Mailbag: Why the Hotline is tough on Washington, Big Ten TV matters, options for the Pac-12, the SEC and the CFP 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.

As a hardcore Husky, I don’t have an issue with your more critical stance on Washington this season. I can take the purple shades off from time to time. With that, what’s your take on the overall trajectory of the football program? — @cargoman0363

The Hotline has been critical of Washington this season, and we are reminded of our position by fans on a daily basis. (That’s a good thing. We value the feedback and should be held accountable by readers.)

Some context on that issue before we assess the “overall trajectory of the program” as requested:

— Our bar for the Huskies on an annual basis is high.

Washington isn’t one of the sport’s true blue bloods. It’s not on the same tier as Michigan, Ohio State, Alabama, Notre Dame and USC, for instance. But it’s clearly deserving of a spot in the top 15, for instance.

How many programs have appeared in multiple College Football Playoffs since the event made its debut in 2014? Eight. (Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Georgia, Michigan, Notre Dame and Washington.)

How many teams participated in the New Year’s Six bowl games at least four times over the decade? Twelve. (The eight listed above plus Penn State, Oregon, Florida State and Mississippi.)

That is select company, indeed. Those programs should be held to a high standard. In our view, the floor for UW is six wins — even under difficult circumstances, like a coaching change — and that’s where things stand currently.

— The Hotline’s 40,000-foot view of the state-of-affairs on Montlake begins at the top.

We believe the Huskies have been held back by a campus administration that simply doesn’t value athletic success — and football success in particular — to the degree it should.

Put another way: President Ana Mari Cauce has never gone all-in on football.

Why that is, we cannot say. If she fears that a next-level commitment to football could somehow undermine the university’s reputation, well, there is no evidence to support that position.

Does an all-in approach to football hurt Michigan’s academic reputation? Last we checked, the Wolverines were No. 21 in the U.S. News and World Report rankings that are so important to university presidents. (Texas and Florida are tied for 30th. Ohio State is 41st.)

Washington (No. 46) is a terrific school. That won’t change if the Huskies pay their head coach $10 million annually. In fact, football success can enhance a school’s academic reputation by increasing the national profile, which attracts more applicants, drives down the acceptance rate and can, if desired, increase the number of full-tuition (out-of-state) students.

— One final point: Fans often view our weekly picks against the spread as signs of criticism or validation, depending on the pick.

That’s reading far too much into the situation. If the Hotline picks against the Huskies, it doesn’t mean we are anti-UW and pro-opponent. (The reverse is true, as well.) We aren’t anti-anyone or pro-anyone.

The fact that Washington fans think we hate the Huskies and love the Ducks and Oregon fans think we hate the Ducks and love the Huskies indicates we are probably in the right space with our coverage.

Now, two quick thoughts on the Huskies specific to the 2024 season.

First, Indiana is making most Big Ten teams, including Washington, look bad.

The Hoosiers are undefeated with a first-year coach, Curt Cignetti, and a starting lineup stocked with players from the Group of Five.

Cignetti led James Madison to 11 wins last season and brought a slew of players with him to Bloomington, including Indiana’s leading receiver and top tackler. His quarterback, Kurtis Rourke, played for Ohio in 2023.

And yet the Hoosiers, picked 17th in the Big Ten preseason poll published by Cleveland.com, are not only 10-0 but beat Washington by two touchdowns with their backup quarterback.

Sure, Jedd Fisch and his staff arrived relatively late in the offseason cycle (January), and yes, the Huskies lost most of their lineup to the transfer portal and the NFL.

But Indiana is proof that roster turnover and coaching changes aren’t immovable blocks of granite preventing teams from competing for the Big Ten title.

(And for the record: Yes, Indiana is making USC and Michigan look much worse than Washington.)

Second, Washington’s schedule isn’t what we expected.

Indiana is exponentially better than anyone could have imagined. But had you told the Hotline prior to the season that the Wolverines and Trojans would be 5-5 at this point, and that Iowa would be 6-4, we would have fully expected the Huskies to win at least seven games.

With respect to our broader outlook for the program, the central issue is best framed as a question: Do we expect the Huskies to compete regularly for the Big Ten title alongside Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State and Oregon? (There’s no sign that USC belongs on that tier, but the Trojans are certainly capable of reaching it.)

In all candor, we aren’t convinced.

We aren’t convinced that Fisch and his staff are up to the challenge. (They could be. It’s simply too early to know either way.)

We aren’t convinced the school and its constituents will deliver the necessary NIL support to fund talent acquisitions.

We aren’t convinced the next president — Cauce is stepping down in June — will provide the needed institutional commitment.

And we aren’t convinced the athletic department’s financial challenges, which include both the current debt load and the partial revenue distributions from the conference for the rest of the decade, are surmountable in a manner that will allow UW to plow the requisite resources into football.

So yes, we are slightly more skeptical than optimistic.

And if the Hotline is proven wrong, then 1) it certainly wouldn’t be the first time, and 2) good for the Huskies.

Much has been made of the flaws in the Big Ten’s TV deal, specifically the exclusive windows that box out the four West Coast schools from the Fox ‘Big Noon’ broadcast. Could we see the deal renegotiated, or is this the circumstance until 2030? — Will

The Hotline would argue that none of the 14 continuing members have the right to complain since they voted to accept the media deal and add the West Coast quartet.

The same goes for Washington, Oregon, USC and UCLA: Nobody involved in the two-phase decision to join the Big Ten has the grounds to utter a peep of frustration about the media deal.

