Mailbag: Precarious future for the ACC and Big 12, the Pac-12 ‘flex week,’ Big Ten revenue tiers, the FBS newcomers and more
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.
And if you missed it, last week’s mailbag looked at the potential consequences of the Big 12’s grueling February schedule for its top teams.
Do you think the ACC and Big 12 have enough political capital and fan support to avoid being squeezed out if the Big Ten and SEC attempt to gain a systemic advantage with the future playoff format? — Milkbear79
A fascinating topic, for sure, because the tentacles reach far beyond the College Football Playoff and touch an existential issue for the ACC and Big 12: The potential for the Big Ten and SEC to break away.
After all, that’s exactly what happened two years ago. During negotiations over the CFP format for 2026 and beyond, commissioners Tony Petitti (Big Ten) and Greg Sankey (SEC) leveraged the threat of a breakaway — forming their own playoff — as a means of gaining governing control.
As a result of a memorandum of understanding signed in the spring of 2024, the two conferences possess the authority to shape the CFP as they see fit and are merely required to have meaningful discussions with the other Football Bowl Subdivision leagues (and Notre Dame).
That power grab left the ACC and Big 12 to ride shotgun on what has become a two-year journey to determine the playoff format. It will have 12 teams for the upcoming season, but the page is blank for 2027 and beyond.
So far, the ACC and Big 12 have been aligned with the SEC — first in opposing the Big Ten’s plan to stock the field with automatic qualifiers and now in their concerns over the Big Ten’s proposal for a 24-team event.
But if the SEC’s strategic aims ever run counter to the Big 12 and ACC preferences, the duo could be in trouble. Petitti and Sankey have the right to impose whatever format they want, even if it leaves the ACC and Big 12 with limited access.
That said, the CFP is just one piece on the chessboard. We witnessed a second move this week, when the Big Ten and SEC released a white paper explaining why the push to pool college football media rights among the power conferences would not result in untold riches for the sport.
Notably, that push is led by a Big 12 powerbroker. Texas Tech billionaire donor Cody Campbell believes college sports would be better off selling football rights as a single entity, like the NFL, not as separate conferences.
You can see why the Big Ten and SEC oppose the plan: They would lose their existing advantages in influence and wealth. Any increase in revenue would be based on their inventory — the SEC is particularly undervalued — but generate revenue for their competitors.
And you can see why Campbell would support the plan: It would benefit his school, Texas Tech, and the Big 12.
Key point: We don’t believe for a nanosecond that Campbell would have the same view if the Red Raiders were in the SEC and basking in all the benefits. He’s not looking out for the best interest of college sports. He’s looking out for the best interest of Texas Tech.
In that regard, Campbell is no different than everyone else. By its very nature, the industry requires each entity to prioritize its best interests.
But the dots are easily connected. The SEC and Big Ten, which have oversight of the CFP format, are adamant about maintaining control of their media rights; meanwhile, the ACC and Big 12 have carefully positioned themselves within close proximity of the behemoths on both issues.
The foundation for a breakaway of some sort is being laid, and the ACC and Big 12 cannot afford to get left behind.
In our view, college sports is experiencing its awkward teenage phase with the emergence of NIL and the transfer portal, revenue sharing, eligibility issues, the employment question and so much more.
It could take another six, eight, or 10 years for a mature industry to emerge.
What that looks like, nobody knows. But from our seat, it’s clear the ACC and Big 12 don’t control their own destiny.
The buzz over the Big Ten’s proposal to accept private equity has subsided, but do you think they got the revenue tiers right? Washington doesn’t feel like USC, but it also doesn’t feel like it belongs in the same tier as Northwestern, Purdue, etc. — @news_bling
The Hotline did not have access to the formula used to determine the revenue tiers but assumed on-field performance and TV ratings over a multi-year period were integral.
For those unfamiliar, Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State were on the top tier, with up-front payments of $190 million per campus. USC and Oregon were on the second tier ($150 million). And everyone else was on the third tier with $110 million.
