Mailbag: Week 1 is average nationally (but solid on the West Coast), Pac-12 vs. MW cash, Big Ten private capital 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 examined which school would win the Big Ten championship first: USC or Washington.

---

Looking ahead to the 2026 season, the Week 1 schedule is putrid but Week 2 is loaded. Is this just a one-year blip or another example of yesteryear’s college football being much much better? — Will D

The Week 1 schedule is a massive letdown compared to the barrage of marquee matchups offered in the opening week of the 2025 season. The list of premier games for the Labor Day weekend includes Baylor-Auburn, Clemson-LSU, Louisville-Mississippi, Notre Dame-Wisconsin and Florida State-SMU.

Not exactly a clear-your-calendar lineup.

In fact, many of the most interesting matchups will unfold on the West Coast with Boise State-Oregon, UCLA-Cal, Fresno State-USC, Miami-Stanford and Washington State-Washington. (Yes, the Apple Cup is the season opener.)

But as the question notes, Week 2 in 2026 is loaded in a fashion reminiscent of Week 1 in 2025: Oklahoma-Michigan, Ohio State-Texas, Arizona State-Texas A&M, Missouri-Kansas, Oregon-Oklahoma State, Iowa-Iowa State and Arizona-BYU headline a stellar lineup.

Because there are no exhibition games in college football — and maybe there should — many coaches recoil at the notion of starting the season with an A-level opponent. For that reason, Week 2 usually features a slew of marquee non-conference matchups.

And based on what we know, Week 1 in 2027 isn’t much better.

But the Hotline doesn’t see the sport having a Week 1 problem moving forward as much as it will have a September problem.

With the SEC and ACC moving to nine league games starting next season, the top brands in both conferences could scale back the quantity of Power Four vs. Power Four affairs played over the course of three or four years. (We have already seen a slew of home-and-home series canceled for that very reason.)

Another issue addressed repeatedly on the Hotline: Concerns that the College Football Playoff selection process favors softer non-conference schedules because of the enduring, confounding emphasis on the number of losses for a given team.

The SEC and Big Ten want schedule strength to carry more weight, but the committee appears fixated on loss totals. That could make blue bloods wary of scheduling the showdowns everyone wants to see.

And to that end, ESPN personality Paul Finebaum speculated this week that Alabama might cancel its home-and-home series with Ohio State in 2027-28 instead of risking a loss with “a coach (Kalen DeBoer) that is in trouble.”

All of which is to say the following: The future of Labor Day weekend showdowns, arguably the sport’s greatest brand-building opportunity outside New Year’s Day, is very much uncertain.

Just like everything else about college football.

---

Let’s assume the Pac-12 gets $7 million per school from the new media rights deal and the Mountain West receives $3.5 million per school. Eventually, the five departing schools will have to pay some amount in exit fees to the Mountain West. Is it possible they could practically break even over the next five years? — @NateJones2009

Let’s start with this: We don’t know how the lawsuit filed by Boise State, Colorado State and Utah State over the exit fees will be resolved. A settlement is the most likely outcome, but the amount could be closer to $100 million — the approximate total owed by the five departing schools — or closer to $1.

Also, we don’t know the exact dollars involved in the respective media rights deals.

Our hunch, based on breadcrumbs offered by industry sources, is the Pac-12’s deal will distribute roughly $6 million per school per year. That includes the operational costs of the games produced by Pac-12 Enterprises but does not account for the impact Texas State’s reduced share has on the amount distributed to the other eight schools.

The Mountain West’s deal, if split evenly across all the football-playing schools, would probably amount to $2 million per campus per year. It’s a clear step back from what the conference has been earning.

However, commissioner Gloria Nevarez has performed meatball surgery on the distributions that would make Hawkeye Pierce proud in order to keep her legacy schools whole and her anchor schools (UNLV and Air Force) satisfied.

If the baseline question is whether the five departing schools would have received more media revenue by staying in the Mountain West, with Washington State and Oregon State joining in a reverse merger, we’re admittedly skeptical but would have to take a deeper dive into the issue.

That said, money was not the driving force behind their move. It was a co-pilot with the opportunity to leave the low-performing schools behind — a tale as old as realignment itself — and operate under the Pac-12 brand.

Boise State and San Diego State, in particular, viewed the Pac-12 as offering a wider path into the CFP and, therefore, into whatever version of college football comes next.

---

Rumor has it that the new Michigan president is okay with private equity. If the Wolverines sign on to the Big Ten’s proposal and USC is the lone holdout, what would the Trojans do? — @brycetacoma

During his tenure at Syracuse, Kent Syverud was a proponent of using private equity to support a super league. However, we are not aware of him offering a public comment on either issue since accepting the job in Ann Arbor. (His tenure begins in June.)

As many readers surely know, Michigan’s powerful governing board was adamantly opposed to the Big Ten’s private capital proposal. It’s difficult to believe 1) the board’s position would have changed in the past three months, or 2) the board would subsequently hire a president who viewed that hot-button issue differently.

But in the event the Wolverines change their position, leaving USC as the lone holdout on the common sense side of the aisle, how would the Trojans respond? They could singlehandedly block the move based on the unanimity requirement. But we suspect USC would relent and approve the proposal.

Of course, there’s an X factor to consider: Ohio State was not in the ‘yes’ category when the plan stalled in the fall. Even if Michigan changed its view, the Trojans might have company in opposition courtesy of the most powerful school in the conference.

Our view: If the proposal ever comes to a vote, the Wolverines and Buckeyes will be on the same side — and that will be the winning side.

