Jump to content

The Big 10 is pushing ahead with massive private investment deal over objections from Michigan and USC


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

We got our taste of how PE would bring even more crass commercialization to CFB and other sports in Steve Patterson.

PE probably thinks there's potential money in venue hire and programming...and they are probably correct.

But do the ADs or the universities control that?

Edited by JBJ
Posted
9 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

What’s happening is that these schools are taking expensive money from an institutional partner with one ethos: “fuck you, pay me.” Combining that with institutions which need to have a long-term, collective health outlook is a total mismatch.

Rewatch The Goodfellas tiki bar scene to see how this goes. It’s insane on its face to put public institutions on the hook for a PE vig. 

true GIF by Shock Top

 

And the crazy thing is so many of these schools are sitting on huge financial endowments that can’t be touched. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
Just now, PittsburghTiger said:

true GIF by Shock Top

 

And the crazy thing is so many of these schools are sitting on huge financial endowments that can’t be touched. 

Well, based on how they manage money they can touch, that was probably good foresight to keep it away from regents’ grubby paws. I’m sure LSU would be trying to liquidate its endowment to buy Andy Reid and a few five star OL or some shit. 

Posted
6 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Well, based on how they manage money they can touch, that was probably good foresight to keep it away from regents’ grubby paws. I’m sure LSU would be trying to liquidate its endowment to buy Andy Reid and a few five star OL or some shit. 

I don’t know how accurate the list that I saw is but, LSU is sitting on an endowment of just $696-million. Texas is at almost $43-billion.

My University of Pittsburgh is just a touch under $6-billion, I think that’s 13th if you include Notre Dame, out of the Power Four conferences.

LSU athletics would blow through that like a junkie doing lines of coke off a hooker’s ass.

Posted

It would be interesting to see how the deal docs account for opt outs by big programs like USC and Michigan. Is there a set step-down of the deal price? How much? Does anything just kill the deal altogether?

Posted

$100m or so in a one time infusion to let PE in the door is blatantly and patently stupid.

Btw, for those that love the distinction between college sports and pro sports I suggest you get primed and ready to enjoy the minor college sports because that is all that will be left of the true college experience. You can still like college football but it’s screaming away from what we knew and loved.  Baseball, softball, volleyball, women’s basketball, soccer, etc. is where the college sport vibe will find a haven. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Posted
11 minutes ago, FORTY NINE TO ZERO said:

i would have thought college leadership would be smart enough to know it's a scam.

wonder if they are on the take somehow? 

Someone sure as hell is. 

Conference commissioner, university presidents, AD’s??

My fear is if the BIG10 does this horrible thing, other conferences will feel they have to do the same, and then it’s all over but the crying. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
6 hours ago, JBJ said:

Honest question, do you think fanbases of Boston College, Syracuse, Purdue, etc. would actually shrink if they were put into a competitive league of their own peers?   I think it'd be the opposite since these teams would actually be playing for more than the experience.

Can you provide an example of a mediocre team that has drawn bigger crowds for other mediocre teams than for national powers?

 

I've been a fan of a couple of teams that went 0-12 (2008 UW and 1998 UH) and at no point did I think, "Boy, I wish we could drop down into a competitive league with other shitty teams."

 

  • Like 1
Posted
2 hours ago, scramblyn said:

$100m or so in a one time infusion to let PE in the door is blatantly and patently stupid.

Btw, for those that love the distinction between college sports and pro sports I suggest you get primed and ready to enjoy the minor college sports because that is all that will be left of the true college experience. You can still like college football but it’s screaming away from what we knew and loved.  Baseball, softball, volleyball, women’s basketball, soccer, etc. is where the college sport vibe will find a haven. 

I got a nastygram from Texas Compliance over an Instagram post because they were on campus. I let them know that I'm just about done with their bullshit and if they want NIL to continue from me they need to cut it out. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted (edited)
48 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

Can you provide an example of a mediocre team that has drawn bigger crowds for other mediocre teams than for national powers?

I've been a fan of a couple of teams that went 0-12 (2008 UW and 1998 UH) and at no point did I think, "Boy, I wish we could drop down into a competitive league with other shitty teams."

