The Hotline mailbag publishes weekly. Send questions to wilnerhotline@bayareanewsgroup.com and include ‘mailbag’ in the subject line. Or hit me n the social media platform X: @WilnerHotline
Some questions have been edited for clarity and brevity.
Do you find it ironic that Big 12 fans spent 10 years trashing the Pac-12, saying it was the weakest conference, and now former Pac-12 teams are carrying the Big 12? — @Haywire1120
The Hotline can’t quantify the duration or degree of “trashing” that took place from Big 12 fans pre-realignment, but in one respect, the criticism was justified:
The Pac-12 sent just three teams to the College Football playoff from 2014-23: Oregon in 2014 and Washington in 2016 and 2023.
Meanwhile, the Big 12 sent six: Oklahoma in 2015 and 2017-19; TCU in 2022; and Texas in 2023.
Of course, the schools responsible for five of the Big 12’s six bids, Oklahoma and Texas, are now in the SEC, leaving the eight continuing members exposed within the rebuilt conference as second-tier programs.
The evidence is clear.
— In 2024, a former Pac-12 school (ASU) won the Big 12 championship, while three of the four teams involved in the tiebreaker (with 7-2 records) joined the conference in the 2023 and 2024 realignment waves (ASU, BYU and Colorado).
— In 2025, five of the top-six teams in the current standings are newcomers. And the exception, Texas Tech, holds its position atop the conference largely because of the presence of an oil billionaire who plowed tens of millions into the roster.
Put another way, the highest tier of the standings over the past two seasons is, almost exclusively, occupied by the new arrivals.
Consider the records (in conference play) of the Big 12’s eight legacy schools over the two seasons post-realignment:
Texas Tech: 13-4
Iowa State: 11-6
TCU: 10-7
Baylor: 9-8
Kansas State: 9-8
Kansas: 7-11
West Virginia: 7-10
Oklahoma State: 0-17
Only three of the eight are more than one game above .500.
More telling: Seven of the nine Big 12 teams to appear in the final 2024 playoff rankings or the current 2025 rankings are newcomers.
The majority of the best teams are former Group of Five schools or the Pac-12 transplants — a major indictment on the quality of the continuing members.
And don’t forget:
Aside from Utah, the Pac-12 transplants that have performed well in the new Big 12 were typically second-tier programs in the former Pac-12.
In the old Pac-12, there were complaints by every team that there were too many night games. Have the 10 schools that left seen a reduction in their new homes? — @jimmy0726
As we see the situation, this topic is more relevant to UCLA than the other nine. USC was making the leap to the Big Ten and could not be stopped. But if the Bruins had stayed in the Pac-12, the conference would have survived. After all, the other eight schools were motivated enough to remain together that they waited 13 months for a media rights deal.
One of the several reasons cited by UCLA officials for the move to the Big Ten, particularly in private conversations with the Hotline in the summer and fall of 2022, was the expectation that kickoff times would improve — that the Bruins would play fewer home games at night.
That was always a skewed line of thinking because the Big Ten’s media partners must fill their night broadcast windows. The time zones are the time zones whether UCLA competes in the Pac-12 or the Big Ten or a conference based in Budapest.
And sure enough, nothing has changed.
Here are the number of UCLA home games at night in the final two years of the Pac-12 and the first two years of the Big Ten:
(Note: We defined night games as kickoffs at 6 p.m. or later on Friday and 7 p.m. or later on Saturday.)
2022: 3
2023: 2
2024: 3
2025: 3
Add the poor crowds and lack of competitive success, and the football program’s first two years in the Big Ten have been an indisputable failure.
That said, there was much more to the Big Ten move than wins, ticket sales and kickoff times. UCLA’s administration wanted more money, more exposure and more prestige.
Several years are needed before there’s enough evidence to render judgment on the move.
Starting in 2026, who gets into the College Football Playoff more frequently: Teams from the new Pac-12 or the former Pac-12 schools, not including Oregon? Will there be more remorse if schools like San Diego State and Boise State get in while schools like Washington and USC get shut out? — @brycetacoma
Essentially, the question asks whether the nine departed schools will earn CFP bids more frequently than the champion of the rebuilt Pac-12 will be ranked higher than the champion of the American, Mountain West, Sun Belt, MAC and Conference USA.
It’s difficult to project without knowing the format for the CFP beyond this season.
