Michigan and USC not happy?
- Thread starter Mack In Motion
- Start date
I don't know the intricacies of this deal but I don't trust any of the parties involved.
Waiting for Wilbon’s take on how they should be kicked out ASAP.
Last edited:
Without knowing any of the particulars, I tend to agree with them.
Michigan and usc seem to be the only two with any common sense. This is a terrible idea for the conference. They get some cash…but then what? The investor will want their money back plus profit. Where does that profit come from? If they brought expertise or value that would boost the revenue of the conference to more than pay for themselves then, yes, fine. But it’s a California pension fund. They bring nothing to the table in terms of long term value. This is stupid.
Allowing a state pension fund to “ purchase” the B1G sounds like a deal destined to end in bankruptcy.
Just as I was critical of Averitas bragging about big 12 taking private equity money and it being the greatest thing since sliced bread, I hope b1g doesn't do this....especially not a California pension fund
These schools have always been greedy, even though they always pretended not to be, now it is just so much more out in the open.
In the day it was asking alums for 20 dollars...
In the day it was asking alums for 20 dollars...
The investment deal is bad for the big 10. MI and USC are the only ones thinking long term. NU would be getting less than most of the big 10 teams, not sure why we want to be a part of it either.
I'm all for full disclosure. Who in the Big 10 admin started the conversations for private equity and what kind of sweetener are those individuals getting? This wreaks of underhanded, backroom deals.
Bingo. Once again, greed is a deadly sin for obvious reasons
I really hope that we can keep private equity firms out of college sports.
Universities, like governments, spend all the money given to them and then sum.
You NEVER, EVER want anything to do with California's involvement especially financial.
Last edited:
I think the theory Doc Talk said was that when the new media rights come out they are expecting big returns.
Two of the top 25 business schools in the US are against this, and willing to die on the hill for it… I’m actually going to default to their minds
Keep in mind, those two schools have a much larger endowments and richer boosters then the rest (outside of northwestern) so they might not need what others do
sorry but if UM is saying something is a bad business deal, its likely a bad business deal.
Keep in mind, those two schools have a much larger endowments and richer boosters then the rest (outside of northwestern) so they might not need what others do
sorry but if UM is saying something is a bad business deal, its likely a bad business deal.
Last edited:
What does the private equity group bring to the table to bring in more revenue than they would take, long term? Yes, bigger media deal coming is great, but how does the investment firm make it bigger? Why cut them in to a bigger media rights deal?
the bottom line is this: any capital investor wants a return on its investment. They buy a stake and then expect to get that cash back with profit as time goes. If you’re the entity receiving the cash payment, unless the private equity group can do something of value to increase the revenue of the entity beyond what it could do on its own, you will make less in the long run because you will be paying the cash investment back plus allowing the capital group to have a share of the pie IN PERPETUITY. Private equity is only good for private equity, the majority of the time.
Any organization, that in 2025, willingly gets into bed with ANY pension fund in California, public or private should have their heads examined. The people involved at each school in favor of this should be fired at once and ran out of town. It is the most idiotic idea I have heard since Mike Reily was hired. What happens when the pension fund goes belly up. Or the B1G wants to merge into a super conference? This is no time to be tied to a grant of rights deal other than the one we have with the B1G. I suspect most of the schools in favor have debt to service and are scrambling to come up with the 20 million to pay players and NIL money. NU has zero debt and plenty of NIL money, why in the hell are we voting yes to this???
I disagreed with you on Deion, but 100% think this is a foolish and short sighted move. If this League is profitable, let's keep it ourselves, not sell a share of it to some entity that offers nothng ever in return, yes?
If people thought NIL was the end of college athletics wait till you see what private equity will do to it. Soon enough students won't be able to afford to attend games.
It’s a silly comparison. Under the proposed deal, the Big Ten would receive $2.4 billion up front from UC Investments, an arm of the University of California pension system. In return, it would give UC Investments a 10% equity stake in a new commercial enterprise, and would pay the money back, with interest, over the next 20 years. That’s very different from the league’s media rights deals, in which money flows in just one direction over a much shorter amount of time. - From the above article
Or Schools that do not show value, ROI. Kick them into a second tier with even less revenue shared.
What this senile old fuhk sees is the end of College Athletics. I know, I am old, as are my values, but this surge in $$ for athletics is unsustainable, adding private equity to fund this will only end badly.
My opinion anyway.
Nebraska should at least be second tier payout. The schools that need money have likely have missed managed the money they had or want to build a facility like NU has. Why agree to support these schools to be more competitive with NU.
Maryland and UCLA were broke before they entered the conference. That's why they begged to get in. They are just trying to stay financially solvent.
This is where my head is too - schools and programs need to balance budget. If you can’t pay the players out of your budget - then ultimately it will suffer and the teams that can deliver fiscally will start rising to the top due to talent. This is essentially a bailout for some and the fact that there are tiers when everything else is split equally is concerning.
All the state pension funds are under-funded. Just wait until the states and this country run into a real liquidity crisis.....
Last edited:
What I gather from this is they probably would have no problem with this if they were lumped in with the Michigan, PSU and OSU as a tier 1 program in the BIG. I gather they feel it is a slap in the face to their brand to be considered a once powerful football school, well welcome to our neck of the woods.
I do understand being slighted by OSU being the only school being able to be at the meeting to understand the proposal of the deal early on, that's not a good look, you're not making any friends with the rest of the members.
I'm not sure where Nebraska is on this but I would be very wary of any deal that gives three schools more and scraps to the others, so I understand it is a slap in the face regardless of your standing in the BIG. This is what makes the most sense about the whole matter.
“The ACC once thought a long-term deal was a good idea,” Michigan regent Jordan Acker said at that October meeting. “Within a few years they were suing each other.
“Make no mistake: In five years, we would all regret this deal.”
Maybe it will take five years. Maybe more.
Maybe less.
Damn right. An offer won't be made without the expectation of profits. So making this deal now is all about leadership that is involved here and now wanting to get their hands on money that would otherwise go to the next generation.
Nebraska making a poor decision regarding the football program??? Why should we expect anything different after nearly 3 decades of mind boggling poor decisions?