The Hotline mailbag publishes weekly. Send questions to [email protected] 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.
Why is the ACC so bad? I thought Stanford was going to a basketball conference. — Harold G
Compared to its peers, the ACC has experienced a rough season. Current projections show a maximum of four teams (Duke, Louisville, Clemson and North Carolina) headed to the NCAA Tournament.
That’s four of 18 schools, or just 22 percent of the membership.
Meanwhile, the SEC could send 14 teams to the NCAAs (an astounding 87.5 percent), with the Big Ten collecting nine bids (50 percent) and the Big 12 eight (50 percent).
This isn’t new. Although the ACC did well once tournament play began last season, it received just five bids.
The downturn has been discussed and debated across the college basketball world. There isn’t a single explanation, but the wave of coaching retirements that hammered the conference has undoubtedly played a role.
In recent years, the ACC lost three Hall of Famers: Duke’s Mike Krzyzewski, North Carolina’s Roy Williams and Syracuse’s Jim Boeheim. The Blue Devils are rolling, but there has been a noticeable decline with the Tar Heels and Orange.
The conference also lost Notre Dame’s Mike Brey, Virginia’s Tony Bennett and Miami’s Jim Larranaga, who were highly-respected in the industry.
That’s a major brain drain.
But there’s another factor possibly at play. And at the broadest level, it impacts the Big 12 and Big Ten, as well, and reflects the shifting dynamics we see in college football.
The SEC and Big Ten simply have more resources available for roster construction than the ACC and Big 12.
They have more media rights revenue, larger stadiums, bigger budgets, more passionate NIL collectives and the ability to throw cash at coaches, players and problems.
Once revenue-sharing becomes the law of the land in college sports in 2025-26 — assuming the settlement terms of an antitrust lawsuit are approved next month — the gap will only widen.
Because of their massive media rights deals and the College Football Playoff’s revenue distribution model, an average team in the SEC and Big Ten will have massive cash advantages (at least $20 million) over its counterparts in the ACC and Big 12.
Remember, roster construction in the new era will take two forms: The sharing of roughly $3 million with men’s basketball players, based on the settlement, plus the external NIL dollars that are not going away.
The starting point guard could make $500,000 from revenue sharing and another $1 million from endorsing a local car dealership.
But the athletic department also has to pay the coaches and fund recruiting and travel and nutritionists and keep facilities up to standard.
The SEC and Big Ten will be vastly better equipped to support everything, including the basketball budget, than the ACC and Big 12.
From a governance standpoint, the College Football Playoff and NCAA Tournament are nothing alike. The SEC and Big Ten have control of the former starting in 2026 and can manipulate the access and format. But because the NCAA runs March Madness, the ACC and Big 12 have more input — they aren’t relegated to the back seat like they are in football.
On the matter of tournament expansion, for example, they will be heavily involved.
But when it comes to mustering the resources to pay for the top coaches and acquire the most talent, there’s a clear division within the sport — a division that will become increasingly obvious over the rest of the decade.
The ACC, which has been the best basketball conference over the sweep of history, and the Big 12, which arguably has been the best over the past six or eight years, are facing extreme challenges.
The SEC’s dominance this season isn’t a one-off. Its schools have the cash to stay on top, arm-in-arm with the Big Ten, while everyone else struggles to keep pace.
Is the potential for the Pac-12 to add teams from the American (Memphis, Tulane, etc.) effectively dead after March 31, since that’s the date notice has to be given for those schools to get out in 2027 with $10 million exit fees? — @DonaldFarmer65
You’re referring to the American’s 27-month deadline to provide official notice of departure and pay just $10 million in penalties. Otherwise, the cost to leave zooms to beyond $25 million, according to ESPN.
The Hotline is wary of drawing definitive conclusions when it comes to realignment. Yes, the Pac-12 needs an eighth full member by July 1, 2026, but that doesn’t necessarily rule out the possibility of adding AAC schools in the summer of 2027. It could find the eighth member elsewhere, then expand again. Anything is feasible.