It could expand to 16 teams with 11 at-large slots. Or it could balloon to 24 teams with two bids allocated to non-power conference schools.
But generally, the Hotline would bet on the departed members reaching the CFP more often than the champion of the new Pac-12, even with Oregon removed from the calculation.
Either USC or Washington should contend for a bid in the Big Ten fairly often, and the Big 12 is wide open for the Four Corners schools.
Meanwhile, the Hotline views the American as a serious threat to the Pac-12’s quest for superiority on the sport’s second tier.
On the remorse issue, yes: Certain factions of the legacy schools’ constituencies would regret the situation if the Pac-12 champ is regularly reaching the CFP and the other nine are not.
But again, we are a long way from that reality.
Could you rank the probable Cal coaching candidates? And how does this firing affect the quarterback situation at Cal? — @michael_budd
General manager Ron Rivera told reporters earlier this week that he had an initial list of 14 candidates, which we found curious. If you think a change might be forthcoming — Justin Wilcox’s seat was warm all season — the list of targets should be six or eight names long, at most.
It stands to reason that Oregon defensive coordinator Tosh Lupoi, a former Cal player who grew up in the East Bay, is high on the list. If San Diego State coach Sean Lewis isn’t under consideration, he should be. Same with Boise State’s Spencer Danielson.
Generally, the Hotline believes Wilcox’s successor should have 1) head coaching experience and 2) offensive expertise.
A background on that side of scrimmage would send a message to quarterback Jaron-Keawe Sagapolutele that the Bears are serious about offense and have prioritized his development. As many Cal fans are undoubtedly aware, Wilcox employed a revolving door of playcallers over the years, severely undercutting his success.
(Notably, Lupoi is a defensive coach with zero experience running a program.)
The decades Rivera spent in the NFL before taking the GM gig last spring make guessing along more difficult than it would be with a traditional hiring process orchestrated by the athletic director. We don’t know who Rivera knows and likes in NFL coaching circles.
Offensive coordinator Bryan Harsin and interim head coach Nick Rolovich will be considered. Rolovich is particularly intriguing, either as the next head coach or as the primary playcaller and quarterback whisperer, given his close relationship with Sagapolutele.
Final thought: Is there any chance Rivera would, after a thorough but unsatisfactory search, appoint himself?
We view that outcome as extremely unlikely. But until there’s a coach in place, the chance of Rivera taking over his alma mater should be considered non-zero.
Two years ago this weekend, Rivera, as head coach of the Washington Commanders, fired coordinator Jack Del Rio and named himself the defensive playcaller.
The circumstances are different, for sure. But the appoint-thyself gene is clearly part of his DNA.
Should Cal look at Jonathan Smith for its next head coach? He’s probably itching to get back to the West Coast. — @vince_per
Smith is probably itching to be anywhere other than East Lansing, where Michigan State is 0-8 in conference play this season and just 3-14 over Smith’s two years in charge.
But he hasn’t been fired, at least not formally and publicly. And there’s a chance the Spartans will keep Smith for another year in order to limit their buyout and avoid plunging into a sizzling hiring market.
Should the Bears consider Smith if he becomes available next week? Absolutely.
We view Smith as a first-rate coach in certain environments — Michigan State was never the place for him to flourish — and his lifetime spent playing and coaching on the West Coast would be a bonus in Berkeley. He knows quarterback play, and he knows offense.
But does Smith bring the requisite energy? Would he excite constituents that are so critical to Cal’s talent acquisition process (through NIL opportunities)?
On that matter, we aren’t convinced.
Does the new Pac-12 have a view on College Football Playoff and NCAA Tournament expansion? — @KoolEconomics
Yes, commissioner Teresa Gould is on-the-record as favoring expansion, as long as it’s done in a fashion that’s fair for the Pac-12.
Gould views increasing the size of the CFP and March Madness fields as a means of giving more athletes a chance to compete at the highest level.
Specifically, she favors a 16-team playoff format heavy on at-large bids (5+11), not the so-called AQ model proposed by the Big Ten in which 13 bids would be determined before the season begins.
“You compete on the field for access,” she told the Hotline in June.
The same goes for the NCAAs, although the political dynamics are different with basketball: The power to change formats isn’t concentrated in two conferences the way it is with the SEC and Big Ten in football.
“Assuming it’s fiscally responsible, we are always in favor of more access,” Gould said.
