{"id":969,"date":"2025-06-21T01:21:09","date_gmt":"2025-06-21T01:21:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/969\/"},"modified":"2025-06-21T01:21:09","modified_gmt":"2025-06-21T01:21:09","slug":"sec-big-ten-breakaway-bluff-cfp-distrust-pac-12-media-rights","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/969\/","title":{"rendered":"SEC-Big Ten breakaway (bluff?), CFP distrust, Pac-12 media rights"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Hotline mailbag publishes weekly. Send questions to wilnerhotline@bayareanewsgroup.com<\/a> and include \u2018mailbag\u2019 in the subject line. Or hit me on the social media platform X: @WilnerHotline<\/a><\/p>\n

Some questions have been edited for clarity and brevity.<\/p>\n

If the Big Ten and SEC break off and form their own football league, why would the NCAA continue to allow them to compete in the non-revenue college sports? Couldn\u2019t they just say: You have to run all the championships for all your sports, not just football. \u2014 @MistUncle<\/strong><\/p>\n

Yes, absolutely. And it\u2019s worth pointing out that despite much-deserved criticism (and legal defeats) on so many fronts, the NCAA does a first-class job staging national championships. It\u2019s what the organization does best, actually.<\/p>\n

The two conferences leveraged the threat of creating their own postseason into control of the College Football Playoff format in 2026 and beyond because the other leagues didn\u2019t call their bluff. The championship-event element was just one reason the Hotline never believed a breakaway threat was rooted in reality.<\/p>\n

Two others:<\/p>\n

\u2014 Commissioners Tony Petitti of the Big Ten and Greg Sankey of the SEC would have been vilified for eternity like no figures in the history of college sports and like few in the history of American sports.<\/p>\n

\u2014 The process of breaking away was bound to draw immense scrutiny in the political arena. Lawmakers from states with one school in the Big Ten or SEC and one school in the ACC or Big 12 (think: Kentucky, Iowa and South Carolina) would have been under heavy pressure to intervene.<\/p>\n

Having said that, the NCAA is headed toward a division of governance and authority unlike anything in its history. The Power Four conferences are gaining leverage by the month and will, perhaps before the decade ends, carve their own mini-division within major college sports.<\/p>\n

What does that look like?<\/p>\n

They would have the freedom to set their own rules for football \u2014 and crucially, their own calendar \u2014 while remaining under the NCAA competitive umbrella for all other sports. (Other conferences could opt in for football if desired.)<\/p>\n

And that structure would be perfectly acceptable. The top tier of college football is different from everything else and should be treated as such.<\/p>\n

But the breakaway threat? The SEC and Big Ten did not possess the guts to go through with it, in our view.<\/p>\n

Can you blame the SEC for its strong resistance to a nine-game conference schedule, which could easily add a loss to the record of a playoff contender, when schedule strength mattered so little in 2024? (See: Indiana, SMU and Arizona State.) \u2014 James V<\/strong><\/p>\n

The SEC\u2019s wariness is completely justified after the disappointing performance by the CFP selection committee last fall. There were numerous examples of the committee paying too little attention to schedule strength, over-emphasizing the number of losses, making hypocritical decisions and talking out of both sides of its mouth.<\/p>\n

That talking is a big part of the problem, by the way. The weekly rankings show forces the committee chair to answer questions he or she should not be answering if credibility were the goal. But credibility isn\u2019t the goal: Entertainment is the goal, at least for ESPN.<\/p>\n

Ideally, there would be two rankings shows, one in early November, the other in the middle of the month. Under no circumstances should the committee release rankings on the Tuesday before championship weekend. All that does is box the committee into decisions that could be problematic after the games.<\/p>\n

The SEC should be skeptical of adding a ninth conference game that will result in additional losses and could be held against its teams by the committee.<\/p>\n

At the same time, the Big Ten is justified in wanting automatic qualifiers to shield itself from the impact of a crossover series with the SEC. That, too, would add to the loss total and could be held against the conference.<\/p>\n

There are many legitimate concerns and few easy answers. And most of the angst can be traced to a deep distrust of the committee.<\/p>\n

Your recent article valued the Pac-12 at approximately $70 million per year in media rights. Are all of those fan bases really only roughly equal to one of the Big Ten programs? That\u2019s about what a full share there is worth. \u2014 @BillyBobV7<\/strong><\/p>\n

For those unfamiliar, the Hotline\u2019s forecast, published on Wednesday, predicted a $70 million media deal for the Pac-12<\/a> (or $7.8 million per school per year). And yes, that\u2019s approximately the amount each Big Ten school receives from that conference\u2019s media deal over the course of the contract cycle.<\/p>\n

