The Hotline mailbag publishes weekly. Send questions to wilnerhotline@
Some questions have been edited for clarity and brevity.
How competitive would Washington be in the immediate future if Kalen DeBoer had never left? And could the Huskies have made the College Football Playoff? Would it still have been “Oregon and everyone else,” as you suggested in a recent article? — Veronica S
This is a rich topic that hits so many issues and requires time to work through.
But let’s start with what we view as Washington’s major mistake: There should have been a mammoth contract offer on DeBoer’s desk the morning after UW beat Oregon in that epic regular-season showdown.
We’re talking six or eight years at $10 million annually — a deal that he would have been hard-pressed to refuse given the circumstances at that moment.
DeBoer had hired super-agent Jimmy Sexton by then. And Sexton probably knew there was a chance his No. 1 client, Nick Saban, would retire. But it was hardly a certainly, and DeBoer wasn’t quite the sensation at that point that he would become in January.
Logic suggests UW had a better chance to retain DeBoer with a massive, proactive offer in October than by waiting until late November to slide something across the table.
(Remember, then-athletic director Troy Dannen was just getting settled at the time of the Oregon game, so the onus to move aggressively was on former president Ana Mari Cauce and her executive staff. They stumbled, bumbled, and fumbled at the worst possible time.)
Anyhow, the season played out with UW beating Oregon in the Pac-12 championship, advancing to the CFP, and eventually losing to Michigan in the title game.
By that point, the Huskies had no chance to keep DeBoer.
But what if they had?
Well, quarterback Michael Penix Jr. was headed to the NFL no matter what. The same goes for the stellar group of receivers and several other key starters. (In all, 10 Huskies were drafted.)
But clearly, there would not have been a mass exodus to the transfer portal. The Huskies might not have lost center Parker Brailsford, receiver Germie Bernard, cornerback Jabbar Muhammad, and others.
And, in theory, they would have retained offensive coordinator Ryan Grubb.
Yes, DeBoer needed a replacement for Penix, but it’s reasonable to conclude that he and Grubb had enough juice to lure a top quarterback out of the portal (if they didn’t believe anyone on the roster was capable of stepping in).
Could they have landed Julian Sayin? Or Cam Ward? Or Will Howard?
Yes, Jedd Fisch ended up with a solid quarterback, Will Rogers from Mississippi State. But the combination of DeBoer, Grubb, their soaring stock and the continuity would have, in our opinion, resulted in a top-tier transfer.
With so many other pieces in place, plus the playbook, the 2024 depth chart would have been in vastly better shape than the one Fisch inherited. And without the coaching change, the transfer portal would not have swung open to UW players in the second half of January.
So where would that have placed the Huskies last September, when they embarked on their Big Ten journey?
We aren’t convinced the resulting roster could have competed with Oregon, Ohio State and Penn State for the conference title. Washington’s NIL game, even with DeBoer on board, simply wasn’t strong enough to attract the high-end talent required.
But there is a middle ground, folks. The Huskies might have been a half-step below the Ducks and Buckeyes but a full tier above where they were in Fisch’s first year.
With a few breaks and reasonable health, they would have won eight or nine games (maybe 10) and perhaps contended for the final CFP berth.
Last point: The long-haul challenges facing Washington in the Big Ten — challenges with NIL funding and a tight budget and the stadium debt and the half-share of conference revenue — would still exist had DeBoer remained in Seattle.
And for that reason, the Huskies would not have been as well equipped as Oregon to compete for the conference title on a regular basis.
But instead of framing the Big Ten’s West Coast quartet as Oregon and everyone else, we would have been tempted to describe the situation as Oregon, then Washington, then the L.A. schools. There would have been three levels instead of two.
Hope that helps. The Hotline loves hypotheticals because they provide an avenue for addressing broader themes and developments. Appreciate the question.
What surprised you, if anything, about Week 1 of the season? — @MrEd315
There were plenty of downside surprises, but let’s identify four:
— Texas quarterback Arch Manning’s throwing mechanics were astoundingly bad. The atmosphere in Ohio Stadium and the Buckeyes’ defense undoubtedly played a role, but he never looked comfortable or fundamentally sound.