We were baffled by Washington’s position alongside the likes of Purdue, Northwestern, Minnesota, Maryland and Rutgers. It certainly wasn’t justified by performance: The Huskies made four appearances in New Year’s Six and CFP games in 10 years. And without plowing through season-upon-season of TV ratings, our assumption is Washington’s total viewership exceeded many, if not all the schools on its tier.
Also, keep in mind that the revenue tiers were created for both the up-front division of the $2.4 billion (from UC Investments) and for the annual distributions from the conference office.
The Huskies would have been $40 million behind Oregon in up-front cash and millions behind each year, as well. (The conference purportedly included a mechanism, based on performance, for schools to change tiers for the annual payments.)
UW’s willingness to accept its position on the bottom tier was equally perplexing.
The only explanation is that president Robert Jones was desperate enough for the $110 million infusion — and the security provided by the 20-year extension of the grant-of-rights — that he was willing to accept the unthinkable:
The Huskies are being codified as less than Oregon.
If the Pac-12’s ‘flex week’ idea is a success, is there any chance the conference continues it and doesn’t add a ninth football member in the future? — @NateJones2009
The Hotline offers no certainties in college sports, but we can guarantee this: If the flex week at the end of the Pac-12’s regular season is successful, other conferences will adopt similar models (perhaps as early as the 2027 season).
How is success defined? Obviously, by a Pac-12 team gaining entrance to the College Football Playoff because of a schedule change created by the flex week.
But success could be more subtle, as well: It could be the attention generated or the matchups produced. It could be something nobody can grasp until the flex week is upon us.
The concept itself isn’t new: FBS conferences and industry officials have discussed adding flex weeks to schedules for years. But turning concept into reality is difficult because of size. With just eight teams, the Pac-12 has the room to maneuver within the 13-week regular season.
The impact of a successful flex week on expansion strategy is an interesting topic. Our sense is that a beneficial outcome in 2026 might raise the bar for expansion but won’t remove the option.
If a no-brainer candidate emerges in the next 12 or 18 months, the Pac-12 will pursue the opportunity. If the flex week works and the available options for a ninth football school are merely mediocre, perhaps the conference passes.
Best guess: The flex week doesn’t produce an outcome (good or bad) that materially alters the thinking on the expansion.
In 2024, Oregon was the only Power Four team that played eight consecutive regular-season games against Power Four opponents. In 2026, with a compressed 13-week schedule, Oregon is still the only Big Ten team playing eight conference games in a row. In 2026, are any other teams playing eight straight? — Jon J
There are several, in fact.
In the Big 12, Utah, Kansas, Kansas State and Oklahoma State all play eight conference games in an eight-week span. BYU’s task is more difficult, with eight conference games and Notre Dame over a nine-week stretch.
In the SEC, Texas and Oklahoma will face the eight-straight challenge.
In the ACC, Duke must run the same gauntlet, with Georgia Tech playing seven ACC games and Georgia in an eight-week stretch.
And in the Big Ten, it’s worth noting that while Northwestern doesn’t have eight consecutive conference games, the Wildcats will play 11 weeks in a row, a brutal stretch that includes a date with Ball State.
So the Ducks are hardly alone.
Since North Dakota State and Sacramento State are transferring to FBS status this year, how will FBS programs that schedule the two as their FCS game respond? For instance, Oregon State is supposed to play Sacramento State in 2029? — @Seattleite206
The Hotline is aware of just two contracted games between North Dakota State or Sacramento State and FBS opponents: The Bison are supposed to visit Oregon in 2028; and the Hornets are, as noted, scheduled for Corvallis in 2029.
According to the invaluable website FBschedules.com, that’s the extent of it.
Will either the Ducks or Beavers cancel the games? Probably not.
For one thing, the contracts assuredly include cancellation penalties. But there’s also the effort required to find a replacement game. Neither school wants to take on that project unless it’s absolutely necessary.
As we see it, the only scenario that would prompt a cancellation is significant Pac-12 expansion that results in a move to nine conference games, forcing the Beavers to cancel Sacramento State.
At this point, the Beavers only have three non-conference games on their 2029 schedule. So the likelihood of booking a fourth, then needing to cancel one, is remote.
