Mailbag: Contrarian view of the Pac-12 football schedule (the case for seven), Texas State’s potential, the Sac State scenario 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.
The Pac-12 wants multiple media partners. But with only eight football members, that’s just four games per week for the majority of the season. How would that work? Doesn’t seem like enough inventory to go around. — @NateJones2009
It depends on how creative the conference, and its partners, are willing to be.
For instance, nothing would prevent the Pac-12 from signing deals with four media partners and placing one game on each network per week during conference play (unless teams are idle).
Yes, that’s an extreme example. But applying conventional programming strategies to an unconventional situation is the wrong approach.
The Pac-12’s football-playing schools decided months ago on the minimum number of games that their media adviser, Octagon, could take to market.
The package assuredly included a scenario in which the Pac-12 implemented an eight-game conference schedule attained by:
— Expanding to nine members, or
— Creating home-and-home series, with each team playing one of the others twice. (Washington State and Oregon State are doing exactly that in 2025.)
But we suspect the conference has carved out the option to play a seven-game round-robin schedule, as well. As one industry source (unaffiliated with the Pac-12) told the Hotline recently: “A seven-game schedule could end up being a plus.”
That’s the contrarian view, to be sure. The cost of buying enough Group of Five opponents to fill out a schedule with five non-conference openings could be significant — and is the primary reason most observers believe the Pac-12 will play at least eight league games.
But as the source noted, flexibility is vital in a chaotic landscape. Adding a ninth football-playing member that doesn’t work competitively or financially makes less sense than sticking with eight.
With eight schools, the Pac-12 would have the option to play seven conference games or eight (by using the home-and-home approach).
Under what circumstances would a seven-game conference schedule prove beneficial?
What happens if the Big Ten and SEC create an annual crossover series, which has been discussed?
What if the SEC adds a ninth conference game, which is under serious consideration?
In either case, and certainly if both scenarios happen, SEC and Big Ten schools could look to adjust their lineups by cancelling series against Big 12 and ACC opponents.
Arizona State athletic director Graham Rossini said exactly that, telling the Hotline last week: “If the SEC goes to nine, my hunch is they’ll want out of our games.” (The Sun Devils have home-and-home series under contract with LSU, Florida, Texas and Texas A&M.)
SEC and Big Ten teams are scheduled to face dozens of Big 12 and ACC opponents in the next six or eight years. If a slew of those are cancelled, Arizona State and others could turn to the Pac-12 for help filling out their schedules.
In that case, the flexibility to play five non-conference games could morph into an advantage.
Bottom line: We don’t know what will happen, but the terrain is fragile enough that the Pac-12 should consider options that provide maximum schedule flexibility, regardless of how unconventional they might seem.
What exactly is the potential of Texas State? — @CelestialMosh
At the top of the outcome range, the Bobcats could dominate the new Pac-12 the way Boise State has dominated the current Mountain West, with frequent 11-win regular seasons.
Success is all about resource allocation and talent acquisition which, of course, go hand-in-hand.
Texas State is located in one of the nation’s most fertile recruiting areas, president Kelly Damphousse appears committed to winning, coach G.J. Kinne is a proven developer of talent and, crucially, the university has the financial wherewithal to support football at a high level relative to other programs outside the power conferences.
We were struck by a recent report by the website On3 about the “top 10 biggest spenders” in college football in 2025 as defined (presumably) by the cost of the roster using revenue sharing and NIL.
Three of the top five were from the Lone Star State: Texas, Texas Tech and Texas A&M.
Granted, Texas State is nowhere near those schools when it comes to tradition, success, fan passion or resource potential. But it doesn’t need to be. The relevant comparison — the Bobcats’ peer group, in other words — is the Pac-12.
And compared to most football programs in the rebuilt conference, they have inherent advantages in both recruiting and resources thanks, largely, to their location in a football-crazed state.
Will they execute?
We should have clarity in two or three years. But it’s not difficult to envision a scenario in which Texas State, like Boise State, is an annual contender for the Pac-12 title and a playoff bid.
Should the Pac‑12 lean into its role as a developmental league for the Power Four — embrace a ‘farm system’ identity — or fight to reclaim major conference status in a marketplace that may no longer have room for five? — @CurtisBlack
Any acknowledgement of a “farm system” approach could damage the Pac-12 brand, and we see no chance (none, zero, zip) of Gonzaga approving the strategy in basketball.
On this topic, the conference has a narrow path forward. It won’t be considered the equal of the ACC, Big 12, Big Ten or SEC and shouldn’t bother making the attempt. But positioning itself as the best of the remaining conferences — as the clear No. 5 — is entirely reasonable from a marketing standpoint.
And that’s exactly what you hear from commissioner Teresa Gould and others: They use the phrase “top five” to describe the Pac-12’s competitive position.
It will take a few years of success for the conference to cement its status as neither Power Four or Group of Five, but on a tier of its own making.
The rebuilt conference might not get there — maybe the American grabs that mantle; maybe nobody does — but the underlying strategy seems sound.
I see hardly any mention of San Jose State as a prospective member of the Pac-12. Why is that? Being in the biggest city in a large market that the Pac-12 lost, I would think they would be a good addition. — Alec S
First, let’s address a frequent misconception: Presence in a major market does not necessarily mean that school receives credit for the full media value of the market.
The Spartans are an afterthought on the Bay Area sporting scene; they don’t move the ratings needle one iota. No media company (linear or streaming) would view SJSU as delivering the nation’s 10th-largest market regardless of the conference affiliation.
