The Hotline mailbag publishes weekly. Please 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.
It feels like the early-season mismatches in college football are becoming even more lopsided. Are they? Is NIL widening the gap between each level of play? — @mattkreuter
A: Yes, they are. The barrage of blowouts witnessed in Week 1 has continued through the month, and we have the data to prove it.
But let’s first set the stage for this important, unfortunate and somewhat layered development.
People are also reading…
The structural changes to the talent acquisition process (e.g., the transfer portal, revenue sharing and NIL) have played a role in the expanding competitive gap, but there is another factor: Fear. Or laziness. Or whatever you call the motivation for schools from the power conferences, especially the Big Ten, to schedule fewer and fewer games against their peers in other power conferences.
The Hotline has drilled into this topic previously, but it’s worth repeating: 28% of the Big Ten does not face an opponent from the ACC, Big 12 and SEC this season.
And yes, we are happy to name names: Nebraska, Indiana, USC, Washington and Penn State all took the easy way out.
Between the five schools, there were 15 nonconference slots. All 15 were filled by opponents from the Group of Six or FCS.
It’s embarrassing, frankly.
Penn State running back Cam Wallace runs for a touchdown during the fourth quarter against Buffalo in a 2026 game.
The Big Ten office isn’t happy — don't forget: the campuses control their non-conference schedules — and the Big Ten’s media partners (Fox, NBC and CBS) certainly aren’t happy.
The weak sauce is responsible for Fox airing Ohio State-Kent State in its No. 1 broadcast window (Big Noon) last weekend.
The dearth of Power Four vs. Power Four games isn’t limited to the Big Ten, but it’s the primary villain.
Another component to consider when assessing the competitive landscape across the FBS: There are more teams (138) than there were a decade ago. More teams in the pool combined with fewer marquee matchups contributes to the increase in the frequency of blowouts.
And that increase is substantial.
Before we dive in, please note the following data was provided to the Hotline from Sportradar via the Associated Press.
Okay, let’s start broadly:
— Through Week 3, the average point differential in nonconference games involving the ACC, Big 12, Big Ten and SEC teams (plus Notre Dame) was 27.8 points. That's the largest differential since at least 2000.
And in 2001, the margin was 13.2 points through three weeks, so it has more than doubled.
But if we filter, the trend becomes more pronounced:
— The differential cited above (27.8 points) includes Power Four vs. Power Four games. When you remove those matchups and focus solely on instances of Power Four teams facing Group of Six/FCS opponents, the average margin jumps to 34.6 points.
Which is the largest since the tracking process began a quarter century ago.
In fact, the average differential in Power Four vs. Group of Six/FCS games has climbed steadily over five years:
2022: 26.7
2023: 26.9
2024: 29.1
2025: 31.1
2026: 34.6
The trend is clear, and so is the math: The five-year increase of 29.6% coincides with NIL becoming law of the land in the summer of 2021, plus the start of unlimited, penalty-free transfers in the spring of 2024 and, finally, revenue sharing in the summer of 2025.
Those changes to the economic and roster-construction models reward schools with the deepest pockets and allow the talent to flow up the food chain like never before.
The sport is flattening at the top, with more teams than ever before capable of winning the national championship in a given year.
But it’s also thinning out top to bottom, with expanding gaps between the SEC and Big Ten on the highest tier, the ACC and Big 12 on the middle tier and the Group of Six on the lowest.
In our view, the new landscape is roughly the shape of a mushroom cloud.
A new strength-of-schedule metric for the College Football Playoff selection process was announced Thursday. Hypothetically, who gets in between an 11-2 Boise State or undefeated team from any other Group of Six — @NateJones2009
A: Those issues might not be as interconnected as it appears.
Yes, the CFP unveiled a new metric Thursday that can best be described as strength-of-conference. It joins strength-of-schedule (self-explanatory) and strength-of-record, which compares how Team X fared against its schedule to how an average Top 25 team would perform against the same schedule, in the selection committee's toolbox.
Strength-of-conference is not an entirely new datapoint for the committee, but it will lend clarity to a vexing issue: How to differentiate teams within a conference given the unbalanced schedules resulting from differences in opponent rotations.
For instance, in the Big Ten, which has 18 teams but only nine conference games, Penn State does not play Ohio State, Oregon or Indiana. Meanwhile, USC plays all three.
Granted, a contrast of that nature would be reflected in the teams' strength-of-schedule ratings, but strength-of-conference provides an additional layer to the complications caused by mega-conferences.
It won't be as useful if the committee is forced to evaluate 11-2 Boise State against, say, 13-0 Tulsa or 13-0 James Madison. In that situation, strength-of-schedule and strength-of-record likely will provide the vital data.
In that scenario, the strength of the undefeated team's non-conference schedule will receive intense scrutiny. If it's filled with cupcakes and compares poorly to Boise State's stout lineup (Oregon, Memphis, South Dakota and Western Michigan), the Broncos could very well have the advantage.
Don't forget: Every aspect of the selection process is relative.
The committee is evaluating multiple resumes for every spot, and that includes the berth reserved for the top team in the Group of Six.
Did the Pac-12 stay at eight teams (for football) with the intention of possibly adding more legacy Pac-12 schools down the road? I have a hard time seeing Stanford and Cal staying on the East Coast. The 'Pac-8' plus Cal-ford is better. — @puffboxdaddy
A: If you were hoping for a definitive yes or no response, the Hotline is sorry to disappoint. The answer is yes and no.
The Pac-12 halted expansion at eight football-playing members because it could not find a ninth school that both met the competitive and financial thresholds and wanted to join the conference.
UNLV turned down an invitation — not a smart decision, by the way — and so did the American trio of Tulane, Memphis and USF.
