Hotline mailbag: Timeline for media deal, Big Ten and Big 12 threats, Whittingham's profile and more

The Hotline mailbag is published every Friday. Send questions to pac12hotline@bayareanewsgroup.com or hit me on Twitter: @WilnerHotline.

Please note: Some questions have been edited for clarity and brevity.

Do you think we finally get an answer on conference realignment by the end of the month? — @hmckee53

Until recently, I would have pegged the second half of October as the window for Pac-12 schools to sign a media rights deal (or experience an alternative outcome).

But commissioner George Kliavkoff's recent comments on "Canzano and Wilner: The Podcast" suggest the process could last beyond the football season:

"I don't feel, candidly, any sense of urgency at this point," he said. "No one's going anywhere; we're all together; we're focused on doing this."

Let's add two matters of context:

— The Big Ten's media negotiations began in February or March — I'm not sure of the start date — and didn't conclude until the middle of August.

Using that five-month timeframe as a guide, the Pac-12's process could last into the winter.

— Had ESPN made an offer the Pac-12 couldn't refuse during the exclusive negotiating period, the deal would be signed and sealed by now.

But why would ESPN have felt compelled to bid against itself? It didn't make sense for the network to match the Pac-12's ask, which we believe was in the range of $450 million to $500 million per year for five years.

Absent the killer offer from ESPN, the Pac-12 is now negotiating on the market and attempting to generate competitive bids that drive up the price.

To be clear: A deal could happen at any moment, but Kliavkoff's response makes us believe a resolution remains months away.

What's the worst-case scenario for the Pac-12, and how quickly could that be realized? — @RichParsonsTX

The worst-case scenario is extinction, an event that comes about if the Big Ten decides to invite Washington, Oregon and perhaps the Bay Area schools to form a western division.

In theory, a second Big Ten raid could happen anytime. We aren't convinced something is imminent.

However much commissioner Kevin Warren might want to expand his conference and his legacy, we don't get the sense a majority of his presidents are in favor of detonating the Pac-12.

Nor are the Big Ten's media partners in position to hand over the billions of dollars required to add four West Coast schools while keeping the membership whole.

(In order to maintain the $70+ million annual payouts for the 16 schools, Fox, NBC and CBS would have to fork over $280 million annually for the incoming quartet. Over the lifetime of the Big Ten's deal, that's about $2 billion.)

So we're back where we began on this issue: The worst-case scenario does not appear likely this fall.

That said, it's realignment. Nothing is ever certain.

(For more on this topic, consider the Hotline's opus on the future of the sport.)

Is there a schedule scenario safe for the athletes where (in combination with the bye) the Pac-12 could put out a Thursday (or Wednesday) game each week? — @NIRVANwA

Playing on Wednesday might be a tad extreme for the Pac-12, with one exception: The day before Thanksgiving, which we have long felt is a broadcast window worth filling. (By 5 p.m., the holiday weekend is underway.)

But yes, the conference is undoubtedly exploring the possibility of playing regularly on both Thursday and Friday in the new media contract cycle, which starts in 2024.

We have touched on this issue before, but it's worth repeating:

Alone among the Power Five conferences, the Pac-12 could offer network partners at least 26 kickoffs at 7:30 p.m. (13 on both Friday and Saturday). And that figure could increase to 39 windows if Thursday is included.

But in order to make the schedule work — to avoid forcing each team to play half its games on Thursday and Friday — the conference would need to boost its inventory.

That can only be accomplished via expansion, and it might require more than 12 teams.

Odds that any school is deemed worthy enough to get the votes needed to be invited into the Pac-12? — @bogeycat85

I believe the likelihood of expansion is high, for the reason stated above.

None of the available schools bring enough brand value to directly increase media rights revenue for the collective.

Instead, the value of expansion is indirect:

More teams would create more games, allow the conference to fill those 7:30 p.m. windows multiple times per week and potentially result in more lucrative media contracts.

The conference could expand into Texas (hello, SMU), but campuses in the Central Time Zone wouldn't start home games at 9:30 p.m.

From the standpoint of scheduling flexibility, the Pac-12 would need to add schools in the Pacific Time Zone.

Given the similar media values of the two conferences, why is there any discussion of Pac-12 schools bolting for the Big 12 before the Big Ten finishes us off by taking our remaining high-value schools? — gk

Because the Big 12 and its representatives continue to publicly push the idea of raiding the Pac-12. It happened recently when commissioner Brett Yormark spoke of wanting to add teams from the Pacific Time Zone. Although he didn't name names, the implications were clear.

But the bottom line has remained unchanged for months: The Big 12 is a backup option for Arizona, ASU, Colorado and Utah, to be utilized only in the event the Big Ten executes another raid.

If Washington, Oregon and perhaps the Bay Area schools join USC and UCLA to form a western division, there would be no Pac-12 left for the Four Corners universities.

