffs) and Mountain West (defendant in both cases) — is to reach a comprehensive agreement under a single mediator.
And that agreement likely would include SDSU and FSU.
In other words, the Aztecs and Bulldogs likely would not be subject to a separate (i.e., heftier) financial penalty than the one applicable to Boise State, Colorado State and Utah State.
But everything is a negotiation. The only other path forward — a court trial — is unthinkable for the schools and conferences alike.
Why do schools still sign coaches to contracts lasting four-to-six years when the duration is no longer an important consideration for high school recruits? — @Cohen_Yoni
In many cases, it’s a leverage issue. Why would a coach, or his agent, accept a two- or three-year deal? In addition to the message of instability it sends, short-term deals are lower in total compensation. And the more money available, even through a buyout, the better for the coach and his agent.
In fact, we have seen the trend move in the opposite direction. To cite three examples: Brian Kelly signed a 10-year deal with LSU; same with Lincoln Riley at USC; and Kalen DeBoer agreed to an eight-year contract with Alabama.
Coaches with fewer accomplishments typically have less leverage and must accept shorter deals, but I don’t know a coach worth a nickel who would accept a three-year deal. Standard industry practice is five years.
Do you see athlete retention at Cal and Stanford becoming an issue when all their conference games are in different time zones? — @brycetacoma
It’s already an issue. The Bears and Cardinal were hit hard this winter and spring by attrition in both football and men’s basketball.
But playing on the East Coast is, at best, a secondary factor. In most cases, Cal and Stanford players enter the transfer portal for financial reasons (more NIL cash). Others are motivated by the opportunity to enhance their NFL or NBA Draft value. And some might depart because they cannot gain admission to the Cal or Stanford graduate school programs of their choice.
Will the revenue-sharing era change those dynamics for the better? It depends on the schools.
Are they committed to maxing out the dollars available to their football and basketball rosters? Will they provide true NIL opportunities for players?
The situation should be fascinating on both campuses.
In honor of the upcoming Memorial Day holiday, how do you like to gussy up a grilled hot dog? — @MrEd315
I don’t eat hot dogs or any type of pork, for that matter. It’s not a religious thing or a special diet. Just had a bad experience years ago during a jungle trek in Thailand and haven’t touched it since.
That said, Memorial Day is fast approaching, which means summer is here. And on the Hotline, that means … absolutely nothing.
We have a week-long vacation planned for late July and will probably take a few days off here and there. Otherwise, the Hotline will churn out daily coverage of college sports, with our usual lean to the issues impacting West Coast schools.
There are momentous developments unfolding, from the House settlement to the CFP restructuring to the Pac-12 media deal. The Hotline will be there every step, all summer.
Thanks for the question, and the support.
*** Send suggestions, comments and tips (confidentiality guaranteed) to wilnerhotline@bayareanewsgroup.com or call 408-920-5716
*** Follow me on the social media platform X: @WilnerHotline
