Pac-12 mailbag: How ESPN, Fox could create the CFP super league

Do you believe the major television networks will control future college realignment? Or will the top football schools form an alliance with the power to leverage the maximum media value for themselves and create a new super league? – @TerryTerry79

The Hotline has believed for years that ESPN and Fox are the grandmasters of college sports in much the same way that the banking system controls the economy. The networks have the money, and the schools are forever chasing the money (with the conferences as vessels for that pursuit).

To address the question, let’s gaze into the near future and imagine the tipping point – the moment the economics become unsustainable and cord cutting collides with the eternal popularity of live sports, especially football.

In our view, that collision will lead to a more efficient use of media dollars on both the supply (the networks) and demand (the schools) sides.

The result? Unequal revenue sharing within the Big Ten and SEC.

Fox and ESPN (and perhaps Amazon and Apple) will write the checks and leave the conferences to determine how the cash is distributed.

Yes, that’s the case currently, and the money is shared equally. Purdue’s paycheck is identical to Ohio State’s paycheck. South Carolina receives the same cut as Georgia. That model won’t last.

Revenue sharing between the schools and the players is inevitable, whether it’s forced upon the NCAA by antitrust lawsuits or the National Labor Relations Board, and it will lead to the blue bloods demanding larger cuts of their conference’s media dollars.

At that point, unequal sharing of revenue will either 1) create massive resource stratification within the current conference structure or 2) prompt the top brand to break away and establish a super league at the center of the sport, with regional conferences – perhaps including a Pac-14 – in its orbit.

What are the odds Cal and Stanford rejoin the Pac-12 in the next couple years? – @TWamsgans

Less than 50/50 but far above zero, depending on your time frame and the outcome of Florida State’s legal fight with the ACC.

We don’t see the ACC crumbling in the next two years, but if your window extends to 2026 or 2027, then yes, there’s a decent chance of the Bay Area schools coming back.

Here’s why: If Florida State breaks the ACC’s grant-of-rights contract and becomes a free agent for the Big Ten and SEC, other ACC schools will follow the Seminoles out the door. They don’t have the only wandering eye; they’re merely the most frustrated school – and the most public about those frustrations.

Clemson, North Carolina and Virginia would follow Florida State, causing the ACC to lose the vast majority of its media value.

The Cardinal and Bears would be left in a greatly depleted (and devalued) conference 3,000 miles from home. Rebuilding the Pac-12 with Washington State, Oregon State and the top teams in the Mountain West would be a far better situation.

Can you put into plain English the contract terms between the Mountain West and the ‘Pac 2’ teams? Can any MW school leave and, if so, are there financial penalties? If there are penalties, who’s on the hook for them? - @weelexie08

There are several fees, broken down as follows (based on original reporting by the Oregonian).

• A poaching penalty, by which Washington State and Oregon State would pay roughly $10 million to the MW for each school that agrees to join the Pac-12.

• A termination penalty of $5.5 per school, paid to the MW.

• A departure penalty paid by each outgoing MW school to the conference. The amount would depend on timing but likely approaches $20 million.

The poaching and termination fees are part of the scheduling agreement between WSU, OSU and the Mountain West, while the departure penalty is a longstanding stipulation in the MW bylaws.

By far, the cleanest, cheapest means of executing a reverse merger – with MW schools joining the Pac-12 – would be for at least nine members to vote to dissolve the conference. In that case, the penalties would disappear.

However, dissolution would require a commitment by WSU and OSU to accept at least nine schools, and we don’t believe that’s their preference.

Financially and competitively, the Cougars and Beavers are better served adding only the top tier MW football programs (San Diego State, Fresno State, Boise State and a few more) to form an eight-team conference.

Such an endeavor will be costly, tricky or both.

Now that they are in the Big Ten, what trajectory do you see Washington and Oregon taking over the next five years? Will great coaching, despite lower recruiting, continue to define the Huskies? Or will Oregon’s boost in recruiting get the Ducks over the hump of losing close games to UW the last few years? – @theplanetbob

Yes, Washington went 3-0 against the Ducks in the 2022 and 2023 seasons, but all three games were decided by three points. The difference was on the margins. Neither owns a distinct advantage over the other, at least right now.

However, it’s easy to see separation coming.

In our view, Oregon is substantially better positioned than Washington for high-level success in the Big Ten.

The Ducks have continuity with their head coach (Dan Lanning), and their recruiting – of both high school prospects and transfers – is thriving.

What’s more, Oregon has the institutional commitment necessary to compete with Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State and USC on an annual basis. We aren’t convinced that crucial quality exists in Seattle.

Framed another way: Washington’s success depends more on the caliber of its head coach.

Put generic Coach X in charge in Eugene, and the Ducks would have a good chance to win nine or 10 games per year. But install Coach X in Seattle, and the Huskies would land in the seven- or eight-win range.

Washington athletic director Troy Dannen said he first noted something might be up with Kalen DeBoer as far back as Thanksgiving, when DeBoer didn’t sign a contract extension. I don’t see how DeBoer could have known about Nick Saban possibly retiring? So, was his hesitancy to sign based on a potential opening at Michigan? – @Cargoman0363

Barring a full accounting from DeBoer, which likely will never come, we are left to speculate.

However, it’s worth noting that during the season – and before Washington placed a contract extension on the table in late November – DeBoer hired super-agent Jimmy Sexton, who is also Saban’s agent.

Did Sexton have an inkling that the legend might retire? It’s entirely possible.

That said, DeBoer’s market value was rising by the week, and Jim Harbaugh’s future in Ann Arbor was deemed uncertain.

Our strong suspicion is Sexton advised DeBoer to decline Washington’s offer until they had full clarity on any and all vacancies at the top of the food chain.

At the very least, the delay would increase DeBoer’s leverage with UW.

Why doesn’t the NCAA implement transfer fees like soccer leagues have? There would be different fee amounts based on positions and the competitive tier. That would compensate smaller programs that develop players. – @DuVNguyen

Love the thinking. But there are several obstacles, including the potential for lawsuits claiming restraint of trade.

Let’s envision a world in which the NCAA imposes a $500,000 transfer fee for quarterbacks who move from one power conference to another. And let’s say there are two quarterbacks in the portal. We’ll call one Joe Mix and the other Hayden de Faura.

Mix is a multiyear starter who has won big games and received Heisman Trophy consideration, while de Faura has started 10 games and performed inconsistently.

They would not have the same market value – not even close.

And let’s say Mix views the system as unfair, because it caps his earning potential, so he hires an attorney and files a lawsuit.

The NCAA’s record in court is beyond awful, and we suspect this situation would result in yet another defeat.

When a coach leaves, players can enter the transfer portal and also leave. Is the only avenue for replacement to grab players from other teams that lost their coaches, as well? If some portal guys go to teams without coaching changes, do teams end up short on players? – @brycetacoma

Glad you asked. The portal situation is doubly confusing when coaching changes come into play. The Hotline should have laid everything out in early December, before the portal opened.

Here’s the essential framework:

• The transfer portal is open for two windows, from early December through early January, after the season, and then again in the second half of April, after spring practices.

• Those are the windows for entering the portal, but players can select a school at any point.

• A separate, 30-day window exists for players to enter the portal if their school experiences a head coaching change.

Washington and Arizona are vulnerable to losing more players over the next three weeks but, as with all other schools, there is no restriction on when they can accept transfers.

Players who entered the portal during the standard postseason window, or in special situations because of coaching changes, can commit to the Huskies and Wildcats at any time.

That said, our hunch is both programs will do the majority of their roster reloading in the spring, because a new flock of players will have entered in the April window.