Jon Wilner
The Hotline mailbag publishes weekly. Send questions to wilnerhotline@
And if you missed it, last week’s mailbag examined the potential impact on college sports of the NFL’s media rights negotiations and the multi-billion dollar investment required by TV networks.
When it comes to College Football Playoff expansion, is it any surprise that SEC commissioner Greg Sankey is carrying water for his partner, ESPN? Why would the network support a 24-team format? — Jon J
The year-long stalemate between the SEC and Big Ten over the future format of the College Football Playoff is, at the most fundamental level, about much more than specifics such as field size or qualifying process.
It represents everything that ails college football in a triple-whammy fashion starring self-interest, abject greed and a rudderless governance structure.
As most fans are undoubtedly aware, the Big Ten is pushing for a 24-team field and has received support from the other Football Bowl Subdivision conferences and Notre Dame. The SEC remains in favor of 16 teams.
Unless the Big Ten and SEC agree — their deadline is Dec. 1 — the 12-team format in place for the upcoming season will hold for 2027 and beyond.
In his opposition to 24 and preference for 16, SEC commissioner Greg Sankey has the same stance as ESPN, his conference’s media partner.
The network is the exclusive rights-holder of the CFP through the spring of 2032 and opposes doubling the field size. Why? Because under the terms of the contract, the 12 additional games would become available to the highest bidder, perhaps including ESPN’s main rival, Fox.
What’s more, a playoff that large would devastate the bowl system that serves ESPN so well and eliminate the need for valuable conference championship games.
Nor does ESPN sense any groundswell of public support for doubling the size of the CFP just two years after it expanded from four to 12 teams.
The network is understandably concerned about the impact a mammoth playoff would have on interest in the sport’s cherished regular season.
There is value in scarcity. That value translates to ratings, and those ratings mean cash for ESPN.
But the impasse is much greater than SEC simply siding with its network partner. After all, the Big Ten is aligned with its media boss, Fox.
If the CFP expands to 24 teams, Fox, which is currently boxed out of an incredibly valuable sports property, would have access to the 12 additional games
Granted, Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti initially pitched a 24-team playoff independent of Fox’s wishes. But the network has lined up in support, glaring (metaphorically) across the table at ESPN.
And that’s the crux of the triple-layer conundrum for the industry:
1. Self-interest: The Big Ten and SEC essentially wrested control of the CFP in the spring of 2024 by threatening to form their own postseason event unless the other eight FBS conferences ceded control of the format. (Instead of calling their bluff, the little guys caved.)
2. Rudderless governance: By controlling the jewel that is the CFP, the Big Ten and SEC effectively control the entire sport — and yet they cannot agree on how to proceed. (The 16 vs. 24 debate is merely the latest version of a year-long disagreement.)
3. Abject greed: The Big Ten and SEC cannot settle on a shared path forward because the networks to which they are completely and utterly beholden, Fox and ESPN, are themselves competitors.
And that, folks, is the true contagion: ESPN and Fox, the two most powerful entities in college sports — the ATM machines for schools that cannot control their spending — have competing aims.
It’s not Hatfields and McCoys, or even Republicans and Democrats. But Fox and ESPN have no reason to pursue strategic alignments that benefit college football.
Instead, they are motivated to pursue independent goals that serve their businesses. (Which is exactly what you would expect.)
If we start at 40,000 feet and drill down, layer by ludicrous layer, the picture becomes clear:
The network overlords are in conflict; their conference partners are not aligned; and those same conferences gained control of the playoff via extortion.
Other than that, things are simply grand!
(In truth, the sport is reasonably healthy, which speaks to the popularity of football and the passion for alma maters.)
During our most cynical moments, the Hotline is convinced there is only one solution to the CFP’s Cold War: Sankey and Petitti clear the room to allow ESPN chairman Jimmy Pitaro and Fox Sports chief executive Eric Shanks hammer out a deal.
The SEC will play nine conference games starting in 2026, same as the Big Ten. Is this a sign the Big Ten has gained leverage in the CFP negotiations? — @sfw4422
The Big Ten has gained leverage, first and foremost, because of on-field success. Three consecutive national championships, courtesy of three schools, confers to commissioner Tony Petitti a certain amount of clout.
But tactically, Petitti has played his hand well.
Consider the sequence of events:
The 16-team playoff is proposed, with the Big Ten favoring a radical model based on automatic qualifiers (4-4-2-2-1-3) and the SEC pushing for an at-large format (5+11) that has widespread support.
The Big Ten won’t budge until the SEC agrees to move to a nine-game conference schedule.
The SEC goes to nine.
Negotiations drag on, and the Big Ten comes back with a 24-team proposal.
Frustrated that they agreed to nine conference games but haven’t been rewarded with the proposed expansion format, SEC coaches shift their support to the 24-team version. (After all, coaches believe playoff access and job security move in lockstep.)
As a result, Sankey, ESPN executives and SEC presidents — we don’t know the exact number — are left on an island supporting 16.
To be clear, that’s an incredibly formidable combination. There will be no agreement without Sankey, ESPN and the presidents on board.
But the sequence indicates how the dynamics seemingly have shifted in the Big Ten’s favor. Whether Sankey privately favors that position — and whether that means a resolution is coming later this year — we can’t begin to guess.
