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.
Which of the possible College Football Playoff formats for 2026 and beyond would be best for the rebuilt Pac-12? — @CelestialMosh
There’s a lot to unpack here, so let’s begin with the basics.
The CFP will have 12 teams and a straight-seeding format for the upcoming season. But a new contract with ESPN begins in the fall of 2026, along with changes to the format.
The ACC, Big Ten, Big 12 and SEC champions will be guaranteed bids, as will the highest-ranked team from the Group of Five, which will include the new Pac-12.
Beyond that, there are no details. The SEC and Big Ten control the governance and must consult with the other conferences. Thus far, the situation is unsettled. It appears the 2026 version of the CFP will have 16 teams, but the access is a source of intense debate.
Two options have received the most support:
— The 4-4-2-2-1-3 model, in which the Big Ten and SEC would have four automatic qualifiers (AQs) regardless of in-season performance; the Big 12 and ACC would have two AQs; the top-ranked Group of Five team would receive a bid; and there would be three at-large slots. (One would be allotted to Notre Dame if the Irish meet certain criteria.)
— The 5+11 model, in which the Power Four champions and the top-ranked Group of Five team receive automatic bids and 11 spots are assigned to at-large teams as determined (presumably) by the CFP rankings.
In either model, the champion of the rebuilt Pac-12 will have a berth secured as long as it’s ranked higher than the champions of the American, Sun Belt, MAC, Conference USA and Mountain West.
The real issue, it seems, is which of the two models would give the Pac-12 champion the widest path into the CFP as an at-large entry.
Put another way: What if the American champion is 13-0 while the Pac-12 winner is 12-1 and ranked a few spots lower?
Would the 4-4-2-2-1-3 model offer better odds? Or would the 5+11 version be preferable?
In both cases, the likelihood of two teams outside the power conferences receiving bids is extraordinarily low. But our hunch, and it’s nothing more, is the 5+11 model provides a slightly brighter outlook.
It’s hard to explain why we feel that way, except that at-large bids and subjectivity move in lockstep. The more of the former, the greater role the latter plays in the process.
And if the Pac-12 champion is ranked behind the American winner, the conference seemingly would need help from the so-called eye test in order to earn the necessary ranking for inclusion.
We’re assuming the selection committee rankings would determine the at-large field, but that piece is undetermined, as well, for 2026.
Bottom line: Two bids for teams outside the Power Four feels like a once-in-a-decade scenario.
In the Big Ten, are the Rutgers, Minnesotas and Purdues of the world getting the same revenue shares as Ohio State, Michigan and USC? In addition, is the Big Ten satisfied with those schools finishing in the middle and bottom half of the conference every year? — @jimmy0726
The Big Ten distributes postseason revenue equally (think: the College Football Playoff and NCAA Tournament), but the media rights cash (from Fox, CBS and NBC) is not the same for all 18. Washington and Oregon, for example, receive half shares.
The easiest way to picture the situation is that all the longstanding members — those in the conference before it added Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers — receive identical amounts, as do USC and UCLA.
That places Minnesota and Purdue on the same tier as Ohio State and Michigan, despite the massive disparities in on-field success and media valuation.
We don’t expect that model to remain in place when the Big Ten begins its next media contract cycle in 2030. The conference could implement a performance-based revenue distribution plan that leans into competitive success, TV ratings or both.
As for the second part of your question, yes: The conference is probably content with the likes of Minnesota, Rutgers and Purdue regularly finishing on the middle or bottom tiers.
Why? Because if those schools were dominating, then Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State likely would be relegated to second-class status. You can only have so many good teams, after all.
While commissioners won’t admit it publicly, any conference with blue bloods wants those schools to thrive. It creates wealth for everyone.
Is there a limit to the number of “after dark” home games that any given school can play in the Big Ten? I’m not a huge fan of Washington getting stuck with 8 p.m. kickoffs in the first two weeks, but it would sit better if we won’t have more later in the season. — @rolloqtomasi
You might very well get “stuck” with more night games at Husky Stadium.
In our deep dive into the Big Ten’s TV selection process, which was published last summer, we asked the conference about caps on night games (at home or total), 9 a.m. kickoffs for the West Coast schools and other logistical issues.
Not surprisingly, the Big Ten declined to offer specifics because of confidentiality agreements with Fox, NBC and CBS but said it will work closely “with its television partners and member institutions to balance the additional opportunities for national exposure with the potential impact on academics, health, safety, rest, recovery, and overall competitive equity.”
We don’t know if there’s a maximum number of home night games, but Michigan State played four last season (7 p.m. kickoff or later). So yes, the Huskies very well could have two or three added later in the season, in addition to the 6 p.m. kickoff for the Rutgers game on a Friday night.
I read a quote from UCLA basketball coach Mick Cronin complaining about flying on Allegiant. I thought the Bruins joined the Big Ten so they could fly on Gulfstreams, not discount airlines? — @coletaylor
For those unfamiliar, Cronin said the following after UCLA’s season-ending loss to Tennessee in the NCAA Tournament:
“Right now my biggest concern is how bad the seats are on the Allegiant flight, on that terrible plane we’re gonna have to fly home tomorrow.”
It was just one more instance of Cronin grumbling about travel logistics. But to be clear, the NCAA handles transportation for teams in the tournament.
It was not UCLA’s decision.
During the regular season, the Bruins use chartered flights for men’s and women’s basketball — and have for several years. Other sports fly both charter and commercial, depending on the situation.
There is a cost consideration, for sure. UCLA is not exactly swimming in cash since moving to the Big Ten. We’ll know the details of the 2024-25 budget next winter and expect the report to show a substantial shortfall.
Yes, revenue will increase compared to the final year in the Pac-12, but it probably won’t come close to matching expenses, especially when campus support is removed from the calculation.
