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.
Put on your prediction hat: What happens to college football in the next five or 10 years? How different will it be? And does college football realize that all of the changes (realignment, late kickoffs, roster turnover) are making fans turn away? — Rico T
Are fans actually turning away? That's a popular narrative, but we don't see it — and the TV ratings suggest interest could be increasing. The logistics of the sport and its calendar are suboptimal. Nobody wants free agency (the transfer portal) during the College Football Playoff. That's ludicrous.
But fans love college football, and that hasn't changed now that Arizona shares a conference with UCF and Washington does the same with Rutgers.
People are also reading…
The future is murky, however. That reality is typically attributed to the sequential expiration of the media rights contracts holding everything in place: Big Ten (2030), Big 12 (2031), College Football Playoff (2032), NCAA Tournament (2032) and SEC (2034).
At some point in that timeframe, many believe, a new structure will emerge. It could be powered by more realignment, the formation of a super league, the demise of the ACC — the cost to leave the conference plunges in 2030 — or some combination therein.
The Hotline has a different view: We believe everything starts with the NFL's negotiations of a new media rights package.
That process will create the framework for the next iteration of college sports because of its direct impact on the raw dollars available and the manner in which they are distributed within college sports.
For those unfamiliar, know this:
— The NFL's current media deal across five partners (NBC, CBS, ESPN/ABC, Fox and Amazon) pays about $11 billion annually and runs into the 2030s.
— Commissioner Roger Goodell and the owners are using CBS' ownership change (to Skydance) as the contractual trigger to open the deal before it expires.
— Losing the broadcast rights to the NFL would create an existential crisis for the networks. After all, the NFL usually accounts for at least 80 of the 100 most-watched broadcasts on TV. There is nothing like it, anywhere.
What does that mean for college sports?
Fox, NBC, CBS and ESPN/ABC don't have unlimited cash. If they are forced to pay billions more per year for the NFL, there will be less available for the college conferences when they step to the negotiating table at the end of the decade.
Oregon tight end Kenyon Sadiq (18) carries agasint Indiana linebacker Aiden Fisher (4) during the second half of the Peach Bowl NCAA college football playoff semifinal, Friday, Jan. 9, 2026, in Atlanta. (AP Photo/Brynn Anderson)
(There will be less available for everyone: college sports, pro sports, scripted entertainment — yes, even Hollywood is concerned about the impact of the NFL negotiations.)
In our view, the reduction in cash available for the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12 and SEC, in particular, will force a reckoning.
That could mean a super league emerges, with the top 32-48 schools taking the vast majority of the cash left behind by the NFL.
It could force the leagues to remain intact but adopt massively uneven revenue models.
It could leave the ACC and Big 12 with scraps.
Premier college football is extremely valuable to the networks. They will pay for matchups between the best 25-30 schools. Whether those schools are grouped in different conferences or a single league is the great unknown.
The ideal situation for college sports? One of the networks gets priced out of the NFL rights (hello, NBC), forcing it to redirect massive dollars to college football.
If the NFL's current partners all retain their rights, but at 40-to-50 percent increases, the implications will be extraordinary.
What are your predictions for the Holiday Bowl's new TV partner? — @brycetacoma
A: If you missed the news, the website On3 reported this week that Fox won't bid on broadcast rights to the Holiday Bowl next season. What's more, ESPN reportedly isn't interested, despite its mammoth investment in the postseason.
As a result, bowl executives have hired a media consultant to find a new partner.
We cannot muster a guess as to the identity of the new partner — the process is just beginning. Hopefully, everything works out. The Holiday has always been a Hotline favorite and holds an important place in the postseason ecosystem.
But to be candid, we are less interested in the Holiday's pursuit of a new partner and more interested in what Fox's decision reveals.
Retired Fox Sports president Bob Thompson posted the following on the social media platform X regarding the Holiday Bowl news:
"Clearing marginal content to free up $'s to play with the NFL."
In other words, Thompson believes, Fox passed on the Holiday — it's good content but not required content — because it wants to save every penny for the NFL.
We expect more examples of networks eliminating non-essential costs from their balance sheets as they prepare to retain the NFL and avoid an existential crisis.
I have become a fan of Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti's proposal for a 24-team playoff. It seems to address all concerns: no automatic qualifiers, eliminates meaningless conference championships, etc. Why shouldn't a three-loss team be in the discussion for a spot in the CFP? — JR
A: Yes, the proposal has merit (e.g., more on-campus games), and Petitti has done well to tweak his plan to generate support.
But the Hotline opposes the 24-team CFP until there's good reason to believe doubling the field size won't adversely impact the regular season. And to date, none exists. Petitti is asking the industry to accept on faith that the regular season will remain as intoxicating as ever.
His model would undoubtedly result in three- and four-loss teams participating in the CFP. There could be better games in September, because teams won't be as worried about nonconference losses, but the November showdowns between top-10 teams with a playoff spot at stake will lose immense significance.
There have been just two years of a 12-team playoff, and yet here is Petitti, with growing support from other commissioners — the SEC's Greg Sankey is the primary holdout — pushing to double the field.
Why rush into something so momentous?
Why not wait for a larger sample size?
Also, we'd argue that three-loss teams should not only be in the discussion for berths in a 12- or 16-team playoff; they should participate.
As the Hotline has written repeatedly, the primary sources of angst and frustration are 1) the weekly ranking shows that strip the selection committee of needed flexibility and 2) the committee's ongoing obsession with losses.
Time and again over the years, it has failed to adequately account for schedule strength and quality wins. The end-of-season rankings are essentially a list of Power Four teams arranged by loss totals.
