The Pac-12 is approaching decision time on a series of strategic options for the near-future of its football product — from the viability of divisions and the process for determining its champion to the structure of the nine-game conference schedule.
The spark for any changes could come today, when the NCAA’s Division I Council is expected to remove restrictions on how conferences determine the matchup for their championship game.
But the framework for any Pac-12 restructuring has been in place since January, when it became clear the College Football Playoff would not expand until the 2026 season. The delay has forced the Pac-12 braintrust to consider avenues that would better position the conference to participate in the four-team event over the next four seasons.
And the vision for any changes was established 53 weeks ago, on May 13, 2021 — the day George Kliavkoff was appointed commissioner. In his first public remarks, Kliavkoff emphasized the need to improve football and capture the Pac-12’s first national championship since USC in the 2004 season.
Back then, it appeared the playoff would expand to eight or 12 teams sooner than later. With that process now derailed, the Pac-12 must construct a model that optimizes for the current selection process.
To this point, the NCAA has required conferences with at least 12 teams to match division winners in the championship game.
If the Division I Council deregulates that process today, the Pac-12 seemingly would have three issues to address for its football model:
— The championship game matchup
With no restrictions, the conference would have several options for selecting its finalists: 1) the division winners, 2) the best conference records and 3) the highest-ranked teams in the CFP standings.
It’s difficult to envision the head coaches (and athletic directors) supporting a process that depends on the CFP rankings, in part because that would naturally bring non-conference performance into the calculation and the schedules are wildly different. Also, the CFP rankings are announced on Tuesdays, so logical hurdles would exist with a title game three days later.
Matching division winners brings an added level of risk because of the potential for an unranked team to upset a highly-ranked team — for example, Team X (8-4/6-3) surprises Team Y (11-1/8-1) and thus knocks the conference out of the CFP.
If the Pac-12 simply matched the two teams with the best conference records, it would reduce the potential for CFP derailment in the event of an upset. The second-place team, fresh off a marquee victory, could be positioned to snare a berth in the semifinals.
Granted, that difference might play out on the margins — it’s unlikely the Pac-12’s second-place team would be ranked high enough to leap into the playoff. But the conference must take every precaution after missing the playoff six times in eight years.
— The future of divisions
If the Division I Council removes the division requirement for establishing the championship game matchup, the structure itself carries far less value.
In fact, divisions would have no value except for providing an underlying model for the schedule.
Additional important point: The conference is expected to preserve its nine-game rotation, largely because of supply-chain issues.
With the Big Ten opting to maintain its nine-game model, Pac-12 teams would lack a quality opponent to fill the fourth non-conference spot. They cannot replace a conference opponent with a cupcake without expecting their media partners, Fox and ESPN, to ask for their money back.
— The conference schedule
The most interesting, complex issue facing the conference, in our opinion.
Even if the Pac-12 eliminates divisions, it could keep the current schedule rotation, which runs through the 2026 season.
That is not our expectation, however. Multiple sources have indicated support exists for overhauling the schedule model in a division-less future.
With 12 teams and nine games, everyone must miss two teams per season. But before identifying the annual misses, the conference must determine the number of permanent opponents for each team.
It could use the natural rivals as the only fixed opponent, except:
— As a condition for joining the conference in 2011, Colorado was guaranteed one game in Los Angeles each year.
— The California schools presumably want to continue playing each other every season.
— Washington vs. Oregon.
The Buffaloes don’t have the political clout to fend off a restructuring, but the California schools surely do if their presidents and chancellors are unified on the matter.
Meanwhile, the Oregon-Washington rivalry is one of the most valuable matchups in the Pac-12 inventory. If support for that annual showdown isn’t unanimous, somebody needs their head checked.
In our estimation, a pod system with three permanent opponents would best serve the conference competitively and receive the broadest support from the presidents and chancellors.
Pod A: The Northwest schools
Pod B: The California schools
Pod C: The Mountain/Desert schools
That model would preserve key regional rivalries and increase the frequency with which the Oregon and Washington schools face USC and UCLA.
Currently, each Los Angeles team has seven permanent opponents, (five in the South division, plus Stanford and Cal), which leaves just two slots on the conference schedule for Northwest teams.
Under the pod system, each L.A. team would have three permanent opponents (the California schools), leaving six slots on the schedule accessible for Northwest teams.
The pod system would be suboptimal for the Arizona and Mountain schools, which would have diminished access to the L.A. teams at home (for ticket sales) and on the road (for recruiting exposure in Southern California).
To that we say: Oh, well.
The original eight members carry the most weight at the executive level due to their football brands (USC, UCLA, Oregon and UW) and academic clout (the California schools).
To be clear: It’s unlikely the situation would ever rise to the level of a Pac-12 presidential standoff. Lines in the boardroom are usually drawn only when discussing matters of membership or revenue distribution.
It’s also unlikely the Pac-12 would revamp the conference schedule in the upcoming days or weeks. That process could take months.
But the two other issues — the future of divisions and the championship game participants — are not nearly as complex.
Support the Hotline: Receive three months of unlimited access for just 99 cents. Yep, that’s 99 cents for 90 days, with the option to cancel anytime. Details are here, and thanks for your support.
*** Send suggestions, comments and tips (confidentiality guaranteed) to pac12hotline@bayareanewsgroup.com or call 408-920-5716
*** Follow me on Twitter: @WilnerHotline
*** Pac-12 Hotline is not endorsed or sponsored by the Pac-12 Conference, and the views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views of the Conference.