Beyond that, there are serious concerns over the university’s commitment to athletic success, especially in football. Just look at the recent remodel of CEFCU Stadium: The eastern side has no stands. It’s a 100-yard patch of grass that creates terribly poor optics on TV.
If you’re the Pac-12, why trust any university — the decision was not made by the athletic department — that would show so little commitment to football?
The remodel lowered capacity to 18,265, and the Spartans didn’t even sell out for the home date against UNLV when the nine-win Rebels paid a visit last season. (By comparison, Texas State’s stadium capacity is 30,000.)
It’s an unfortunate situation at SJSU. College football in the Bay Area would be vastly more interesting if the Spartans were relevant. Generally, we believe the athletic department makes the most of the hand it has been dealt. The issue is largely with central campus.
Are college athletics administrators submitting these NIL collective deals really caught off guard? Or is this just faux outrage to fuel their narrative? I thought it was clear the standard collective deal of the past three years was dying with the settlement? — @GoodSirHamlet
You certainly are not alone. Many are confused by the, err, confusion.
The intent of the House vs. NCAA settlement and subsequent formation of the College Sports Commission was to root out the pay-for-play that has dominated the NIL era. Deloitte’s technology platform, NIL Go, is designed to reject deals that are not for “valid business purposes.”
The question is whether deals arranged by NIL collectives can, in fact, be considered legitimate. The CSC doesn’t think so. The collectives disagree.
Everyone knew there would be potholes in the first year of the CSC, but this could metastasize into a sinkhole.
If the collectives are permitted to continue with business as usual — or anything close to usual — then the enforcement component could collapse and the college sports industry is back where it started before the settlement.
Any idea how much is being spent on lawyers in the Pac-12 lawsuit against the Mountain West? — @coleltaylor
Take your best guess at the hourly rate for top-end attorneys, multiply that times a bajillion hours and you have the answer.
In other words: The Hotline cannot begin to offer a reasonable estimate for the legal cost of the poaching penalty lawsuit, which is headed back to court after mediation failed to produce a resolution.
Here’s what we know:
— The firm representing the Pac-12 in the case is the same outfit, Keker, Van Nest & Peters, that took the lead in the lawsuit filed by Washington State and Oregon State against the 10 outbound schools back in 2023.
(According to a source with no affiliation to the Pac-12 or the firm itself, Keker has an excellent reputation.)
— The Pac-12 spent approximately $12 million on legal fees in the 2023-24 fiscal year, according to financial documents obtained by the Hotline.
Granted, FY2024 included the lawsuit over control of the conference. But there were other legal issues — many other legal issues — unfolding during that time, including the Comcast overpayment fiasco.
And there are other legal issues now, with the House lawsuit atop the list. (The Pac-12 was a named defendant in the case.)
It’s not unreasonable to think the conference once again will spend many millions on legal fees. Exactly how much can be pinned on the poaching penalty lawsuit specifically, we cannot say.
Wouldn’t a football scheduling agreement with Sacramento State in 2026 make a ton of sense? The Pac-12 probably wouldn’t have to pay the Hornets and would buy time to add more football schools later. — @brycetacoma
On the surface, yes: An agreement with Sacramento State for four, five or six games seems like sound strategy for a conference that could need non-conference matchups.
That said, FBS schools only receive credit (toward bowl eligibility) for one victory over an FCS opponent per season, and many teams in the rebuilt Pac-12 have their FCS opponent locked in for ’26.
For example, Oregon State is scheduled to play Montana, while Washington State is facing Duquesne, and San Diego State has Portland State.
Adding Sacramento State makes no sense for those programs because the game wouldn’t count toward the six wins needed for a postseason bid.
And there’s one more matter to consider: Matchups with FCS opponents offer little in the way of TV value. Any dates with Sacramento State would be streamed, and that’s not the Pac-12’s preference for its media inventory.
The Pac-12 will reportedly sponsor men’s tennis, but only four schools play it, so affiliate members are needed. The other western conferences all sponsor it, as well. How will that work? — @cougsguy06
Tennis is one of eight men’s sports the rebuilt conference plans to sponsor, in addition to at least 10 on the women’s side. (The FBS minimum is 16.)
And yes, only four of the nine members have men’s tennis. The conference is working through the sponsorship piece and will undoubtedly identify affiliates — not only in men’s tennis but a slew of sports.
That’s not unusual. Little Rock (Arkansas) has been an affiliate member of the Pac-12 in wrestling for years, just as Cal’s field hockey team was a member of the America East before the Bears joined the ACC.
We suspect that most, if not all Olympic sports eventually will realign in conferences that make geographic sense.
The sooner the better for the athletes.
Do the new schools entering the Pac-12 get an equity stake in Pac-12 Enterprises, or is that going to be owned completely by Oregon State and Washington State? — @Brian_Wood45
The Pac-12 Enterprises is not mentioned in the grant-of-rights agreement that begins next summer, and our hunch is the conference wants to closely protect any matters involving equity — just as it did for years with the Pac-12 Networks and the legacy schools.
But the incoming members view Pac-12 Enterprises as a significant asset on multiple fronts: Not only will the production unit allow for the promotion and visibility of Pac-12 teams, but Enterprises can generate revenue through third-party agreements. (Last fall, for instance, it handled production for a Golden State Warriors game on NBC Bay Area.)
Any profit from Enterprises will be funneled to WSU, OSU and the new schools alike as part of their annual distributions.
*** 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