Fix that issue first, wait for more data, then decide on 24 in a few years. Because once you make that leap, for better or worse, there is no turning back.
I don't think the Pac-12 should add more schools from the Mountain West, except UNLV. Let's say the Rebels and all American Conference schools are off the table until 2031. Is there anyone else that would move the needle? — @SD_Samurai
A: There are no schools that move the needle in the fashion the Pac-12 would like: by increasing the media value of the entire conference.
Commissioner Teresa Gould secured the schools that mattered most (Boise State, San Diego State and Gonzaga) in the fall of 2024.
At this point, there are no must-haves — not even UNLV, which passed on the chance to join the Pac-12.
The Rebels fit geographically, and Las Vegas is a growing hub for college and pro sports. But they are not a value-add for media rights and don't clear the bar as a football brand.
In our view, the most intriguing school is UConn, a football Independent and member of the Big East in basketball. Add the Huskies as a football-only ninth member and arrange for a rotating basketball scheduling partnership with their men's and women's teams. (Maybe three games per season against each.)
If that's not possible, the Pac-12 should stand down. Better to stay at eight than to add a school that undercuts the collective's competitive bar and media value.
Mountain West commissioner Gloria Nevarez mentioned the conference will eventually go to 12 teams in football. Can you revive your realignment odds and give perspective to how the MW will eventually look? Will Montana and Montana State finally join the FBS? Is UC Davis a lock? Sacramento State? — @Coog2Knight518
A: The potential targets set to compete in the FCS in the fall (e.g., UC Davis and the Montana schools) will undoubtedly monitor North Dakota State's success in the Mountain West on and off the field.
We appreciate the reference to our realignment odds from the 2022-23 window, but the Hotline is making no predictions at this point — not while there are multiple active lawsuits against the Mountain West with roughly $155 million at stake.
The poaching penalty suit filed by the Pac-12 and the exit fee suit filed by departing members (Colorado State, Utah State and Boise State) could have a significant impact on the financial state of the Mountain West and its ability to retain current members and lure additional schools.
To be clear: That's not an extinction prediction.
In our view, the most likely outcome is a combined settlement of the two lawsuits that results in the Mountain West receiving significantly less than $155 million but enough to churn forward through the remainder of the decade. (Once we get to the early 2030s, everything could change.)
But setting expansion odds at this point, with the discovery process underway in the poaching penalty case, feels a tad pointless.
Does Oregon State have a marketing problem? Oregon has a brand. Boise State has a brand. OSU lacks a brand. What about an orange field or unique uniforms? Or a mascot upgrade? — @BakerMeow
A: Oregon State has a winning problem that gimmicks won't solve.
Boise State did not have a brand until it won at a high level for a lengthy stretch of time. Same with Gonzaga basketball.
The Ducks are a unicorn because of their connection to the world's No. 1 apparel brand, and if Phil Knight had attended Oregon State instead of Oregon, there's a good chance the roles would be reversed.
The implosion of the Pac-12, devastating as it was for the Beavers (and Washington State), offers an opportunity for on-field success that didn't exist when they were competing against USC, Oregon and Washington.
Invest heavily, win consistently, reach the playoff regularly — and a brand will emerge.
If USC coach Lincoln Riley doesn’t last the 2026 season, who is the favorite to replace him? — @jimmy0726
A: The Hotline usually refrains from speculating on potential hires until a vacancy exists, mostly out of respect for the employed coach. And we won't deviate here.
That said, there's nothing wrong with assessing the status of the current coach, and Riley's future is a constant source of conversation.
We believe it's CFP or bust for him in 2026.
Yes, the buyout is massive. Our understanding is that the amount will be in excess of $60 million next winter.
But this will be his fifth year overall at USC and third in the Big Ten. The Trojans have invested heavily in staff and recruiting resources. Riley is a skilled maker of excuses, but he has zero available.
After all, Indiana coach Curt Cignetti just won the national championship, effectively putting Riley (and others) on notice.
Since Riley took charge of the Trojans, the following Power Four schools have qualified for the playoff: Arizona State, Indiana, Miami, Oregon, SMU, TCU, Tennessee, Texas A&M and Washington — and that doesn't include the group of blue bloods to which USC purportedly belongs.
Riley recently told On3 that USC's championship window is now open. It was a ridiculous comment given the program's tradition, recruiting base and resources — and the aforementioned list of schools that have climbed through the window in recent years.
But it also set the bar for Riley in 2026.
How do you see coach Jim Mora doing at Colorado State, and where does your crystal ball see him in three or five years? — @Cargoman0363
A: Mora was an elite hire within the 2025-26 coaching carousel both for the totality of his success and the energy and attention he will bring to the Rams.
They needed someone to elevate the program entering the Pac-12 era, and Mora was a superb choice. He's a dynamic recruiter, quality coach and (we suspect) will spur CSU constituents to donate to the program's NIL coffers.
The Rams' incoming class of transfers is ranked fourth in the new Pac-12, behind Washington State, San Diego State and Oregon State, and we suspect next year's edition will be at least that well-regarded.
But Mora's future in Fort Collins is uncertain. If the Rams win big in 2026, Mora stands as a flight risk — we have no doubt he would take a Power Four job if offered.
Also, he will be 62 years old when the season ends. Could he coach into his late 60s at CSU? Sure. But that doesn't feel like a given.
And in many regards, it doesn't matter. The benefits for CSU lie almost entirely in what Mora brings to the program in the short term. For that reason, it was a stellar hire.