That said, I am not sure anything can be done about getting more exposure for the West Coast schools because they aren’t going to play home games at 9 a.m., and Fox isn’t moving its premier window out of the 12 p.m. Eastern slot.

Can the conference work with Fox, CBS and NBC to tweak certain aspects of the media deal? Sure. That happens all the time. The networks and the conferences are partners, which means they must work to find common ground on certain issues.

But the media companies make decisions based on what’s best for their business. Sometimes, that conflicts with what’s best for the schools and the fans. If Fox wants Ohio State at ‘Big Noon’ on a regular basis because the Buckeyes are a ratings machine, for example, there isn’t much Ohio State can do.

Such is the price for selling your soul.

Will the SEC ever be “penalized” for playing an extra cupcake each season? The eight-game conference schedule practically guarantees one less loss for half the teams. Sure, the CFP selection committee says strength-of-schedule makes a big difference, but I’m not buying that the extra losses wouldn’t make a difference, too. — RT

Well, the committee has done a poor job of walking the walk on strength-of-schedule considering where it has placed teams like No. 3 Texas, No. 4 Penn State and No. 5 Indiana relative to No. 10 Georgia, which has two losses but the toughest schedule in the country.

But to your specific point: The SEC paid no price for the eight-game conference schedule during the four-team CFP era, which allows for a cupcake opponent in November, so why would it pay a price now?

We suspect the schools will add a ninth game if ESPN makes it worthwhile by increasing the value of the media rights package. (The conference certainly won’t agree to add eight losses to its season total for free!)

Exactly when that point comes is anyone’s guess.

The other consideration is a potential scheduling agreement between the SEC and Big Ten, which the conferences have discussed but is merely in the formative stages.

That, too, would materialize for the right price from the networks.

Sam Acho pointed out on ESPN that Missouri’s unchanged ranking is used to artificially inflate SEC resumes. Why doesn’t the CFP do a blind ranking based off data? There is obvious favoritism. All the conferences should be judged off their data. — @mlondo856

Missouri has no wins over ranked teams, but all three of its losses are to teams in the CFP’s Top 25: Alabama, Texas A&M and South Carolina. The Tigers are a borderline case, but there are others (e.g., Illinois).

Essentially, you are advocating for the elimination of the selection committee, which takes subjective factors (the so-called “eye test”) into consideration, and for leaving the process to a computer.

The Big Ten and SEC have discussed exactly that. Both conferences worry the committee will place too much emphasis on win-loss records and victory margin at the expense of schedule strength.

In other words: They are concerned one-loss teams from the ACC or Big 12 will receive at-large berths instead of multi-loss teams from the Big Ten and SEC.

That’s one of several reasons this season’s selection process is so critical to the event’s future. If the Big Ten and SEC don’t get what they want on Dec. 8, they will change the format in a manner that gives them more inherent advantages than already exist.

You mentioned that Boise State’s success could make the new Pac-12 more attractive for possible expansion candidates, perhaps including some schools that appear unavailable. Can you expand on those schools that appear unavailable, as well as any other options? — @CelestialMosh

Boise State on the football side and Gonzaga and San Diego State in men’s basketball provide the rebuilt Pac-12 with tentpole programs that other schools would want to associate with for competitive and financial reasons.

Our default view is to ignore any public commitments made by schools to their conferences because we don’t know the details of the private (i.e., legal) commitments.

There could very well be escape clauses allowing the schools to leave for the right price or if their own media deal isn’t secured by a certain time.

Realignment is all about schools saying one thing and doing another. Our suggestion: Ignore everything you have heard, read and seen about schools being unavailable until the Pac-12 signs a media rights deal and begins a full-throttle push to fill out its membership.

I assume the Pac-12 wants multiple partners for its media deal. If the conference eventually only has eight football members and nine for basketball, is that enough inventory to split between two partners? Do they have to add more schools to maximize the media contract? — @NateJones2009

Commissioner Teresa Gould has been clear in her aims to partner with multiple media companies and place Pac-12 content on multiple platforms (linear and streaming).

In our view, the question isn’t whether the conference signs with two partners. It’s whether three companies are involved.

The number of partners could depend on whether ESPN is part of the agreement, because it emphasizes both linear and streaming (ESPN+) whereas Fox, The CW and Warner Bros. Discovery (TNT and TBS) are not heavily into streaming.

Bottom line: The conference has established its foundational members. What happens next depends on the market.

If the media rights negotiations indicate more is merrier because of inventory needs, then sure, the Pac-12 could add two or three more schools.

Or it could make one more move: The eighth football-playing member.

It’s all a balancing act. The Pac-12 and its consultant, Octagon, must craft a deal that provides maximum dollars with the minimum number of schools, thereby ensuring that each member gets the largest revenue share possible.

Only one school without a football program could increase the value of the overall package, and thanks to Gould’s work behind the scenes, the Pac-12 landed Gonzaga in September.

Also, keep in mind that the Pac-12 wants to remain nimble enough to serve as a fallback option for any former schools that might want to return in five or 10 years.

Why do you vote so far out of alignment with the rest of the Associated Press Top 25 voters? — @alcor805

I have been using the same basic formula for years with regard to my AP Top 25 ballot, with an emphasis on schedule strength, accumulating quality wins and avoiding bad losses.

I will drop teams that win and elevate teams that lose, depending on the circumstances. And I never use the loss total as the framework for ordering the 25 teams.

Also, I have no idea whether my ballot aligns with the group or is wildly different. I don’t see the other ballots when casting my votes on Saturday night. The AP’s portal only allows access to our individual pages.

And even if granted that access, I would make no attempt to fall in alignment.

Groupthink is bad.

*** 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