The Jon Wilner plan for a Pac-12 winter-spring football season

Jon Wilner with another really good idea

The Pac-12 Conference, like the Big Ten conference, is thinking about the possibility of spring football, now that the two Power Five leagues have shut down football for the fall.

Jon Wilner — typically the man who outlines alternative plans for the Pac-12 before the league publicly reveals them — has come up with another plan, this one for spring football. It is a must-read.

Remember that Wilner recommended a conference-only game schedule for the Pac-12 in early July. That is exactly what the Pac-12 chose, though Wilner recommended eight games and the Pac-12 came up with 10. Wilner was still ahead of the curve, seeing the big picture with a level of clarity few others do in college sports (and Pac-12) journalism.

When Jon Wilner talks (or writes), Pac-12 administrators and fans should listen.

Wilner’s plan for spring football might not seem workable on the surface, given that asking players to play two seasons in one calendar year is the obvious — and pervasive — roadblock to having spring football in any form and in any conference.

Wilner tries to deal with that roadblock by setting up a nine-game season with a seven-game participation cap for players. The seven-game cap idea comes from the realization that a full season for teams which play in a conference championship game is, in fact, 14 games in length when adding a bowl game. (The two teams which play in the national title game play 15 games.) Therefore, a seven-game cap means a player would play only one and a half seasons in a calendar year.

It’s still asking a LOT to have players play 21 games in a calendar year. To be sure, they still would need hazard pay and full guaranteed health care. However, when addressing the “two full seasons in a year” problem, Wilner does a reasonably good job of offering the Pac-12 a roadmap.

The especially good aspects of Wilner’s plan, however (you should obviously read the whole plan, contained in the link above), are not the number of games or the schedule for a conference title game or the bowls. That is secondary.

The really good thinking shown by Wilner emerges in ways to deal with some obvious limitations of any spring football plan.

Wilner acknowledges — as anyone must when formulating a spring plan — that top NFL prospects will opt out. There will be a big drain on rosters. Therefore, allowing high-school recruits who enrolled early to play this spring season makes all the sense in the world. They get game reps as a kind of trial run before the full fall season. One can imagine allowing a lot of player movements within this one season, while merging that policy with some game restrictions, so that players don’t overextend themselves. From that and other similar ideas, one can see why — and how — Wilner’s plan could potentially come together.

I am still skeptical that spring football will happen, but if you were to start a good exploration of how it could be pulled off, Jon Wilner — as usual — offers a sound foundation.