But remember, those are averages.<\/p>\n

Boise State\u2019s media rights are probably worth more than $7.8 million annually. Same with Washington State and Oregon State, based on their TV ratings, media markets and success.<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, there are plenty of schools in the Big Ten whose media rights are worth less than $70 million annually (hello, Purdue, Minnesota, UCLA, Illinois, etc.).<\/p>\n

But on the other end of the valuation range, Ohio State and Michigan, in particular, are worth vastly more than $70 million annually.<\/p>\n

How can UNLV afford to stay put in the Mountain West, and wait for an offer from the Big 12, when the Rebels may not even get the money that was promised by their current conference? \u2014 @CelestialMosh<\/strong><\/p>\n

We don\u2019t know the outcome of the mediation between the Mountain West and Pac-12<\/a> over the poaching penalty and exit fee lawsuits. The Rebels might get every dollar promised by commissioner Gloria Nevarez last fall, or not.<\/p>\n

Until the Pac-12 completes its expansion strategy, conclusions are risky.<\/p>\n

But it\u2019s clear UNLV\u2019s administration believes the Mountain West provides a pathway into the Big 12: If the Rebels stay put and dominate the depleted conference, their value will, in theory, soar by the time the Big 12 expands again in the early 2030s.<\/p>\n

We\u2019re skeptical. The Hotline believes the increased emphasis on strength-of-schedule in the new CFP format (starting in 2026) will make UNLV\u2019s task that much more difficult if the school remains in the Mountain West.<\/p>\n

In our view, playing the best competition in the most reputable conference possible offers the best chance for advancement.<\/p>\n

If no school increases the value of the media rights deal, why should the Pac-12 expand beyond Texas State? Why have any discussions about adding Memphis as a football-only member if it reduces the shares for everyone else? \u2013@NateJones2009<\/strong><\/p>\n

That\u2019s part of the calculation, for sure. Once the conference reaches the certification requirement with an eighth all-sports member, it must assess the value proposition of additional expansion.<\/p>\n

Our sense is that Memphis would not devalue the revenue shares. The Tigers would generate enough in media value annually for the conference to keep everyone else whole. In other words, a media deal that (hypothetically) spins off $8 million per school would remain at $8 million, not drop to $7.5 million (or less) with the Tigers on board.<\/p>\n

They might even add incremental dollars. But they aren\u2019t a game-changer in any way, shape or form. There are no game changers available for the Pac-12 \u2014 not even\u00a0the combination of Memphis and Tulane.<\/p>\n

One last point: We are not convinced the Pac-12\u2019s media deal will generate enough annually to make the move worthwhile for Memphis, even in a football-only fashion.<\/p>\n

Football may run the world but Oregon State just had a power conference-type of run chasing the College World Series. Will the Beavers stay Independent in baseball or compete in the Pac-12 in 2026? \u2014 @Moneyline_Ray<\/strong><\/p>\n

We should start by reminding fans that the rebuilt Pac-12 is in the process of determining which sports it plans to sponsor \u2014 and which schools will be members of the conference in various sports.<\/p>\n

If we assume baseball makes the sport-sponsorship cut, there\u2019s every reason to believe the Beavers will be involved. And it could be a solid conference. San Diego State has a rich baseball history, obviously, and so does Fresno State.<\/p>\n

Competing as an Independent this season didn\u2019t undermine OSU\u2019s success: The Beavers went 46-16-1, hosted two rounds of NCAA Tournament games and made it to Omaha.<\/p>\n

But unless you\u2019re Notre Dame football, life as an Independent is challenging and costly, especially from a scheduling standpoint.<\/p>\n

Even for the Irish, that\u2019s partially true \u2014 hence their partnership with the ACC for five games per year.<\/p>\n

We now have antitrust lawyers against Title IX lawyers. This confrontation was inevitable with the amount of money in the House v. NCAA settlement<\/a>. Will the prevailing side inform the universities how to allocate future payments to athletes? \u2014 @sfw4422<\/strong><\/p>\n

That\u2019s the multi-billion-dollar question at this point.<\/p>\n

The House lawsuit settlement does not address Title IX. It allows schools to share revenue in the manner they see fit, which likely means $19 million (roughly) will be spent on football and men\u2019s basketball, and only $1.5 million on Olympic sports. That\u2019s not exactly a Title IX-level degree of equality, but there\u2019s a catch.<\/p>\n

Attorneys for the plaintiffs and defense designed the settlement to protect it from Title IX litigation by basing the revenue-sharing piece on market forces.<\/p>\n

The amount shared (first year maximum: $20.5 million per school) is based on a percentage of the average revenue generated by schools from ticket sales, media rights and licensing \u2014 the dollars that could be traced to their name, image and likeness.<\/p>\n

There are no institutional or federal dollars involved in the calculation, thus insulating the revenue-sharing piece from Title IX litigation. Or so they hope.<\/p>\n

