Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

I didn't read it as Michigan and USC would be kicked out if they don't agree, but that they would not get a distribution, and that their membership may become an issue in 2036 when the media deal expires. I don't see any way PE tries to kick them out now or in a decade. They are too valuable to the overall product. If speculation is correct that the PE people do promotions to increase the overall value UM and USC might get some freeloading benefits but they also did not take money up front so I don't see PE being too upset. I'm almost certainly missing something here in the details because the articles have not been clear ant PE is not something I know a lot about in detail. Just intuitively though, a onetime payment of $135M per school doesn't seem like a whole lot for such a monumnetal and long term change in structure.

Edited by 'stache
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

Hey, Ohio State, what ARE these things you cover your helmet with anyways?

image.png.9ae4054d647d8333f2426e6e92416a1b.png

Well, listen, nobody understands the importance of tradition like we do, but that sticker doesn't maximize revenues nor does it engage our corporate partners, so let's run this up the flagpole.  Whenever a kid makes a sticker play, he gets a helmet sticker from one of our corporate partners, who makes a payment to the university and a smaller payment to the kid.  Here's Jeremiah Smith's helmet at the end of the season!

image.png.82dad45deb60a71adb43354e8e6eade7.png

Isn't the most beautiful thing you've ever seen?  OK, we'll have legal look at this, but we'll plan to implement this next game!  Let's do lunch!

 

Posted
On 11/9/2025 at 10:57 AM, 956 Worldwide said:

I will die on the hill that CFB was perfect and needed no fix pre-BCS and mega-conferences. You got plenty of joy in winning your conference and enjoying wins over schools close to you— needling the people at work, church, the PTA. Bowl games were a fun bonus.  The newspaper would crown a MNC and it was a distraction to read about and then move on from. The only NC trophy handed out was a gimmick from Trick Dick as a little dogwhistle for the last all-white teams and their fans.

A “real” NC, playoff, etc is something thet talking heads on 24/7 sports media and then the internet created for their own benefit and then convinced fans they needed. Has not made the alum and fan experience at all better. 

And half of the bowl teams finished their seasons with a win.

Posted
47 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I didn't read it as Michigan and USC would be kicked out if they don't agree, but that they would not get a distribution, and that their membership may become an issue in 2036 when the media deal expires. I don't see any way PE tries to kick them out now or in a decade. They are too valuable to the overall product. If speculation is correct that the PE people do promotions to increase the overall value UM and USC might get some freeloading benefits but they also did not take money up front so I don't see PE being too upset. I'm almost certainly missing something here in the details because the articles have not been clear ant PE is not something I know a lot about in detail. Just intuitively though, a onetime payment of $135M per school doesn't seem like a whole lot for such a monumnetal and long term change in structure.

Its not near enough to potentially put your school and athletic department at the mercy of some penny pinching, value scraping, PE vultures either. 

USC and Michigan are correct in trying to kill this, PE scraps everything for parts leaving them shells of their former selves. 

  • Like 1
Posted
5 hours ago, TreatyOak said:

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.

 

 

you left one out 

 

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 3
  • Drool 1
Posted
17 hours ago, 'stache said:

I've also interviewed ex-college athletes for work and they are always impressive and stand out in many respects.  

Have you interviewed ex-baseball players?  They are…not smart, in my experience. 

Posted
14 hours ago, Beau Vine said:

Hey, Ohio State, what ARE these things you cover your helmet with anyways?

image.png.9ae4054d647d8333f2426e6e92416a1b.png

Well, listen, nobody understands the importance of tradition like we do, but that sticker doesn't maximize revenues nor does it engage our corporate partners, so let's run this up the flagpole.  Whenever a kid makes a sticker play, he gets a helmet sticker from one of our corporate partners, who makes a payment to the university and a smaller payment to the kid.  Here's Jeremiah Smith's helmet at the end of the season!

image.png.82dad45deb60a71adb43354e8e6eade7.png

Isn't the most beautiful thing you've ever seen?  OK, we'll have legal look at this, but we'll plan to implement this next game!  Let's do lunch!

 

image.gif.d875609e77e43a3368b94654289ebdf3.gif

Posted
2 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

Have you interviewed ex-baseball players?  They are…not smart, in my experience. 

Two of the smartest athletes I ever had were baseball players, but all the rest of them were real bricks.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
21 hours ago, heso said:

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. 

Austin City Council:

Shark Tank Writing GIF

  • Haha 5
  • Rage+1 1
Posted (edited)
22 hours ago, heso said:

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. 

I'm going to preface the following with the information that I am a younger millennial, a home owner, a personal finance nerd, and listen to/read a ton of content on the subject. However, this is obvious a nuanced conversation and not one-size-fits-all.

Myriad data sources do show that Millennials and Gen Z do have greater median net worths at their current ages than previous generations did at those ages, adjusted for inflation. They also show lower percentages with mortgages, but higher percentages of investing in long-term retirement vehicles, as well as taxable brokerage accounts. In general, Millennials and Gen Z are prioritizing investing for retirement, mini retirements, sabbaticals, and value financial flexibility and financial freedom more than just a long-term career trajectory to 59.5-65. Yes, some of this is due to an increasingly costly and less obtainable housing market. However, it's a trend that exists outside of that fact, as well.

