Mailbag: Pac-12 bowl games for 2026, CFP expansion, Big Ten schedule timing, Lanning’s contract, Gould’s performance 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.
Which bowl games will partner with the new Pac-12 in 2026 and beyond? – @CelestialMosh
First, let’s address the timing of the conference’s new bowl lineup, because it’s more complicated than you might think in this regard: The reconstructed Pac-12 might not have a dedicated set of bowl games if the College Football Playoff sticks with a 12-team field for 2026.
Conference commissioners, with the SEC’s Greg Sankey and the Big Ten’s Tony Petitti in leading roles, have until Jan. 23 to determine the format for next season. The status quo is an option – in fact, it’s probably the leading option given the disagreements over the number of automatic qualifiers and at-large bids.
If the deadline passes without expansion, Bowl Season executives could simply extend the current conference tie-ins, which are based on the Pac-12’s pre-breakup affiliations.
That would result in the schools now competing in the ACC, Big Ten and Big 12 remaining tied to the Pac-12 bowls and the new Pac-12 schools remaining tied to the Mountain West and Sun Belt bowls — all for at least one year.
Got it? Good.
Now, let’s imagine the CFP announces next month that it’s expanding to 16 teams for the 2026 season, prompting bowls to revamp their contracts to reflect the post-realignment world and expanded playoff field.
Our expectations for the Pac-12’s bowl partnerships are modest.
Combine the bowl system’s preference for partnerships that make geographic sense with the rebuilt conference’s low resonance nationally – we’re just being honest – and the endgame could produce a lineup of bowls that resembles the Mountain West’s current affiliations.
Except without the LA Bowl, which is shuttered following Saturday’s Washington-Boise State matchup. Rumors about the bowl’s uncertain future had been floating for months. Last week, the website On3 reported that, largely because of realignment, the LA Bowl would vanish into the ether.
It was No. 1 in the Mountain West’s lineup.
The new Pac-12 has eight football-playing members and won’t need more than three or four bowl partners. (If there are more teams eligible than bowls available, the conference will fill vacancies in games tied to other leagues.)
We view bowls based in the western third of the country as the likely partners – some combination of the Potato Bowl, Arizona Bowl, New Mexico Bowl, Hawaii Bowl and Rate Bowl (in Phoenix) makes the most sense.
And don’t discount the potential for the conference to partner with a Texas-based bowl, particularly with Texas State as a member.
But the Hotline would be mildly surprised if the new Pac-12 retains any of the legacy games. The Alamo, Las Vegas, Holiday and Sun are more likely to partner with the departed schools’ new conferences in one configuration or another.
Clarity should come in late January or February, which tracks with the timeframe for the release of the Pac-12’s conference schedule.
Should we eliminate conference championship games at this point? The CFP committee prioritizes regular season performance, yet teams on the bubble, like BYU, risk getting knocked out of the playoff, and teams like Georgia have one less week to rest. – @sayre_andrew89S
One size does not fit all with the examples cited in the question.
BYU wasn’t in the playoff before the Big 12 championship – the Cougars were just below the cut line, so losing didn’t actually cost them an at-large berth.
Yes, they dropped in the final rankings after the loss, whereas Alabama held its ground following the lopsided defeat in the SEC championship — and that apparent contradiction rankled many.
But the situations weren’t identical because Alabama lost to an opponent (Georgia) that it had already beaten on the road while BYU lost badly to an opponent (Texas Tech) that had previously slapped the Cougars silly.
In our view, the committee’s treatment of Alabama solidified the near-term future of conference championship games as long as the CFP either remains at 12 or expands to 16 teams.
If the field balloons to 24 – and we pray it does not – then championship games will become instantly and completely irrelevant.
The other issue raised in the question is pertinent, as well.
Alabama was in the SEC championship Dec. 6 and has a playoff game Dec. 19 (at Oklahoma). Basically, the Crimson Tide’s postseason schedule is comparable to a bye week during the regular season. Tulane and James Madison are facing similar turnaround windows.
Without question, there’s a benefit to not participating in conference championships if your CFP bid is secure. Oregon, for example, has an ideal path with three weeks of rest from the season finale at Washington (Nov. 29) to the home playoff game (Dec. 20). The same applies to Texas A&M, Oklahoma and Mississippi.
If the CFP expands to 16 teams, with eight opening-round games, every championship game participant would face the two-week turnaround. Coaches and athletic directors, it seems, are fine with that schedule.
Everything changes with a 24-team playoff field, however. Not only would the championship games become irrelevant to the selection process, but the added round of play would leave title game participants with no break.
For those reasons, any field size larger than 16 would mean doom for the champ games.
Could you please explain what happens to NIL agreements and payments after a player decides to transfer to a different school? – Dave H
For the most part, NIL contracts are hooked to the player’s commitment to a specific school and don’t enter the portal with him (or her).