That said, remember the two basic tenants of realignment: Billable hours are undefeated; and exit fees can be negotiated.
They are always negotiated.
If Memphis and Tulane were to decide in April to join the Pac-12 in the summer of 2026, for example, that $25 million (approximate) exit fee could get negotiated down.
But we don’t expect that to happen for the simple reason that the Pac-12’s media rights deal, once signed and sealed this spring, won’t be lucrative enough to justify changing conferences — at least for the likes of Memphis and Tulane.
The average annual media rights payment for AAC schools is about $7 million, but the longstanding members receive larger shares. If you assume Memphis and Tulane are collecting closer to $9 million, the Pac-12 seemingly would have to offer at least $12 million per school to offset the increase in travel costs and make a move worthwhile.
Nothing we have heard from industry sources suggests the Pac-12’s deal will be worth $12 million per school.
In our estimation, the ceiling is roughly $10 million.
As a result, the likelihood of top-tier AAC schools joining the Pac-12 is well below 50 percent.
What could Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State actually do in protest if they were scheduled for a Friday night game, home or away. — @kenhagist
Earlier this week, the Hotline plunged into the weeds of the Big Ten football schedule, with a focus on the Friday night games that pose so many competitive and logistical challenges.
The West Coast schools, which make up just 22 percent of the membership, filled 39 percent of the slots last season. Could that change in the future, or will USC, UCLA, Oregon and Washington carry an outsized burden annually.?
“Each season is its own puzzle to piece together when it comes to the Friday night inventory, so we’ll evaluate the feedback and, as always, work towards a balanced schedule for the 2025 season,” Big Ten chief operating officer Kerry Kenny explained (via email).
One issue: Michigan’s public refusal to play on Fridays and our presumption that Ohio State and Penn State feel the same way.
Let’s start by acknowledging the possibility of language in the Big Ten’s grant-of-rights contract that blocks the conference from scheduling certain schools for Friday competition unless they agree.
But even if that legal framework doesn’t exist, it’s difficult to envision the Big Ten forcing its top brands into any particular broadcast window.
That simply isn’t good business. Michigan and Ohio State, in particular, are responsible for a huge portion of the conference’s media value. With value comes clout.
After all, this isn’t the Pac-12 under Larry Scott, where USC received essentially the same treatment as Oregon State or Cal — a management style that generated immense frustration on USC’s campus and contributed to the Trojans’ wandering eye.
One more point: The Big Ten’s media partners (Fox, CBS and NBC) want Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State available for their Saturday broadcasts.
In a world in which the Wolverines were willing to play on Friday, the networks probably would be hesitant to pick them for a window that, by its very nature, generates smaller audiences.
Does the Big Ten feel any remorse for what its did to the Pac-12 athletes left behind by inviting Oregon and Washington? — @jimmy0726
Granted, that question is not one that I have asked directly of anyone who works for the conference or the 14 ongoing members.
But we get the distinct sense that many in the Big Ten and across college sports wish the Pac-12 had remained intact. There’s nuance to that, of course, because the Big Ten drove the stakes in 2022 (with USC and UCLA) and again in 2023 (with Oregon and Washington).
But the first raid is viewed as the work of former commissioner Kevin Warren, who executed the expansion, and Fox, which funded the move, not anyone who currently works in the conference.
The second raid is considered a self-inflicted fatality, rather than anything instigated by the Big Ten.
Poor leadership and terrible strategy led to the untenable media rights situation that left Oregon and Washington feeling like they had no choice but to seek refuge. In that worldview, the Big Ten simply answered the call and offered salvation. There is no lingering guilt or remorse.