Any chance any Pac-12 legacy schools will say “We made a mistake” and crawl back to a rebuilt conference? My interest in the Huskies has really lessened since the move. — Al B
This question is posed periodically, and our answer never wavers: No, they would not return to the Pac-12 given the existing conference landscape.
One reason: They can’t return. The 10 departed schools have signed contracts binding them to the new leagues until at least 2030. Reversing course would cost hundreds of millions of dollars.
Also, the Big Ten, in particular, offers more stability, enhanced opportunities for success and greater revenue potential than the rebuilt Pac-12.
(That cash is immensely important with the revenue-share era approaching. The former Pac-12 schools now in the ACC, Big Ten and Big 12 must locate $20.5 million for their athletes if an antitrust lawsuit against the NCAA is approved.)
We continue to believe the eight schools that stuck around for 13 months after USC and UCLA departed didn’t want to leave but are now entrenched and content in their new homes.
Given a specific set of circumstances, they could return en masse in the 2030s for Olympic sports, and perhaps a few will consider the Pac-12 for football, as well.
But the heavyweights (USC, Oregon and Washington) have no reason to remove football from the Big Ten as long as the conference exists.
You have mentioned Texas State coming into the Pac-12 at a partial share. How about taking them and Louisiana (Lafayette) as partial-share members? It would be a second school in the Central Time Zone and open up recruiting in the Gulf Coast. — @SD_Samurai
The Hotline has been very public about our belief that Pac-12 expansion should focus on acquiring chips for the next round of media rights deals, in the 2030s, and Texas State is the best option available at this point (assuming the Pac-12 cannot afford to lure Memphis and Tulane from the American).
If the Bobcats can be secured for less than a full share of media revenue, all the better.
A second campus in the Central Time Zone would provide Texas State with a travel partner and make life easier for the conference’s western arm, as well. But the Pac-12 cannot dilute its product. It’s far better to remain lean and stout, even if that strategy results in slightly lower revenue, than to get bulkier and undercut the overall product.
The Ragin’ Cajuns had several stellar seasons under Billy Napier but have otherwise led a fairly mediocre existence in the Sun Belt.
Granted, Texas State cannot even claim consistent mediocrity. But the Bobcats offer a presence in Texas and arguably have greater long-haul potential than Louisiana.
The Pac-12’s calculation must be entirely about the long haul.
If you were a four-star running back in high school, which of the new-look Pac-12 schools would be your first option? — @jamesjosh2
It would be easy to pick the school that offers the best financial package. But if I’m a four-star recruit, I’m also thinking about developing into an NFL-caliber running back.
With that mindset, I would favor the team that balances the run and pass and, critically, the team with the best offensive line coach.
An elite line coach means there will be running lanes regardless of multi-year personnel changes along the front.
So it’s okay to call the Oregon-Oregon State rivalry game the Civil War again? Did anyone actually acknowledge that the original Civil War was over the abolishment of slavery? Or was that fact buried too deep in the history books? — Charlie P
The Hotline referred to the game as the Civil War within an article earlier this week and, honestly, didn’t give it a second thought.
The name was shoved aside in the summer of 2020, in the aftermath of the George Floyd protects. But the Ducks and Beavers never settled on a replacement, and the Civil War has quietly started to reappear in the lexicon.
The Hotline sees no issue with the name. Just because the schools have stopped using Civil War to describe their rivalry doesn’t mean we have to, as well.
When does Cal athletic director Jim Knowlton get fired? — @EKRickLar
Knowlton is not well liked by many Cal fans, and understandably so. His tenure features more wrong moves than right calls. But former chancellor Carol Christ handed Knowlton an extension back in the fall of 2021 that runs through the spring of 2029.
Yep, an eight-year deal. Amazing.
Unless donors produce the cash to buy Knowlton out of the final four years — that’s roughly $4 million in total — it’s hard to envision a change at the top of Cal’s athletic department.
Then again, with Ron Rivera running the football program and reporting directly to chancellor Rich Lyons, Knowlton’s role has been greatly diminished.
There’s loads of talk about the added travel for Olympic sports in the age of realignment. Without getting into the details of the logistical nightmare to reach places like Lincoln, State College, Manhattan (Kansas), Lubbock or Morgantown, do you have a “worst trip to a college campus” story? — @CurtisBlack
Two trips come to mind, for different reasons.
The most harrowing travel came after I attended an Arkansas basketball game in Fayetteville, walked out of the arena and realized fog had closed the airport. My only route home required a flight out of Ft. Smith the next morning. So I drove through the Ozark National Forest late that night despite fog so thick you couldn’t see more than five feet. The 60-mile trek took three hours, but I made Ft. Smith by dawn for the flight home.
The most memorable trip, however, was part of a seminal game in West Coast college football.
UCLA was scheduled to play Miami on Sept. 26, 1998, in the Orange Bowl, but Hurricane Georges threatened the region. There had been no delay or cancellation by Friday morning, so I flew to Miami on schedule to cover the game the next day.
Upon arriving at my hotel near Miami International, I discovered the schools had, in fact, postponed the game while I was in the air. (The Bruins never boarded their flight.) I rushed back to the airport, which was preparing to shut down, and luckily was able to catch the last flight back to Los Angeles — on the same plane I had just flown from LAX.
It was the last flight out that night, to anywhere.
As we took off, I looked back at a pitch-black terminal, a sight I hadn’t seen before or since.
The game was, of course, rescheduled for early December. I was impressed by a little-known Miami running back named Edgerrin James, who ended up having a decent NFL career. The 49-45 loss knocked UCLA out of the BCS Championship game (and Arizona out of the Rose Bowl).
The Bruins haven’t been the same since.
*** 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