Clearly, there is some risk.<\/p>\n

The courts could determine that revenue sharing in a manner that allocates 90 percent to football and men\u2019s basketball does, in fact, violate Title IX.<\/p>\n

Will the Big Sky invite Southern Utah and Utah Tech to backfill for losing Sacramento State? \u2014 @cougsguy06<\/strong><\/p>\n

Our hunch is that one of them, but perhaps not both, will receive an invitation. Without Sacramento State, the Big Sky is down to 11 schools, and even numbers generally work best for scheduling.<\/p>\n

Remember, Southern Utah left the Big Sky after the 2021 season to join the WAC. Have the ill feelings lingered? Probably. Does that give Utah Tech an advantage if the Big Sky only wants one new member? Perhaps.<\/p>\n

That said, the conference must account for its membership in a slew of Olympic sports. We won\u2019t dive into that aspect here, but it\u2019s assuredly part of the planning.<\/p>\n

And let\u2019s not forget: The Big Sky has been aware of Sacramento State\u2019s ambitions for months. The Hornets\u2019 departure, announced Wednesday, wasn\u2019t a surprise.<\/p>\n

We suspect the Big Sky will wait for the next realignment move<\/a> \u2014 likely in the Pac-12 \u2014 before executing its membership strategy. As commissioner Tom Wistrcill told \u2018Canzano and Wilner: The Podcast\u201d<\/a> earlier this month:<\/p>\n

\u201cWe do have plans together. It\u2019s kind of a decision-making tree: If this happens, then we look at these three options; if this happens, it\u2019s these two options \u2026 We have a good plan together if one of the eight things we think could happen, happen. If Nos. 9 and 10 happen, then we\u2019ll have to adjust.\u201d<\/p>\n

How does the College Sports Commission (CSC) generate revenue? \u2014 @jimmy0726<\/strong><\/p>\n

This question was posed last week, and we did not have an answer. FGS Global, the firm handling communications for the CSC, hadn\u2019t responded to our inquiry prior to publication on June 13.<\/p>\n

An answer came a few days later, so let\u2019s return to the topic.<\/p>\n

According to an FGS Global spokesperson, \u201cthe defendant conferences\u201d in the House v. NCAA lawsuit \u201cpaid the expenses to create the CSC.\u201d<\/p>\n

(For those unaware, the defendants are the ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-12 and SEC, along with the NCAA.)<\/p>\n

Exactly how much each conference shelled out to create the CSC, we cannot say. But the outlay was likely minimal relative to annual revenues.<\/p>\n

Moving forward, the spokesperson said, the \u201ccosts of running the CSC are expected to be shared among those participating in it.\u201d<\/p>\n

Given the importance of the NIL Go platform and the desire to end pay-for-play, all the Football Bowl Subdivision conferences and most, if not all, Division I basketball conferences likely will be involved.<\/p>\n

What does your candidate dartboard look like for the athletic director vacancies at Cal and Stanford? \u2014 Pat S<\/strong><\/p>\n

There is no dartboard for Cal.<\/p>\n

Upon announcing Jim Knowlton\u2019s retirement<\/a>, the Bears indicated deputies Jay Larson and Jenny Simon-O\u2019Neill would serve as co-athletic directors while chancellor Rich Lyons evaluates the situation. Their terms run through the 2025-26 school year, so the Bears don\u2019t need a traditional replacement for Knowlton for at least 12 months \u2014 and perhaps much longer.<\/p>\n

Lyons might determine that the unusual structure is a workable long-haul solution. After all, Ron Rivera is effectively the athletic director for football \u2014 officially, he\u2019s the program\u2019s general manager with a direct reporting line to Lyons \u2014 so Larson and Simon-O\u2019Neill are in charge of everything else.<\/p>\n

Stanford should be approaching the end of its search to replace Bernard Muir, who stepped down in February under circumstances similar to those Knowlton faced. (Muir was marginalized when Andrew Luck became general manager of the football program just as Knowlton was rendered somewhat irrelevant when Rivera took over.)<\/p>\n

Unless a snafu surfaces, we expect Stanford to have an athletic director in place in July or August.<\/p>\n

Kevin Blue, a former Stanford golfer (and administrator) who now leads Canada Soccer, is a name to watch. And we would not be surprised if the Cardinal makes an unconventional hire, opting for someone with no ties to the school and no background in college sports.<\/p>\n

That would be a mistake, but Stanford has made its fair share in recent years. President Jonathan Levin was smart enough to hire Luck and orchestrate Muir\u2019s departure. Maybe he will save the Cardinal from overthinking the situation.<\/p>\n

*** Send suggestions, comments and tips (confidentiality guaranteed) to wilnerhotline@bayareanewsgroup.com<\/a> or call 408-920-5716<\/p>\n

*** Follow me on the social media platform X: @WilnerHotline<\/a><\/p>\n

\t\t\t