The Hotline mailbag publishes weekly. Send questions to jwilner@bayareanewsgroup.com and include ‘mailbag’ in the subject line. Or hit me on Twitter/X: @WilnerHotline
Please note: Some questions have been edited for clarity and brevity.
When college football’s so-called super league is complete with 32 or 38 teams, will it have unequal revenue sharing? — @TerryTerry79
Which 40 teams should be in the inevitable super league? — @ProfCPE
This topic has enough meat to sustain an entire mailbag, but we’ll address one slice of the issue here: The money.
Because the amount of money available is inexorably tied to the number of teams included. And vice versa.
As the Hotline explained late last year in our vision for the future of the Pac-12, the existing conference media contracts run into the 2030s and make the formation of a super league extremely unlikely this decade. Our target window is 2033, give or take a few years.
Even then, the super league might not materialize. The hurdles are significant in size and quantity.
However, you can count on this: In the absence of a super league, super teams will arise. The inevitable shift in distribution of media revenue will create one outcome or the other.
Here’s why:
There’s a finite amount of money available in the sports media ecosystem for college football. Granted, the amount available in the early 2030s will be substantially greater than the amount available now. But it won’t be unlimited. It’s never unlimited, because the networks — whether it’s ESPN and Fox or CBS and Warner or Amazon and Apple — aren’t just licensing college football. They must pay for the NFL and NBA, for the UFC and NASCAR, for the MLB and English Premier League.
Meanwhile, the cost of business in major college football will soar over the next six or eight years thanks to the revenue sharing deal with athletes — it’s expected to begin next year — and all the standard industry expenses.
The insatiable lust for every last media dollar will continue across college sports.
Combine the soaring demand for cash with the limited supply of cash and the result is an increasingly efficient marketplace.
The media companies will only spend top dollar for the top brands — for the college football programs that drive ratings.
We don’t mean to pick on specific schools to illustrate the point but, well, we’re going to pick on specific schools. Fox will pay top dollar for Michigan vs. Washington, for example, but not for Maryland vs. Purdue; ESPN will pay top dollar for Georgia vs. Oklahoma but not for Mississippi State vs. South Carolina.
Texas Tech vs. UCF? Nope.
Boston College vs. N.C. State? Nope.
Florida State vs. Penn State? Yes.
If a super league forms, it won’t have 50 or 60 teams. There simply aren’t 50 or 60 teams worth funding. We don’t know the exact number, and it could change between now and the early 2030s, but 28 or 32 is our best guess. (Which is why the expanded College Football Playoff is effectively an audition for schools that have super league aspirations but, to this point, lack super league resumes.)
In our view, the economic landscape laid out above points to one of two outcomes:
— The top football brands break away from their current conferences and create the super league. (Breaking off is easier, both politically and legally, than expelling second-tier schools from their current leagues.)
— The power conference structure holds, but the blue bloods demand unequal revenue sharing models.
In other words, Fox and ESPN would tell the Big Ten and SEC, respectively: We’ll pay X dollars per year for your broadcast rights, and you figure out how to divide those dollars.
That’s essentially how it works now, except the schools are (reasonably) content with sharing media rights equally. By the 2030s, the blue bloods won’t be content.
While a super league would not exist under this scenario, the unequal revenue distribution within conferences would create an immense disparity in resources — it would be far greater than the current imbalance — and lead to the rise of super teams.
Remember, folks: College sports is built on a stack of subsidies.
The top 16 or 20 football programs subsidize the rest of the Power Four schools.
The Power Four schools subsidize the rest of the FBS.
The FBS subsidizes the rest of Division I.
Division I subsidies the other NCAA divisions.
There are roughly 1,100 schools in the NCAA. True revenue-generating power lies with less than two percent.
We can’t predict whether the two-percent schools will break away (the super-league scenario) or simply demand outsized portions of the dollars within the existing conference structure (the super-team scenario).
But given the economic pressures, those seem like the only possible outcomes.
When the College Football Playoff broadcast deal with ESPN expires, should the entire event be played on campus, except for the championship game? — Jon Joseph
Put another way: Should the CFP fully embrace the NFL model?
As appealing as the concept is, we don’t foresee that outcome materializing in the near term. It would require the sport to untether the playoff from the New Year’s Six bowls that are deeply entrenched in the sport’s culture (and its cash flow).
Logistical issues exist, as well: Would the sport’s powerbrokers want to risk a series of games in cold-weather stadiums in late December and early January? Also, campuses are empty during the holidays. Would universities take on the operational task of staging massive events?
On each matter, we’re skeptical.
One final point on the timing of any changes to the CFP: There are two seasons remaining on the current contract cycle; starting in the fall of 2026, the playoff has a $1.3 billion annual deal in place with ESPN … and nothing else.
The number of teams, the format, the access, the schedule, the sites — all the critical logistics must be determined.
We cannot imagine such a radical change unfolding in such a short period of time. Which means any alterations to the neutral-site model would likely come in the early 2030s.
Is ACC membership sustainable for Stanford and Cal over the long term? Common sense says the ACC adds Oregon State and Washington State or the Bay Area schools join OSU/WSU in restocking the Pac-12. What do you see is most likely? — @jlahaye76
It is absolutely not sustainable for the Olympic sports, and perhaps not for football, but common sense and realignment have proven to be mortal enemies.