There would be decent brands in both the upper two divisions, though.  The middle one would be about half P4 teams and likely have some struggling big brands like Nebraska and UCLA.  And fans would really care if you were playing for advancement. 

Alternatively, they would care/dread if you were in the upper league and playing for relegation.  The system makes both ends of the divisions have meaning.

But the best feature is that there is incentive to win in the lower  leagues and to not suck in the upper ones.

Edited by JBJ
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
6 hours ago, JBJ said:

It's highly likely the bottom 2/3rds of the league are strapped for cash, though.  Rust Belt money flight + covid + NIL.

FY2025 B10 distributions are expected to be $75-80 million (plus they have additional income). WTH is wrong with these schools that they can't make do with that. That's more money than they've ever had before. Unbelievable. 

Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Crockett said:

FY2025 B10 distributions are expected to be $75-80 million (plus they have additional income). WTH is wrong with these schools that they can't make do with that. That's more money than they've ever had before. Unbelievable. 

Penn State makes triple the money as Purdue on "other stuff."  The distributions are a sizable chunk but shouldn't be most of your revenue.

Edited by JBJ
Posted
40 minutes ago, immamac said:

I got a nastygram from Texas Compliance over an Instagram post because they were on campus. I let them know that I'm just about done with their bullshit and if they want NIL to continue from me they need to cut it out. 

Can you better connect it to my comment? I understand what you stated just not sure what you meant. 

Posted
Just now, scramblyn said:

Can you better connect it to my comment? I understand what you stated just not sure what you meant. 

It wasn't Texas that cared it was an over commercialized entity that is doing stupid shit on Texas rights behalf. It's gotten completely fucking stupid. 

They've lost the plot even here. 

  • Rage+1 1
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, immamac said:

It wasn't Texas that cared it was an over commercialized entity that is doing stupid shit on Texas rights behalf. It's gotten completely fucking stupid. 

They've lost the plot even here. 

Ok that’s kinda what I was thinking. Yeah the soul is evaporating. It’s about money, not scholarships and education, not about student pride and community. More enshitification. The only good news is college sports were so good for so long there’s still plenty left but I bet we have a decade or less before the soul is fully gone, at least when it comes to football.

Edited by scramblyn
Posted
Just now, scramblyn said:

Ok that’s kinda what I was thinking. Yeah the soul is evaporating. It’s about money, not scholarships and education, not about student pride and community. More enshitification. The only good news is college sports were so good for so long there’s still plenty left but I bet we have a decade or less before the soul is fully gone. 

Gamedays on Texas campus are more or less soulless now. 

Anything the Texas exes does is legit terrible and a bad college football experience. 

Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, immamac said:

Gamedays on Texas campus are more or less soulless now. 

Anything the Texas exes does is legit terrible and a bad college football experience. 

We went to the Vandy game - first home game in years (been to Texas OU and bowl games) - I have lots of get off my lawn comments.  

Edited by scramblyn
  • Drool 1
Posted

I can see how PE $ would be attractive to schools that are desperate to finance 2025 and 2026. We are not an aspiring new power. We should not be selling our future for money now-- we have money now. PE gets a cut by offering, in the case rich schools, basically nothing they couldn't do already.

Independent could make it very hard to cut media deals, potentially. A hybrid league of semi-independents could be a version of Prestige worldwide, however. Imagine if Michigan and USC got fed up and approached Texas through channels. A cooperative between those three schools and ND could make independence look very attractive. Imagine a round robin of those as the nucleus of an annual schedule.

  • Like 1
Posted

There's places where PE might make sense. A founder of a company would like some cash out and some money to grow a business. The owner has a limited life span and would like to enjoy some money now. 

A state university has no time line. They have been around for 100 or more years and will be here 100's more. $140 million one time payment to give up 10% forever is quite possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Schools are getting $50+ million a year from TV which is only going to go up. Crossover point is around 20 years, and for an institution that should last hundreds of years this is horrible.

If they are desperate for cash right now go get a loan and pay it back over 20 years. 