You write over half your columns about the business side of college sports, then complain the NCAA Tournament is expanding to 76 teams. Same with the College Football Playoff considering a 24-team field. What gives? — Bob L
I view those as separate and distinct issues. Yes, the Hotline devotes significant time and resources to covering the off-field side of college sports, from media matters to budget issues to legal news and the competition calendar.
That has been our focus for more than a decade. For example, we reported on the Pac-12’s revenue woes under Larry Scott years before it became a popular narrative — and despite pushback from the conference office.
And in all candor, expansion of the NCAA Tournament and CFP would be good for the Hotline’s business. Postseason participation generates interest. If the field sizes expand, more teams within our primary coverage zone would play meaningful games.
That said, the Hotline doesn’t view March Madness expansion as necessary or good for the event and the sport writ large. We have no interest in watching a 14-loss team from the SEC play a 15-loss team from the Big Ten in the new opening round, but that, in fact, is exactly what expansion will produce.
And the Hotline certainly doesn’t think a 24-team CFP is the smart move at this time — not after just two years of a 12-team field. Expansion is inevitable. In our view, the SEC and Big Ten should agree to a few seasons with 16 teams before they commit to 24.
Because once you make that leap, there’s no turning back. They best make sure they get it right.
If the future composition of Pac-12 football had been in place for the 2024 and 2025 seasons, the conference would have produced eight NFL Draft picks: six in 2025 and two in 2026. Going forward, what should the floor be for the new Pac-12 to be perceived as a top-five conference? — @Seattleite206
First, we should clarify that the phrase “top-five conference” is a public relations creation of the Pac-12, using past data, that doesn’t exist in the college sports lexicon the way Power Five/Group of Five once did and Power Four/Group of Six do now. Only the Pac-12 refers to the Pac-12 as a “top-five” conference.
What would it take for the rebuilt Pac-12 to be consistently considered the fifth-best league, behind the Power Four but ahead of the American, Mountain West, MAC, Sun Belt and Conference USA?
Of those, the American is clearly the strongest. And in the three years since losing Houston, UCF and Cincinnati to the Big 12, the American has averaged five selections per draft.
That should be the number to beat for the Pac-12, in our estimation.
Success will depend heavily on Boise State, San Diego State, Washington State and Oregon State. The other four schools don’t have the same level of historical success in turning out draftees.
Then again, the transfer portal and NIL continue to funnel players up the food chain. They begin as overlooked prospects, blossom after two or three years in the lower half of the FBS, then move to the ACC, Big 12, Big Ten or SEC and become draft picks credited to those conferences.
Cornerback D’Angelo Ponds, for example, started his career at James Madison, followed Curt Cignetti to Indiana, and was picked in the second round last week as a Big Ten product.
If you’re looking for a number, we suggest six picks per draft, on average, would put the new Pac-12 in position to lead the Group of Six.
How many female college athletes have been outed with a gambling problem? Or is it just a male thing? — MrEd315
The Hotline has no training in sociology, psychology or any other -ology, for that matter. But we cannot recall an instance of female college athletes getting busted for gambling, at least not in a manner that became public and made news.
The anecdotal evidence — not just Texas Tech quarterback Brendan Sorsby but other recent sports-gambling sagas — certainly suggests a male-heavy endeavor.
There is hard data, as well.
A 2023 study of 17,159 adults published through Northwestern’s Spiegel Research Center, showed 42.1 percent of males bet on sports compared to just 21.5 percent of females.
“Sports bettors are more likely to be male, but there are a lot of women betting on sports,” the accompanying article noted.
Given the availability of wagers on iPhone apps, the numbers will undoubtedly increase over time.
More Sorsbys are out there, unfortunately.
What is the future of the Mountain West? I don’t see the lawsuits providing enough money for longer-term survival. If a few schools leave for the Pac-12 or the American, what happens to the remaining members? Could there be a merger with the Big Sky? — Steve
In theory, we agree. The bottom tier of Mountain West football feels competitively closer to the top of the FCS than it does to the best of the American or Pac-12.
But in a practical sense, the future is murky for every school in the Group of Six — in fact, it’s murky for the majority of schools in the ACC and Big 12, as well.
The 2030s will bring structural change to major college football, with the groundwork likely laid in the 2028-29 window.
We could witness the rise of a super league (for 32-to-48 teams) or another round of Big Ten and SEC expansion that would include Notre Dame, Florida State, Miami, Clemson and perhaps a couple schools from the Big 12.
That’s why the Pac-12’s media rights agreement expires in the summer of 2031 and the Mountain West’s ends one year later. The schools in both leagues want as much flexibility as possible when everything changes.
It’s entirely possible that a handful of the 18 football-playing members of the two conferences are positioned to move up. (They are spending now for survival later.)
But for everyone else, there could be just two options: Merge into yet another version of the Pac-12 … or drop down to the FCS.
*** Send suggestions, comments and tips (confidentiality guaranteed) to wilnerhotline@
*** Follow me on the social media platform X: @WilnerHotline
Related posts:
photo credit-Michael Rincon Photography
Pac-12 bowl projections: We’re saying Arizona has a chance, which isn’t something we’ve said in years
Metcalfe Best of West WBB rankings: Cal soars after beating Gonzaga, Stanford drops and Utah loses … its coach
College Football Playoff quarterfinal picks: How Arizona State’s performance could affect future versions of the playoffs
(AP Photo/Gareth Patterson)
College Football Playoff winners and losers: From the Big Ten and SEC to Notre Dame, Brian Kelly and Chip Kelly