Texas State made sense as the eighth football school, but there isn't an obvious fit available. That is the 'no' portion of our response: The conference didn't stop at eight expressly to leave space for Pac-12 legacy schools.
But the desire to remain lean and mean in case another realignment wave strikes in three or five years was definitely part of the broad strategic calculation.
The conference wants to provide a viable option for Cal or Stanford or any other Pac-12 legacy team — or for the top schools in the American.
There is no way to predict whether realignment will hit in the early 2030s or what form it will take. But the Pac-12 is a more desirable landing spot with eight or nine football schools than it would have with 11 or 12 and a bottom tier that didn't clear the competitive bar.
More meat, less fat was the right call.
That said, Cal and Stanford assuredly will look elsewhere if the ACC implodes, with the Big Ten as their first choice.
We don't envision them joining the Pac-12 as the conference is currently constructed. For better or worse, they don't want to be associated academically with the schools that are now members.
Do the NIL contracts require players to participate in bowl games, or are they still allowing opt-out provisions? — Michael
A: This issue is sure to surface when we get to the bowl season and can be revisited in-depth at that point. But a summation now seems beneficial.
No, the NIL deals cannot require bowl participation because — and this is often lost in the public discourse — they are not employment contracts.
In fact, the NIL deals are not between the players and the schools; they are between the players and third-party entities.
Not all contracts are structured in the same fashion, but none of them can prevent players from opting out or void the NIL deals in the event a player decides to skip his bowl game.
Always remember, NIL is not pay-for-play ... except that it is.
With the College Football Playoff possibly expanding to 24 teams, why is the SEC so set against it? I would think they would want to have the possibility of fielding more teams. — @BolfMike
A: SEC coaches are in favor of 24 for that very reason: They want enhanced access because it means job security and performance bonuses and contract extensions. And many SEC athletic directors feel the same way.
The 24-team field has support in the ACC, Big 12 and Big Ten for those very reasons, not because it's indisputably better for the sport.
But SEC commissioner Greg Sankey has been the lone voice of reason in this process, and he would not have staked out that position without support from his presidents.
Before committing to 24, Sankey wants clarity on the TV revenue component: Will the new inventory (12 games) generate enough cash to offset the elimination of the SEC championship, which generates roughly $100 million and would become obsolete with the expanded CFP.
Also, Sankey wisely wants to understand, to the greatest extent possible, the impact a 24-team playoff would have on the regular season.
After all, the SEC's media partner, ESPN, reaps enormous benefits from the huge audiences that watch SEC (and other) games every fall.
With a 24-team playoff, marquee matchups like USC-Oregon and LSU-Texas A&M would lose much of their drama.
Our hunch is that enough media money will become available from the new inventory — Fox wants to be involved; CBS and NBC may, as well — that Sankey eventually approves the move to 24.
The deadline to inform ESPN of format changes for the 2027 season is Dec. 1, although that potentially could be extended into January, as it was last year.
How does any player who hasn't entered the portal timely become eligible to play NCAA sports? What stops any player from getting a temporary restraining order? Why would a conference rule be any stronger than the NCAA rules? — H Hughes
A: It appears the crux of your question is this: Why would the SEC and Big Ten be better equipped to enforce rules under a self-governing model than the NCAA?
That is a rich topic — and one that foreshadows the post-PCSA world.
The Protect College Sports Act is expected to pass the Senate but faces a steep climb in the House of Representatives.
The Big Ten and SEC have made their feelings clear: If the bill fizzles along the legislative process, Plan B is to break away from the NCAA's governing umbrella and create their own rules around eligibility, tampering, athlete compensation and other issues.
(To be clear: self-governance does not mean exclusively intra-conference competition.)
But policing your own is a precarious business. The schools are genetically engineered to look for every competitive advantage, even if that means breaking the rules.
Would the SEC punish Texas? Would the Big Ten sanction Ohio State? And would any penalties hold up in court if the offending school sought legal relief?
So far, self-governance is 2-for-2: The Big 12 pushed back in federal court against Texas Tech in the Brendan Sorsby affair; and the SEC pushed back on LSU earlier this month when the Tigers tried to roster former NFL players.
In both cases, the authority of the conference was reinforced.
We suspect the individual leagues would have more success in court — yes, even district courts — than the NCAA because they are not national organizations. No single conference controls the market.
Also, the Big Ten and SEC don't have the paper trail of hypocrisy, obstinance, loopholes and legal losses that the NCAA carries into each court case like three tons of bricks.
If the PCSA fails, self-governance is likely the next step, and it will be fascinating.
How are TV ratings so far this season? Are they better or worse than previous years? — MrEd315
A: The sample size in 2026 is far too small for conclusions, but we can offer a morsel of context.
Last year, the first four weeks of the season (including Week 0) generated five games with at least 10 million viewers and 10 games with at least five million viewers, according to data published by sportsmediawatch.com.
This year, the first four weeks have produced two games of 10 million viewers and nine games of five million.
So the heavily-watched categories are essentially the same, and the mega-watched categories tilt toward last year.
Why the disparity in the mega-watched games? The schedule is an important piece. There were more circle-the-date matchups early last season, especially on the Labor Day weekend.
That doesn't mean the trend will continue, but it's certainly worth watching.
College football fans might recall all the attention placed on the soaring ratings in 2025, as compared to the 2024 figures, but that was somewhat misleading.
As the Hotline detailed last winter, Nielsen changed its audience-tracking methodology in a manner that benefitted college football. (Nutshell version: It began including college towns in the tracking.)
The year-over-year figures were bound to soar because more viewers were being captured by Nielsen — but they were not necessarily new viewers.
That same methodology is in place this season, allowing an apples-to-apples comparison between 2025 and 2026. We shall see what the data reveal come January.