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 1
Posted

I think one of the reasons that conferences are looking into this type of thing is that the younger kids don’t have the attention span, or the money, to keep these programs afloat in 30 years. I’d say that many of the graduates under the age of 40 do not have the means that many of us have. College football has been on a 22-years decline in attendance and there is not an infinite amount of donor money out there.

 

Posted

Apparently the leadership at the universities that want this were trying to jam it through without Board approval and now they are pushing back.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, PittsburghTiger said:

I think one of the reasons that conferences are looking into this type of thing is that the younger kids don’t have the attention span, or the money, to keep these programs afloat in 30 years. I’d say that many of the graduates under the age of 40 do not have the means that many of us have. College football has been on a 22-years decline in attendance and there is not an infinite amount of donor money out there.

 

Designing the entire world to function to serve the narrow interests of the generation born after WWII has consequences. Programs have been fucking over their core future fanbases for years in favor of chasing the high-end alum and corporate $$$. 

Edited by 956 Worldwide
  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
28 minutes ago, PittsburghTiger said:

I think one of the reasons that conferences are looking into this type of thing is that the younger kids don’t have the attention span, or the money, to keep these programs afloat in 30 years. I’d say that many of the graduates under the age of 40 do not have the means that many of us have. College football has been on a 22-years decline in attendance and there is not an infinite amount of donor money out there.

 

Disagree. Every generation says/thinks this. College football will almost certainly be around and very popular 20 years from now. 

Posted
13 minutes ago, The_Great_Hornsby said:

Disagree. Every generation says/thinks this. College football will almost certainly be around and very popular 20 years from now. 

The attendance figures, outside of the Power 4, can’t be denied. Also, the struggle kids between 25-45-years old are dealing with as far as home buying, employment, etc. is not a lie. We are for the first time having a generation who will not do better economically than the previous. I’m not saying that college football won’t be around, or popular but, I think it will be very different in 20 years.

Posted

I’m sure the man who gave Jimbo Fischer a fully guaranteed 10-year, $100 million dollar contract and oversaw a $40 million deficit his first year on the job at ohio state has nothing to do with what looks a terrible financial decision. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Posted
14 hours ago, Beau Vine said:

ou know, by exploiting the synergies between creators and end users via a dynamic system utilizing best practices in compliance, sustainability, and risk management.

motto worthy

Posted (edited)

There will be no good outcome to this. If the B1G does it, other conferences will be forced to follow suit. It then will escalate until PE has controlling shares of all conferences; at which point, they do what PE does and erode all differentiation, culture, and client experience at the expense of operating and profit margin to drive returns for a select few large equity holders. Oh, all while piling on massive debt to the operating model to amplify equity returns.

This is such a shitty path to go down for college sports.

Edited by MuellerHorn
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
On 11/9/2025 at 12:20 PM, ButtFumble said:

I love all these stupid people that think that "private equity" comes in with newly found free money and everyone they deal with makes lots more money

when in reality they pay up front money for a large stake in something that will give PRIVATE EQUITY a large return on their money while those that deal with them give up a lot more over the long term than they receive in the short term 

worse yet I am really not even sure how this deal can work out since you are dealing with public universities in multiple states that may well have vastly different control mechanisms and laws over their public universities and a couple of private universities mixed in as well that may well have rules in their charter that prevent selling off parts of their assets 

the ONLY way this will work out in the favor of any program in the Big 10 (much less all of them) is if the TV and other media values of the Big 10 eat shit in the next contract and "pe" does not have a mechanism to protect their rates of return on investment.....that does have a possibility of happening, but I think it would still be as bad or worse for the Big 10 members vs. what they would get without "pe" 

Private equity investment is basically corporate and large scale payday loans. The models are surprisingly similar accept Private equity is more predatory cause it often does damage to it's investments. For proper analogy image payday loans going full mafia and breaking the legs of a physical day laborer that owns them money. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 hours ago, blacklab said:

There's places where PE might make sense. A founder of a company would like some cash out and some money to grow a business. The owner has a limited life span and would like to enjoy some money now. 