How long until the NCAA is sued for “restraint of trade” regarding eligibility rules? Isn’t it collusive that transfers may only happen annually within set windows? Similarly, what about the student-athlete limit for years of eligibility? Isn’t that also a collusive restraint of trade as well? — Glenn H
That Rubicon has already been crossed. Vanderbilt quarterback Diego Pavia successfully argued that his junior college season at New Mexico Military Institute should not count against his eligibility clock because he was not able to receive NIL compensation.
According to the North Carolina-based law firm Poyner Spruill, the court determined: “… the challenged bylaws provided NCAA member schools with a competitive advantage over junior colleges, concluding the NCAA’s intercollegiate competition rules were ‘restraints on trade with substantial anticompetitive effects.’”
The Pavia case is specific to his junior college career. But given the frequency of lawsuits against the NCAA and the regularity with which the governing body loses in court, it appears the bell will toll sooner than later for the eligibility clock. (See what we did there.)
Unless the NCAA moves proactively.
Granted, that strategy would run counter to every decision the NCAA has made for 75 years. But there is a movement afoot to simply grant all athletes five years of eligibility.
That would eliminate the need for waivers, which are granted inconsistently, and potentially end lawsuits related to eligibility.
What’s the final verdict on the former Pac-12 school’s basketball teams and the impact of cross country traveling? — @CelestialMosh
We addressed this issue earlier in the week, in the Best of the West report, but are happy to relay the numbers.
Related Articles
WBB Selection Sunday outlook: UCLA, USC on track for No. 1 seeds
Big Ten COO Kerry Kenny addresses assimilation of West Coast schools
Big Ten football 2025: Will UW, Oregon, USC, UCLA car Friday games?
Best of the West MBB: ACC, Big Ten teams have woeful road record
Oregon just made Dan Lanning one of the top-paid coaches in the sport. Is he still undervalued?
The two schools competing in the ACC and the four in the Big Ten combined for a 12-34 record in cross-country conference matchups.
Because of the geographic breakdown of the membership, Cal and Stanford played more games in the Eastern and Central time zones than USC, UCLA, Oregon and Washington and went 2-16. Cal’s lone victory was at NC State while Stanford’s breakthrough was the same day, Jan. 18, at North Carolina.
In the Big Ten, the Bruins, Trojans and Huskies were 2-5 in conference games on the other side of the country (including Nebraska). Oregon was the outlier with a 4-3 mark.
The combined record of the four teams when crossing multiple time zones was 10-18, with several very public expressions of frustration, courtesy of UCLA’s Mick Cronin and USC’s Eric Musselman.
Do you see the enrollment apocalypse emerging as the strongest driver of conference realignment by 2030? Is it likely a few Big Ten schools will bolt to a new conference in order to join with AAU schools (Association of American Universities) that reside in pro-growth Atlantic states? — @TerryTerry79
Many executives in higher education believe a steep drop in enrollment — it’s rooted in the 2007-08 financial crisis that cause birth rates to plunge — is just starting to hit universities across the country.
If fear becomes a multi-year reality, the impact on budgets could be severe. Any wallop felt by central campus could resonate across the athletic departments that depend on institutional subsidies to fund operations.
The Hotline doesn’t dispute the notion that enrollment trends will create economic pressures, but would that be the primary spark for the next round of conference realignment? Not in our view.
Instead, we see revenue sharing as the most likely agent of change. The immense commitment needed to compete at the highest level — don’t be surprised if high-end football rosters cost $30 million by the end of the decade — will force some schools to ramp down their football programs. Others will do whatever it takes to win at the highest level.
As a result, a chasm will appear in the middle of the FBS.
Schools committed to winning could form a super league or, possibly, consolidate around three conferences: Bigger versions of the Big Ten and SEC and the offspring of an ACC-Big 12 merger.
We don’t know the outcome, except that the conference structure will be markedly different in eight or 10 years than it is now.
Doomsday is coming, and the enrollment cliff could play a role.
*** Send suggestions, comments and tips (confidentiality guaranteed) to [email protected] or call 408-920-5716
*** Follow me on the social media platform X: @WilnerHotline