— Alabama’s lack of energy overall and absence of physicality on the lines of scrimmage in the loss to Florida State should be more concerning to DeBoer than the loss itself.
— The poor showings by UCLA and Oregon State, which have second-year coaches with plenty to prove, was not expected. If DeShaun Foster (UCLA) and Trent Bray (OSU) don’t make significant improvements sooner than later, dark clouds will gather over their tenures.
— Boise State’s performance at South Florida was far worse than we would have ever imagined, even when accounting for the post-Ashton Jeanty transition.
As for upside surprises, here are three:
— We expected a bounce-back season from Utah but did not envision the Utes operating with midseason efficiency in their opener. Few teams anywhere were as impressive. If you’re looking for a Big 12 frontrunner, consider the Utes.
— Ohio State’s defense, under new coordinator Matt Patricia, exceeded our expectations given the attrition (to the NFL) and Patricia’s lack of recent college coaching experience.
— No rookie quarterback was more impressive than Cal freshman Jaron-Keawe Sagapolutele, whose poise and accuracy were what you’d expect from top-tier veterans. Can Sagapolutele play that well on a weekly basis? Probably not. But even 75 percent of his Week 1 form would be good enough to get the Bears back to the postseason.
Could Texas, Alabama, and Clemson see the College Football Playoff format debate differently after their outings this past weekend? — Steve Q
Under the Big Ten proposal that creates 13 automatic qualifiers and just three at-large spots, the non-conference results would impact only CFP seeding. Access would depend entirely on success in conference play.
Our sense is the SEC and ACC are content with the 5+11 model and would not be swayed by a single weekend, and the same goes for the specific schools mentioned.
Like the Big 12, the ACC cannot accept any model that codifies its status as less than the SEC or Big Ten.
And the SEC favors the 5+11 model because it wants to maximize participation. The conference believes five or six at-large berths would be possible annually — more than it would receive under the Big Ten’s proposal.
How long will the conference continue to be called the Pac-12? There aren’t 12 schools and many of them are far from the Pacific Ocean. How about the ‘State Eight’? — Paul P
Yes, the presence of eight schools with state in the name offers fodder for jokes. But we fully expect the conference to retain the Pac-12 name. After all, it’s one reason the Mountain West schools made the move: They wanted to benefit from the value that accompanies the Pac-12 brand.
Obviously, that brand value isn’t what it used to be. It’s a fraction of what it used to be, in fact. But there is more brand value associated with Pac-12 than the Mountain West, which has only been around for a quarter century.
The Big Ten has retained its name through all the membership additions — to 18 — because of the brand value. The Big 12 remains the Big 12 despite having 16 teams. The Pac-12 is following exactly the same strategy, just on a much lesser valuation scale.
It strikes us that changing the number of schools referenced in the name would be a mistake until the Pac-12 settles on its membership situation.
Also, Gonzaga would be a bit offended by any name referencing eight schools.
Which conference has the most negotiating leverage in the College Football Playoff format debate? — Jon J
The SEC, for several reasons that we can summarize in this manner:
— Commissioner Greg Sankey is more influential than any of his peers, including the Big Ten’s Tony Petitti, who’s relatively new to the job and the industry.
— The SEC’s network partner, ESPN, is the exclusive rights-holder to the CFP through 2031.
— The SEC’s position, in favor of the 5+11 model, better aligns with the public’s preference than the Big Ten’s model, which is generally viewed as radical and a threat to the regular season.
Also, the ACC and Big 12 are on the SEC’s side of the negotiating table, whereas the Big Ten is effectively alone in its support for the automatic qualifier model (4-4-2-1-3).
Our hunch is the SEC’s move to nine conference games will prompt the Big Ten to relent and support the at-large model (5+11), thus ensuring playoff expansion for the 2026 season.