A state university has no time line. They have been around for 100 or more years and will be here 100's more. $140 million one time payment to give up 10% forever is quite possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Schools are getting $50+ million a year from TV which is only going to go up. Crossover point is around 20 years, and for an institution that should last hundreds of years this is horrible.

If they are desperate for cash right now go get a loan and pay it back over 20 years. 

I assume the deal has a 20-year buyout horizon because that's the ask for the GOR.

Posted
15 hours ago, scramblyn said:

Yeah the soul is evaporating. It’s about money, not scholarships and education, not about student pride and community. More enshitification. The only good news is college sports were so good for so long there’s still plenty left but I bet we have a decade or less before the soul is fully gone, at least when it comes to football.

College football was always about money and never ever about education. 

🏈 Major College Football Money or Eligibility Scandals of the 19th Century

1. The 1893 Harvard–Yale Eligibility Controversy

  • What happened: The “Big Game” between Harvard and Yale in 1893 was canceled over disputes about player eligibility and professionalism. Both schools accused the other of using non-students or players with financial ties to athletics (essentially, “ringers”).

  • Significance: This dispute foreshadowed the larger fight over amateurism and whether athletes were being paid under the table.


2. The 1896 University of Chicago “Stagg’s Proteges” Accusations

  • What happened: Critics accused legendary coach Amos Alonzo Stagg of offering financial incentives—such as scholarships and jobs—to players, which was considered improper under early amateur rules.

  • Significance: Though mild by modern standards, this was one of the first public debates about financial aid for athletes.


3. The “Tramp Athletes” and “Ringer” Scandals (1880s–1890s)

  • What happened: Throughout the 1880s and 1890s, many schools—especially in the Midwest and South—were caught hiring non-students or recent graduates to play under aliases or temporary enrollment.

  • Examples:

    • University of Kentucky (then Kentucky State College) and Centre College were accused of using ringers.

    • Kansas and Missouri were both caught using “tramp athletes” who hopped from school to school for pay.

  • Significance: These scandals led directly to the formation of the Western Conference (now the Big Ten) in 1895 to regulate eligibility and prevent professionalism.


4. The 1898–1899 Yale “Secret Fund” Allegations

  • What happened: Rumors circulated that Yale alumni maintained a “slush fund” to support athletes with jobs and tuition aid.

  • Significance: Though never fully proven, it reflected growing concern that elite programs were circumventing amateur rules with money from wealthy boosters.


6. The 1890s “Southern Pay-for-Play” Incidents

  • What happened: Several early Southern programs (notably Georgia, Auburn, and North Carolina) were rumored to offer cash or “expenses” to attract athletes.

  • Example: In 1892, Georgia Tech allegedly paid a player from another school to compete against Georgia—one of the first recorded pay-for-play instances in the South.

  • Significance: Exposed how competitive pressure quickly corrupted “amateur” ideals in the region.

  • Drool 1
Posted
1 hour ago, PittsburghTiger said:

The attendance figures, outside of the Power 4, can’t be denied. Also, the struggle kids between 25-45-years old are dealing with as far as home buying, employment, etc. is not a lie. We are for the first time having a generation who will not do better economically than the previous.W I’m not saying that college football won’t be around, or popular but, I think it will be very different in 20 years.

I know this is a popular narrative, but as a counter point there has been a lot of reporting in the last year or so that Millienials are wealthier than Gen X and Boomers at the same age.

https://www.lendingtree.com/debt-consolidation/millennials-financial-condition-study/

 

Net worth by generation (at similar ages)

Generation Survey year Age range Median net worth Average net worth % with positive net worth % with negative net worth
Baby boomers 1989 25 to 43 $58,101 $231,372 83.9% 11.9%
Gen Xers 2007 27 to 42 $78,333 $328,391 86.1% 11.5%
Millennials 2022 26 to 41 $84,941 $326,776 86.6% 12.7%

Source: LendingTree analysis of Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) data. Note: All figures are adjusted to 2022 dollars to account for inflation.