How can we be assured that the CFP selection committee is, in fact, considering schedule strength to evaluate the ratings? We can’t. Strength of schedule is just not a major factor in spite of the new 2025 “guidelines.” Would you agree? — James V
We cannot be sure either way because the committee does not make its metrics available, a longstanding, unfortunate issue that undermines public trust.
Now, to be clear: schedule strength is supposed to play a major role in the ranking process. After all, the SEC spent the entire offseason pushing for tweaks that would give greater weight to quality wins and reduce the impact of quality losses.
In August, the CFP announced the changes with a statement that included the following:
“The current schedule strength metric has been adjusted to apply greater weight to games against strong opponents.
“An additional metric, record strength, has been added to the selection committee’s analysis to go beyond a team’s schedule strength to assess how a team performed against that schedule. This metric rewards teams defeating high-quality opponents while minimizing the penalty for losing to such a team.
“Conversely, these changes will provide minimal reward for defeating a lower-quality opponent while imposing a greater penalty for losing to such a team.”
But from our vantage point, nothing has changed. The committee continues to fixate on losses.
Consider the rankings revealed earlier this week, in which 20 of the first 22 spots are in order of losses:
— Three teams with zero losses.
— Then four teams with one loss.
— Then seven of the next eight teams with two losses
— Then six of the next seven teams with three losses.
The situation is worth monitoring over the next 10 days. If SEC teams with stronger metrics are left out in favor of non-SEC teams with better records, the most power conference in the sport could demand changes that jeopardize access for other leagues, including the ACC and Big 12.
To watch the first five Washington basketball games, a viewer would need to pay for Big 10+, Peacock, ESPN+, plus a traditional linear ESPN provider or equivalent. Is the money the conference earns by doing this be worth the cost of killing any early season excitement this way? — @MogsyBogues
The vast majority of revenue produced by the Big Ten’s media rights deal (80 percent or so) is based on the value of the football inventory. Basketball viewing access is a secondary consideration, and basketball viewing access for non-conference games is an afterthought.
One reason: Dozens of Big Ten basketball games are played on the road or neutral courts and thus not controlled by the conference.
UW’s matchup with Baylor, for example, was in Waco and controlled by the Big 12, leading to the ESPN broadcast.
The Nevada game was part of a tournament in Palm Springs and shown on CBS Sports Network.
And remember: The schools craft their own non-conference schedules; the Big Ten is responsible only for the intra-league rotation.
If the Huskies played every non-conference game at home, only the Big Ten’s media partners would have broadcast rights. But the multi-team events at neutral sites offer high-quality opponents and are vital to the resume-building process.
UW improves its prospects for the NCAA Tournament by playing the very neutral-site games that burden fans with additional network and streaming platform subscriptions.
Why do you have two-loss Oklahoma ranked No. 5 and one-loss Mississippi, with a head-to-head win over Oklahoma, ranked No. 11? — @caels_hair
The value placed on head-to-head results is a sizzling topic with the CFP selection committee consistently ranking two-loss Notre Dame over two-loss Miami even though the Hurricanes won by a field goal in the season opener.
When it comes to my AP ballot, head-to-head results matter — but only to a degree:
— Their impact diminishes as the season unfolds and a single result becomes a smaller piece of each team’s resume.
— They serve as the differentiator when all else is equal.
In the case of Oklahoma and Mississippi, all else most definitely is not equal: The Sooners have a substantially better resume, in our view, than the Rebels.
That conclusion is based largely on the number of quality wins
The Sooners have beaten Michigan, Alabama, Tennessee and Missouri; while the Rebels have beaten only Oklahoma.
Hope that helps.
Why do you despise Washington so much? — @M1llertime_
Washington fans are convinced the Hotline is forever anti-Huskies in much the same way Oregon fans believe we are anti-Ducks, an indicator that we’re doing our job just fine.
We root for three-hour games and good storylines, and that’s the extent of our partisanship.
The Hotline has always called ’em like we see ’em, and our current outlook for Washington — over and above whether we pick the Huskies to win a specific game — is hardly sunny.
The financial and competitive challenges in the Big Ten are daunting for both UW and UCLA, to a much greater extent than for Oregon and USC.
That perspective doesn’t translate to rooting interests, but it certainly impacts how we view the Huskies’ broader trajectory and off-the-field strategic positioning.
*** 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
Want more insights? Join Working Title - our career elevating newsletter and get the future of work delivered weekly.