I was doing some Wikipedia “research” and am fairly certain this is the first year since 1965 that a California team hasn’t been in the Associated Press preseason Top 25. What’s your view of the situation in the Golden State? — Chris P
We can confirm this is the first time this century that no California schools appeared in the AP preseason poll, but the Hotline hasn’t looked beyond that point. (It would not be difficult: Start by checking any year USC doesn’t appear in the preseason poll.)
In our view, the primary issue isn’t the Trojans’ status so much as the concurrent downturn from UCLA, Stanford and Cal.
Yes, the Bears were bowl-eligible last season, but they have been a mediocre program that rarely cracks the AP poll. Stanford has been irrelevant for years, while UCLA has slipped from the eight- or nine-win editions under coach Chip Kelly and quarterback Dorian Thompson-Robinson.
The competitive landscape ties on-field success to financial resources and fan passion like never before, and those are obviously issues for all three schools (in one form or another).
Granted, the question would not have been posed if USC had cracked the preseason poll. But the collective struggle at Cal, Stanford and UCLA is absolutely worth watching.
Any rumors with Stanford’s search for a permanent head coach for next year? Is there a deadline? — U Johnny
We have not heard much on that front, which makes sense in this regard: Stanford’s new athletic director, John Donahoe, who was hired July 31, isn’t on the job yet. He starts Monday.
We expect football general manager Andrew Luck to lead the search, but Donahoe will be involved. Beyond some basic background work, the school probably hasn’t done much, if anything.
Also, the results of the 2025 season could play an instrumental role in shaping the candidate pool.
The fact that Donahoe’s first day on the job will come six-and-a-half months after the resignation of his predecessor, Bernard Muir, speaks volumes about the sense of urgency — or lack thereof — within Stanford’s administration.
To an extent, it’s understandable: Luck is running the football operation; and men’s basketball is set organizationally with coach Kyle Smith and general manager Eric Reveno. Also, president Jonathan Levin has other concerns with the layoffs and budget shortfall.
But given all the circumstances, we don’t expect substantive progress on the coaching search until November.
Is it better for the new Pac-12 to have its football championship game at a neutral site or on campus? What should it prioritize with its decision? — @BartWal82497033
That topic was undoubtedly broached during the media rights negotiations that led to CBS becoming the conference’s primary broadcast partner and rights-holder to the conference championship.
We are not aware of a final decision, but it’s possible the Pac-12 is leaning heavily to one option or another.
In our view, a neutral site game in Las Vegas, Los Angeles or any other NFL stadium would be a mistake. Not enough interest. Too many empty seats. Too sterile an atmosphere. After all, many of the power conferences have difficulty filling stadiums for the title games.
How many people would attend Washington State vs. Colorado State in Las Vegas? Or Boise State against Texas State in L.A.? Not nearly enough to generate an optimal environment for the teams or first-rate visuals for the TV broadcast.
Play the game on the home field of the No. 1 seed, as the Mountain West does now.
And there’s another piece to consider: Many fans likely would opt against traveling to a neutral site conference championship in order to save cash to attend a playoff game.
Let the top seed host. It’s better for everyone.
If you were attending an Oregon game, got invited into a room with several hundred fans and asked to speak, what would you tell them? — @Jimmy0726
First, I am not big on public speaking engagements. But in that situation, I would simply open the floor for questions. That’s typically a more productive approach than just babbling on and on about myself, my career, etc.
Given the myriad off-the-field issues that impact the game and interest fans, there isn’t a one-size-fits-all discussion point.
Some fans are interested in the team and the season.
Others want to know about issues like the transfer portal and NIL.
Many are curious about media rights and the media ecosystem.
Very few — very, very few — care a lick about the inside-journalism issues that I might otherwise be tempted to address. It doesn’t take long for a monologue to start sounding like Charlie Brown’s teacher.
The best way to satisfy the largest percentage of people in the room would be a lengthy Q&A session.
*** Send suggestions, comments and tips (confidentiality guaranteed) to wilnerhotline@
*** Follow me on the social media platform X: @WilnerHotline
The post Mailbag: What if Kalen DeBoer had stayed, CFP issues, California woes, Pac-12 champ game options and more first appeared on Sports360AZ.