We can’t state definitively that every NIL deal across college football and basketball (and the Olympic sports) is structured in that manner, because high-profile athletes who partner with national brands might have clauses in the contracts that allow the deal to follow the athlete.
But the vast majority are arranged by a specific collective and tied to the particular school.
When does the Big Ten’s 2026 football schedule get released? – @purpledawg96
A topical question given the SEC released its 2026 schedule on Thursday, and here’s our response: We have no clue.
The Big Ten has not provided a firm date.
Initially, the Hotline expected a schedule announcement this week – the 2025 schedule was released on Dec. 11, 2024, after all. But piecing together intel gathered in recent days, we suspect the schedule reveal will come in the first half of January.
That certainly becomes the window if next week passes without news. It’s difficult to believe the Big Ten would go public with the schedule during the weeks of Christmas and New Year’s.
The Pac-12 announced CBS as its primary partner months ago. Now USA Sports will air half the conference’s football games and most of the basketball. What’s the definition of primary partner? – @NateJones2009
It would be easy to say the primary partner is the network that agrees to the most lucrative contract. But it’s not quite that simple
Yes, USA Sports will air 22 football games and 50 men’s basketball games each season through the five-year deal, while CBS (and CBS Sports Network) will show 13 football games and 20 men’s basketball games .
But CBS is the biggest sports media brand associated with the Pac-12 – The CW and USA Sports cannot compare in tradition and influence – and it was the first network to commit to the conference for the 2026-31 window, offering a heaping dose of legitimacy in the process.
Also, CBS’ package includes the showcase event: the conference championship game.
Combine that with the 13 weekly broadcasts, and our assumption is CBS/CBSSN will have the ‘A’ package of inventory, meaning it will air the best game each week (or most weeks).
That component, even more than the cash offered, is what defines a “primary” partner.
Why is Oregon coach Dan Lanning rarely mentioned as a candidate for some of the bigger-name schools that have lost coaches, such as Penn State, LSU and even Florida? As a Washington season ticket holder of nearly 50 years, it would not bother me to see him go down the road to another school! – Rob M
Lanning has been clear about his desire to remain in Eugene, both because Oregon offers him the resources to win at the highest level and because his family is happy.
In fact, he put his money where his mouth is upon signing a contract extension in 2023 (that has since been amended): The deal includes a massive buy-out of $20 million, suggesting Lanning was content with terms that most schools with vacancies would consider exorbitant.
Essentially, he took himself off the market.
In exchange, Oregon offered more security and more money, with a deal that was worth roughly $7 million annually at the time but has since been amended (to approximately $11 million).
The Ducks have a first-rate coach who wants to stay, so they moved aggressively to keep him.
That said, he’s not a forever coach in Eugene. At some point, he’ll look elsewhere. There are only a few college jobs that might lure Lanning away — Georgia is probably atop that list — but if the right NFL franchise has a vacancy in coming years, he could very well be tempted.
What do you think could (should) change in head-coaching contracts to try and curb what is becoming this constant hopping around? It certainly can’t be good for the programs where coaches are always in the rumor mill. — @Cargoman0363
The primary tool for slowing the coaching carousel is exactly what we discussed above with Lanning: Buy-out terms that are so steep, few schools can afford to poach.
Problem is, you need the coach to agree. And that doesn’t happen often.
Here’s the bottom line: In the negotiations between agents and athletic directors (ADs), the agents almost always win.
Why? Because ADs often negotiate out of fear – the fear of losing their job if they don’t sign or retain the coach preferred by fans and donors. As a result, agents are able to secure lower buyouts, thus creating a market for their clients (assuming a desired level of on-field success).
Many within the industry believed the implementation of revenue sharing, a $20.5 million line item expense, would shift the cash flow from coaching contracts to player salaries.
But based on the coaching deals signed in the past few weeks, that’s not the case. There’s enough cash in the system to support rev-share for players and salary increases for coaches.
Like many, I regret the end of the Pac-12 conference and will never forgive USC and UCLA for causing the demise. But it sure is nice to have a competent/good commissioner for a change. Your thoughts? – John B
My first thought is that if current commissioner Teresa Gould had been in charge instead of Larry Scott, the Pac-12 might have averted disaster.
And if Gould had succeeded Scott in 2021, instead of George Kliavkoff, the post-L. A. collection of schools would have remained together.
Unlike the duo of destruction, Gould has spent her career in college sports and understands that relationships are the foundation for everything.
Also, she prioritizes what’s best for the schools over what’s best for her image (in contrast to Scott) and is willing to do the grunt work (in contrast to Kliavkoff) when grunt work is required.
The past 18 months have not been without potholes for the Pac-12, both in its purgatorial phase with just Washington State and Oregon State and in the rebuilding phase with the Mountain West schools and Gonzaga on board.
But given the situation back in August 2024, after the implosion, the Pac-12 has done as well as could have been reasonably imagined.
And Gould is at the center of the success.