Nothing of long-lasting consequence will happen in the Big Ten without Ohio State’s approval.

---

In addition to possibly qualifying for the College Football Playoff, which bowl games will Oregon, UCLA, USC, and Washington be eligible for beginning in 2026-27? Will the four Pac-12 legacy schools be eligible for all of the Big Ten contracted bowl games? — Jon J

Short answer: We have no idea.

Slightly-longer answer: None of the FBS conference bowl lineups are set for next winter.

Even-longer answer: The bowl contract cycle expired with the conclusion of the 2025-26 postseason, but executives were unable to reconfigure the agreements (to account for realignment) because nobody knew if the CFP would expand.

The entirety of the bowl system was paralyzed for months because the SEC and Big Ten couldn’t resolve the playoff expansion debate. The original deadline of Dec. 1 was pushed to Jan. 23, and only at that point did the CFP announce there would be no changes for 2026-27.

At this point, bowl officials are working with the conferences to determine if they should change affiliations for the upcoming season, even though any adjustments might become obsolete if the CFP expands in 2027-28, or if they should maintain the status quo for another year.

Nothing is official for the Big Ten’s western wing, the conference writ large or the whole of the FBS.

---

I may have missed it, but when will the new “flex game” at the end of the Pac-12 season opponent be announced? If it’s truly No. 1 vs. No. 8 and No. 2 vs. No. 7, etc., won’t they have to wait until Saturday night the week prior? — @smittytheclownn

Two things are equally true: The Pac-12 did a nice job explaining the unusual schedule on Wednesday; and it’s confusing.

So allow the Hotline to help with the flex week, which is Nov. 28, the final Saturday of the regular season — what for everyone else is Rivalry Week.

Four home teams and four road teams have been set, with the following tentative matchups: Boise State at Utah State, Texas State at Colorado State, San Diego State at Fresno State and Oregon State at Washington State.

At the conclusion of Week 12, the conference championship game participants will be established based on the seven-game round-robin schedule. (The tiebreaker process has not been announced.)

That Sunday (Nov. 22), the Pac-12 will finalize the matchups for the flex weekend based on two goals: avoiding a matchup in Week 13 that will be repeated in the title game a week later; and setting up its best team for a berth in the playoff.

How might that work? If the Pac-12’s highest-ranked team could use some juice in its schedule, the conference could reconfigure the flex week matchups to provide a stronger opponent (as long as it didn’t create repetition with the championship game matchup).

It’s not a true flex weekend, because with the four home teams set and the tentative matchups established, there would only be three options to create a different opponent.

But it’s unique and, given the circumstances, a smart approach. And if it helps the Pac-12 get a team in the playoff, other conferences will follow.

---

How much longer do you think the University of California Board of Regents will require UCLA to annually subsidize Cal? If you see it continuing, would the $10 million annual amount change? — @Crawfy13

For those unfamiliar, the regents decided in the spring of 2024 that UCLA would make a $10 million annual contribution to Cal athletics in the wake of the Bruins’ move to the Big Ten and resulting demise of the Pac-12. That contribution is set for three years, with the regents retaining the option to extend the timeline by another three.

Additionally, the UC Office of the President is making a $15 million annual support payment to the Bears for three years using discretionary funds. (UCLA was unaware of the payment until it was reported by the Hotline.)

That’s $25 million annually for three years for Cal to offset the revenue hit accompanying the move into the ACC, where both the Bears and Stanford are receiving partial shares of the media rights revenue.

Guessing along with the regents is a fool’s game. But we don’t see anything looming in 2028 that would materially alter Cal’s financial position.

So yes, there’s a decent chance the payments from Westwood will continue.

---

With North Dakota State’s recent interest saying they are ready for the FBS, is this of interest to the Pac-12 for expansion in 2027? — @jimmy0726

This question was submitted before North Dakota State, the FCS power program, joined the Mountain West earlier this week but has been included here because many have wondered the same thing: Should the Pac-12 have invited the Bison? Does the Pac-12 regret not inviting the Bison? Was it a strategic blunder?

The underlying assumption is North Dakota State will attain a comparable level of success to James Madison in the Sun Belt and not only win the Mountain West but compete, and perhaps qualify for the CFP.

(At this point, the Bison aren’t eligible for the playoff until the 2028 season. They are expected to seek a waiver.)

The Hotline has sensed zero regret on the part of Pac-12 officials who undoubtedly considered NDSU (and Sacramento State, for that matter) during the expansion process.

The conference leans into three pillars when assessing expansion candidates: competitive value, brand value and institutional alignment.

There’s a case to make that the Bison meet all those requirements and a case to make that they meet some or none of them.

For the Mountain West, however, NDSU makes loads of sense.

---

Does the Pac-12 regret not just moving forward with the reverse merger with the Mountain West? — @cougsguy06

On this matter, we can offer a definitive answer: absolutely not.

And that’s the case for both the old and new members, albeit for different reasons.

Washington State and Oregon State grew vehemently opposed to the idea during the negotiation process over a scheduling agreement. They did not like the hard-line approach used by the Mountain West.

The five schools making the move did so out of a desire to disassociate from the Mountain West’s bottom feeders — the schools that weren’t committed to winning at a level that would elevate the collective.

The desire to move up the food chain is a pillar of conference expansion. It was no different for Boise State, Colorado State, Fresno State, San Diego State and Utah State, especially with everyone eyeing another round of realignment at the turn of the decade.

We have seen many comments on social media over the past week about the schools in both conferences being better off under a single banner. It’s wasted energy. That wasn’t a realistic option.

---

*** 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