Those are just two of several possible outcomes. We wouldn’t be surprised if the status quo holds for eight or 10 years. Or if the ACC consolidates. Or if it dissolves altogether.
The lawsuits filed by Florida State and Clemson will, in our view, eventually lead to settlements allowing the rebels to exit the conference with reasonable penalties. North Carolina, a highly-coveted property, would follow them out the door.
At that point, the remaining ACC schools could attempt to bolster the conference via expansion. The Beavers and Cougars would be distinct possibilities; same with Memphis and South Florida.
Or they could eschew expansion and stick with 14.
Or several schools could peel off and join the Big 12.
There are myriad scenarios involving ACC survival and extinction, just as there were for the Pac-12 after USC and UCLA announced their departures on June 30, 2022.
One key difference: The ACC has better leadership.
All this chatter about Florida State and Clemson joining the Big 12: With the large ACC exit fee, does this even pencil out? At worst, the ACC and Big 12 are peers. — @WebGuy223
On the surface, it doesn’t make sense for Clemson and Florida State to pay large exit fees, only to join a peer conference. Why file lawsuits if the process doesn’t lead to membership in the Big Ten or SEC?
However, if the Big 12 were to accept an infusion of private capital and dangle that capital in front of the Tigers and Seminoles, the scenario starts to take shape … if the other Big 12 schools accept an unequal distribution of dollars.
We’re skeptical. In fact, the Hotline is skeptical of any reports suggesting the Big Ten and SEC aren’t interested in FSU and Clemson. That’s a convenient stance when the schools aren’t available and any hint of interest could lead to a tortious interference lawsuit.
If the Seminoles and Tigers ever become available, everything changes for the conferences and their network partners.
Bottom line: Anything is possible, from a super league to the reformation of the Pac-12 with Cal and Stanford to Clemson and FSU joining the Big 12 to scenarios we haven’t even mentioned.
The college football canvas is blank.
Do Washington State and Oregon State hold sway over bowl selections, perhaps giving them better options? Or are they at the whim of the committee? — @Moneyline_Ray
They do not.
The agreement reached between the Pac-12’s bowl partners, the conference and the departed schools removes subjectivity or favoritism.
As we reported last month, the pecking order will be determined by overall record, not conference record.
In the event of ties, the same criteria used in the past — including head-to-head results and previous participation in the bowl game — will determine which teams go where.
What’s the approximate number of fans in Los Angeles that know and care UCLA was picked to finish 15th in the 18-team Big Ten? — @WorkishFromHome
Ah, yes. You’re referring to the Cleveland.com poll, which serves as the de facto Big Ten preseason survey because the conference itself does not release a preseason poll.
The Bruins were 15th, one spot behind Northwestern and one above Michigan State. (That same poll slotted Oregon in second, USC in sixth and Washington in 10th.)
We are both curious about and wary of the attendance figures in the Rose Bowl this season. A fair number of Big Ten alumni live in Southern California, which could prop up the crowd sizes for Indiana, Minnesota and Iowa.
How many UCLA fans will be motivated to attend those games? No more than would have paid to see Arizona, Utah and Cal.
The true test of interest will come in 2026-27, when the newness of Big Ten life has worn off.
Unless Ohio State, Michigan or Penn State are coming to town, the bar is low.
Oregon State and Washington State say they want to compete at the highest level. Doesn’t that include revenue sharing at the full amount, approximately $21 million per year? Shouldn’t they use their “war chest” for that instead of rebuilding the conference with select teams? — @NayeJones2009
The revenue-sharing piece of the House v NCAA settlement features a permissive cap, meaning schools can decide if they want to share the maximum.
Our hunch is that most, if not every school in the Power Four conferences will hit the $21 million cap while most, if not every school in the Group of Five will offer significantly less.
Yes, the Beavers and Cougars should do whatever necessary to keep up with the Power Four, especially considering they are hoping to join the Power Four eventually.
Exactly how the two athletic departments use the $250 million (roughly) available from the demise of the Pac-12 depends, to an extent, on the funding support they receive from central campus.
Also, they don’t have immediate access to the entire amount.
One last point: Both schools have time.
Once the settlement is approved by the presiding judge, Claudia Wilken, there assuredly will be legal challenges because of the Title IX component.
It could be another year, or more, before all the elements of the revenue-sharing model are in place and the Beavers and Cougars must commit real dollars.
*** Send suggestions, comments and tips (confidentiality guaranteed) to wilnerhotline@
*** Follow me on Twitter/X: @WilnerHotline
Related posts:
Pac-12 football fan poll: Which of the four teams ranked in the AP top 15 is an imposter?
Pac-12 football recruiting: Oregon grabs an OL but loses an edge (to USC), while Utah dips into Florida and ASU lands a Texas RB
Wilner Hotline – Pac-12 point spreads: USC, Oregon slight favorites in Week 12 showdowns
Hotline mailbag: Pac-12 leadership, Amazon’s purchasing options, timing for media rights, Utah’s future, WSU’s staff turnover and more
Jon Wilner
Jon Wilner has been covering college sports for decades and is an AP top-25 football and basketball voter as well as a Heisman Trophy voter. He was named Beat Writer of the Year in 2013 by the Football Writers Association of America for his coverage of the Pac-12, won first place for feature writing in 2016 in the Associated Press Sports Editors writing contest and is a five-time APSE honoree.