 

 

10-year median cumulative income by generation (at generational midpoint)

Generation Baby boomers Gen Xers Millennials
Year of birth (generational midpoint) 1955 1973 1989
Working years 1980 to 1989 1998 to 2007 2014 to 2023
Median cumulative income $362,330 $417,700 $446,570

Source: LendingTree analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data. Note: All figures are adjusted to 2023 dollars to account for inflation.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 hour ago, PittsburghTiger said:

The attendance figures, outside of the Power 4, can’t be denied. Also, the struggle kids between 25-45-years old are dealing with as far as home buying, employment, etc. is not a lie. We are for the first time having a generation who will not do better economically than the previous. I’m not saying that college football won’t be around, or popular but, I think it will be very different in 20 years.

Schools are probably also concerned about the enrollment cliff (also called the demographic cliff) where enrollments are projected to shrink significantly in the near future. They've been spending like drunken sailors and have jacked tuition to the tits on the strength of low-interest student loans from the federal government. Those chickens are coming home to roost and the people running the schools have no idea how to handle the situation. They think selling one of their most profitable assets (football TV deals) will give them a big enough cash infusion to get by. A lot like a junkie doing whatever it take to get the next hit and worrying about the consequences later. 

I just read my kids the story of the golden goose. Seems pretty basic. But I doubt schools will realize what they've done until it's too late. 

Posted
16 minutes ago, Park Gothic said:

Schools are probably also concerned about the enrollment cliff (also called the demographic cliff) where enrollments are projected to shrink significantly in the near future. They've been spending like drunken sailors and have jacked tuition to the tits on the strength of low-interest student loans from the federal government. Those chickens are coming home to roost and the people running the schools have no idea how to handle the situation. They think selling one of their most profitable assets (football TV deals) will give them a big enough cash infusion to get by. A lot like a junkie doing whatever it take to get the next hit and worrying about the consequences later. 

I just read my kids the story of the golden goose. Seems pretty basic. But I doubt schools will realize what they've done until it's too late. 

It’s Chicago selling its parking meters in 2008. 15 years into a 75 year lease the investors had already recouped their $1.1 billion investment + $500 million. 

The deal was made even worse because if a street is closed for a parade or marathon or whatever, the city has to pay the company for the lost revenue. 

Parking rates were jacked up immediately. Areas that were previously free overnight turned into 24 hour pay parking. 

The city and the citizens lost massively on the deal for a short term cash infusion that the city burned through in 2 years. All it did in the long term was siphon money out of the city and its citizens. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 3
  • Drool 1
Posted (edited)
20 hours ago, scramblyn said:

$100m or so in a one time infusion to let PE in the door is blatantly and patently stupid.

Btw, for those that love the distinction between college sports and pro sports I suggest you get primed and ready to enjoy the minor college sports because that is all that will be left of the true college experience. You can still like college football but it’s screaming away from what we knew and loved.  Baseball, softball, volleyball, women’s basketball, soccer, etc. is where the college sport vibe will find a haven. 

I agree, I've been following baseball and softball more closely and get way more excited about because we have legitimate shots at a national title every now and then, but even those sports are being affected. Tech bought themselves a softball pitcher who got them to the finals. SEC is throwing money at baseball players. One of Cody Campbells things is saying that this new model will kill the other sports. College athletics weren't set up to make profits, they were a cost same as the costs of other clubs and teaching in general. Football and to a lesser extent mens basketball becoming a monolith of profitability seems to me to be somewhat accidental. I personally think that football and maybe mens basketball should be removed from university athletic departments and set up as for-profit entities. The rest of the sports should be part of university operating budgets and should have have to be profitable or rely on football profitability for their continued existence. I think it's a justifiable use of general budgets because those sports provide skills for those involved. I think someone said it earlier but I've also interviewed ex-college athletes for work and they are always impressive and stand out in many respects.  

Edited by 'stache
Posted
11 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I agree, I've been following baseball and softball more closely and get way more excited about because we have legitimate shots at a national title every now and then, but even those sports are being affected. Tech bought themselves a softball pitcher who got them to the finals. SEC is throwing money at baseball players. One of Cody Campbells things is saying that this new model will kill the other sports. College athletics weren't set up to make profits, they were a cost same as the costs of other clubs and teaching in general. Football and to a lesser extent mens basketball becoming a monolith of profitability seems to me to be somewhat accidental. I personally think that football and maybe mens basketball should be removed from university athletic departments and set up as for-profit entities. The rest of the sports should be part of university operating budgets and should have have to be profitable or rely on football profitability for their continued existence. I think it's a justifiable use of general budgets because those sports provide skills for those involved. I think someone said it earlier but I've also interviewed ex-college athletes for work and they are always impressive and stand out in many respects.  