Shouldn’t the Pac-12 be called out for reneging on its exit and poaching fees owed to the Mountain West? This issue could affect the validity of similar fees in other conferences. The covenant of good faith and fair dealing needs to be upheld. — Kent A
The Pac-12 sees it differently. It believes the Mountain West acted in bad faith by including the poaching penalties within the scheduling agreement that was signed in late 2023. As a result, there’s a lawsuit currently in the discovery phase, with a trial set for the summer of 2027.
The legal system will identify the bad-faith actor.
To be clear, there are two lawsuits rooted in the move of five schools from the Mountain West into the Pac-12:
— The poaching penalty lawsuit, filed by the Pac-12 against the Mountain West, over $55 million in fees.
— The exit fee lawsuit, filed by Utah State, Colorado State and Boise State against the Mountain West, over roughly $100 million in fees owed by those three schools and Fresno State and San Diego State. (The Bulldogs and Aztecs aren’t part of the lawsuit because one of the defendants, San Jose State, is part of the same university system.)
The Hotline has always believed the Pac-12 has a stronger case in the poaching penalty lawsuit and the Mountain West has a stronger case in the exit fee lawsuit, but that’s just a guess.
The outcome will be decided by a judge, or a settlement.
Which teams (including Group of Six representatives) would you guess will qualify for the College Football Playoff next season? I suspect it will be largely holdovers, but there will likely be a few teams that push their way in. — Steve Q
It won’t be the same 12 teams — that simply isn’t realistic.
In fact, we would be mildly surprised if half of the 2025 participants return for the 2026 edition.
Tulane, James Madison, Mississippi, Texas Tech, Texas A&M and Alabama would top our list of participants most likely to miss the CFP next season based on what we know of the rosters.
Meanwhile, Texas, LSU, Michigan and Notre Dame appear well positioned to climb into the field, with a secondary group consisting of BYU, USC, Tennessee, Utah, Arizona, Washington, Houston, SMU, Iowa and perhaps a few others.
The college football postseason isn’t nearly as exclusive as it was under the four-team format. But two-thirds of the 68 power conference teams begin each season with an extremely narrow path to the CFP.
Exactly how the situation plays out with the teams and conferences included (and excluded) could impact whether the playoff expands to 16 teams for the 2027 season.
The NCAA has been discouraging FCS teams from moving to the FBS. Now, the Mountain West (North Dakota State) and MAC (Sacramento State) have subverted those efforts by selling FBS memberships. Do you believe the NCAA will make moving to FBS even harder? — @SpokaneCoug
Three years ago, the NCAA raised the transition fee into the FBS from $5,000 to $5 million. Why? Executives at the top of the sport (the power conferences) want fewer voices in the room making decisions, not more. Because they can’t expel schools, raising the barrier for entry was the next-best option.
We don’t know how many schools would have made the move in recent years if the $5,000 fee had remained in place.
But we know the 1,000-fold increase didn’t stop North Dakota State or Sacramento State, and it won’t stop schools dead set on joining the top echelon.
Sure, the NCAA could raise the fee again. But at some point it could risk (what else?) a lawsuit.
Bottom line: Any FCS school interested in making the leap first needs an invitation, and the FBS conferences will only open their doors if there’s more realignment.
Our strong suspicion: There will be a major reorganization of the FBS in the 2030s that could lead to more schools moving down than up.
Does the Pac-12 expect to have three new members soon? If not, why don’t they call themselves the Pac-9, so the name truly represents the size of the conference. It’s beyond stupid that the Big Ten and other leagues don’t have names that represent their number of schools. — Sally D
The Pac-12 might not have one new member anytime soon, much less three. But the desire to keep the name isn’t about numerical accuracy. It’s about brand value.
Even in its depleted, reconstructed state, the Pac-12 name resonates with fans and sponsors across college sports.
The Big Ten has retained its name for the same reason, despite expanding to 18 schools.
That goes for the Big 12, as well, with its 16-school membership.
Tradition, reputation, success, recognition — it’s all part of the value proposition that matters more than anything.
For the Pac-12, the only outcome worse than changing names to the Pac-9 (simply for the sake of accuracy) would be switching to the Pac-9 and then changing again to the Pac-10 or Pac-11 a few years later because of expansion.
*** 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