I would urge readers to be wary of what you believe. Many reports by media outlets and rumors on social media are nonsense — and have been since July.

The most likely scenario, as we have stated repeatedly, is for the 10 remaining schools to sign a medium-term grant of rights agreement.

If and when the winds change, we will let you know.

What school has been on the Pac-12 Networks the most in a given year? Also, somewhat related: Since USC needs to be on the networks one more time, which game will it be: against Arizona or Cal? — JB

I don't have an answer to your first question at the ready, but the second is something the Hotline has pondered.

USC's remaining schedule is the following:

vs. Washington State (Fox)
at Utah (Fox)
at Arizona
vs. Cal
vs. Colorado (Friday, FS1)
at UCLA
vs. Notre Dame

One of the four games not currently assigned must be shown on the Pac-12 Networks, and it certainly won't be either UCLA or Notre Dame.

The outcome is difficult to predict because we don't know the broadcast windows Fox and ESPN have reserved for the Pac-12 on the Saturdays that USC faces Arizona (Oct. 29) and Cal (Nov. 5).

Fox is scheduled to show the World Series on both days (Game 2 and Game 7), so that could limit its interest in the Pac-12 and leave the decision to ESPN.

Would it move the financial needle at all if the Pac-12 added Gonzaga and Saint Mary's as basketball-only members? — Jon Joseph

Our suspicion is that Gonzaga might increase the value of Pac-12 basketball by creating more must-see games and effectively replacing UCLA's presence.

Instead of two Arizona-UCLA matchups in the annual inventory, Pac-12 media partners would have two Arizona-Gonzaga games.

(Saint Mary's doesn't carry the same impact and would probably be dilutive to the collective.)

That said, I haven't sensed a strong desire within the conference to pursue schools for basketball-only membership. Of every dollar allocated to the conference for media rights, about 85 cents can be attributed to football.

But like so much else about realignment, the situation could change.

If Stanford wins the Learfield Directors' Cup, will anyone in the athletic department notice a 1-11 football team? — @WorkishFromHome

The question speaks to Stanford's unique place in major college football. Anywhere else — even Vanderbilt or Northwestern — and David Shaw's seat would be five times hotter than it is.

We don't believe Shaw will get fired by his alma mater, now or ever. If the situation reached untenable levels, he would either leave for another job or, perhaps, become a TV analyst.

What constitutes untenable?

That's a decision for the university, but we would remind readers that Stanford announced in March that basketball coach Jerod Haase's job was safe despite the absence of NCAA Tournament appearances and Pac-12 titles during his six-year tenure.

(Shaw, on the other hand, has won three conference titles.)

Why? Because Stanford is different.

And in one regard — the transfer portal — that difference isn't merely a convenient excuse. While Shaw's counterparts at USC, UCLA and Oregon have used the portal to reload their rosters, he cannot because of the university's admissions standards.

To be clear: The transfer portal limitations aren't the only explanation for Stanford's struggles. Recruiting and development have suffered, the strength-and-conditioning program has deteriorated, and Shaw hasn't been willing to reshuffle his staff.

Combine the external obstacles and internal missteps, and the program has returned to the depths of the pre-Jim Harbaugh era in the mid-2000s.

The difference now? The head coach is making more than $6 million annually (per USA Today) while fielding a team that hasn't won a conference game in 53 weeks.

Why doesn't Utah coach Kyle Wittingham get the accolades he deserves? Every year, he seems to take three-star players and turn them into first-round draft choices. — @MaxRexroad

Whittingham runs the model program in the Pac-12, without question.

His system meshes perfectly with the school's natural recruiting pool — there are loads of big, tough Polynesian kids in Utah and interested in playing for Utah — and his coaching staff develops talent brilliantly.

I'd argue that Whittingham's media profile doesn't match his on-field success because he prefers it that way. If he wanted more attention, he would have left for a job at a blue-blood program or in a major media market.

That said, he has been named Pac-12 Coach of the Year in two of the past three seasons and is one of the highest-paid coaches in the conference. So his accomplishments haven't been ignored.

What is the main reason for Colorado and Utah going in exactly opposite directions since joining the Pac-12? — @saint4patriots

Honestly, I'm not sure Colorado's trajectory has changed since the schools arrived in 2011.

Here are CU's year-by-year records in its final five seasons in the Big 12, in chronological order: 2-10, 6-7, 5-7, 3-9 and 5-7. That's not much different from life in the Pac-12.

The disparity in success can be attributed to coaching and personnel. On both fronts, Utah has the advantage.

A key reason for that is the amount of in-state talent available to the respective programs: The Utes have an impressive supply, especially when it comes to linemen; the Buffaloes do not.

In fact, we consider Colorado one of the toughest coaching jobs in the conference precisely because its primary recruiting grounds (Texas and California) are multi-hour flights from campus.

That reduces the margin for error for prospect evaluation and player development, thereby limiting the pool of coaches capable of winning consistently.

Related topics