I agree those are going to continue to creep toward the cliff too.

Posted
56 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

I know this is a popular narrative, but as a counter point there has been a lot of reporting in the last year or so that Millienials are wealthier than Gen X and Boomers at the same age.

https://www.lendingtree.com/debt-consolidation/millennials-financial-condition-study/

 

Net worth by generation (at similar ages)

Generation Survey year Age range Median net worth Average net worth % with positive net worth % with negative net worth
Baby boomers 1989 25 to 43 $58,101 $231,372 83.9% 11.9%
Gen Xers 2007 27 to 42 $78,333 $328,391 86.1% 11.5%
Millennials 2022 26 to 41 $84,941 $326,776 86.6% 12.7%

Source: LendingTree analysis of Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) data. Note: All figures are adjusted to 2022 dollars to account for inflation.

 

 

10-year median cumulative income by generation (at generational midpoint)

Generation Baby boomers Gen Xers Millennials
Year of birth (generational midpoint) 1955 1973 1989
Working years 1980 to 1989 1998 to 2007 2014 to 2023
Median cumulative income $362,330 $417,700 $446,570

Source: LendingTree analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data. Note: All figures are adjusted to 2023 dollars to account for inflation.

How much of that difference in net worth is the fact that a lower percentage of millennials and even lower for gen z have taken on a mortgage at that age range. If the study is looking at median net worth for 26-40 year olds, first time home buyer age is up from 28 to 38 since the mid 1980s. what percentage of boomers and gen X had a mortgage that they hadn’t yet paid significantly into the principal. Whereas there are more millennials and gen z that haven’t been able to buy a first home, so they don’t have the negative net worth from the mortgage. What will those net worths look like at 40-50 when the boomers have paid off houses vs millennials and gen z either still renting or are earlier into the mortgage payoff schedule. 

Posted
1 hour ago, Incredulity said:

I know this is a popular narrative, but as a counter point there has been a lot of reporting in the last year or so that Millienials are wealthier than Gen X and Boomers at the same age.

https://www.lendingtree.com/debt-consolidation/millennials-financial-condition-study/

 

Net worth by generation (at similar ages)

Generation Survey year Age range Median net worth Average net worth % with positive net worth % with negative net worth
Baby boomers 1989 25 to 43 $58,101 $231,372 83.9% 11.9%
Gen Xers 2007 27 to 42 $78,333 $328,391 86.1% 11.5%
Millennials 2022 26 to 41 $84,941 $326,776 86.6% 12.7%

Source: LendingTree analysis of Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) data. Note: All figures are adjusted to 2022 dollars to account for inflation.

 

 

10-year median cumulative income by generation (at generational midpoint)

Generation Baby boomers Gen Xers Millennials
Year of birth (generational midpoint) 1955 1973 1989
Working years 1980 to 1989 1998 to 2007 2014 to 2023
Median cumulative income $362,330 $417,700 $446,570

Source: LendingTree analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data. Note: All figures are adjusted to 2023 dollars to account for inflation.

I hope this continues to be the case. I still think they have a lot of issues with home ownership and I bet a lot of student debt.

Posted
On 11/9/2025 at 2:11 PM, immamac said:

Michigan should leave and go independent for sure. I would be surprised if they sign this would be very very bad and they don't need it. 

and everyone else in the B1G would say AMF

"Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out" AMF

Posted

One thing about this whole farce is that it proves ND is absolutely correct not to hand incredibly important institutional decisions to conference administrators. What a shitshow. 
 

As far as telling USC/Michigan to kiss off, it seems like a bad trade to force out 2 of your 4 most valuable brands just so you can take on PE debt with your weakest brands. But I’m not a Big Ten brain genius. 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...