Partly, this is also due to greater access to personal finance information and content (internet, social media, podcasts personal finance being introduced into more than half of state high school curriculum at this point, etc.), a greater willingness to openly discuss money than previous generations, automatic enrollment in 401k plans, as well as an emphasis on controlling what you can control (income, debt, investing and savings rates) over what you can't control (housing prices) I.e., it's now common thought one can build substantive financial resources outside of the historical "American Dream" of owning a home (renting from a bank for 15-30 years before owning).

In summary, for many Millennials and Gen Z, the "New American Dream" is "FU money" and financial flexibility, not hoarding a bunch of equity in a home you live in. They value liquid and accessible assets over illiquid, use assets. One's primary home is a use asset. Yes, while it should grow in value, that value is both hard to access and generally requires you to sell it to access it's full value. 

Also, please clarify, because I don't understand this comment: "so they don’t have the negative net worth from the mortgage." You shouldn't have any negative effect on net worth when buying a house, unless you bought poorly (for example: an emotional purchase and spent more than it was worth) and are immediately underwater, or the market shifts precipitously (for example: bought close and prior to 2008 or during Covid) and the market declines. In most circumstances, you have a somewhat positive net worth on a home purchase because there is some equity built in already via a down payment and the housing market generally grows at an average of ~3%/year in the United States.    

As to, "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?" Well, the stock market returns, on average, higher annual returns than primary home single-family real estate over time. So, while those who didn't buy, won't/may not own a home at 40-50, it's very likely their net worths still might be higher. Obviously, not everyone's will be, but it's likely many will have higher net worths assuming they're investing a comparable amount to the total that Gen X and Boomers did between their mortgages and other asset classes at the same age. Higher returns from a similar capital basis will do that.

Another reason this is likely to happen, although not tied to your question, is the huge transfer of wealth (inheritance) to many Millennials and Gen Z over the next 30 years. While there are many advantages to owning a home, renting is a much better option for many of us nowadays; especially given all of the other "hidden" costs to suck up money when owning a home. Keeping my fixed housing expenses low and investing more into the market has been the greatest boon to my net worth thus far, and I'm very happy I both did so and started young. 

 

Edited by MuellerHorn
  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
I'm going to preface the following with the information that I am a younger millennial, a home owner, a personal finance nerd, and listen to/read a ton of content on the subject. However, this is obvious a nuanced conversation and not one-size-fits-all.
Myriad data sources do show that Millennials and Gen Z do have greater median net worths at their current ages than previous generations did at those ages, adjusted for inflation. They also show lower percentages with mortgages, but higher percentages of investing in long-term retirement vehicles, as well as taxable brokerage accounts. In general, Millennials and Gen Z are prioritizing investing for retirement, mini retirements, sabbaticals, and value financial flexibility and financial freedom more than just a long-term career trajectory to 59.5-65. Yes, some of this is due to an increasingly costly and less obtainable housing market. However, it's a trend that exists outside of that fact, as well.
Partly, this is also due to greater access to personal finance information and content (internet, social media, podcasts personal finance being introduced into more than half of state high school curriculum at this point, etc.), a greater willingness to openly discuss money than previous generations, automatic enrollment in 401k plans, as well as an emphasis on controlling what you can control (income, debt, investing and savings rates) over what you can't control (housing prices) I.e., it's now common thought one can build substantive financial resources outside of the historical "American Dream" of owning a home (renting from a bank for 15-30 years before owning).
In summary, for many Millennials and Gen Z, the "New American Dream" is "FU money" and financial flexibility, not hoarding a bunch of equity in a home you live in. They value liquid and accessible assets over illiquid, use assets. One's primary home is a use asset. Yes, while it should grow in value, that value is both hard to access and generally requires you to sell it to access it's full value. 
Also, please clarify, because I don't understand this comment: "so they don’t have the negative net worth from the mortgage." You shouldn't have any negative effect on net worth when buying a house, unless you bought poorly (for example: an emotional purchase and spent more than it was worth) and are immediately underwater, or the market shifts precipitously (for example: bought close and prior to 2008 or during Covid) and the market declines. In most circumstances, you have a somewhat positive net worth on a home purchase because there is some equity built in already via a down payment and the housing market generally grows at an average of ~3%/year in the United States.    
As to, "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?" Well, the stock market returns, on average, higher annual returns than primary home single-family real estate over time. So, while those who didn't buy, won't/may not own a home at 40-50, it's very likely their net worths still might be higher. Obviously, not everyone's will be, but it's likely many will have higher net worths assuming they're investing a comparable amount to the total that Gen X and Boomers did between their mortgages and other asset classes at the same age. Higher returns from a similar capital basis will do that.
Another reason this is likely to happen, although not tied to your question, is the huge transfer of wealth (inheritance) to many Millennials and Gen Z over the next 30 years. While there are many advantages to owning a home, renting is a much better option for many of us nowadays; especially given all of the other "hidden" costs to suck up money when owning a home. Keeping my fixed housing expenses low and investing more into the market has been the greatest boon to my net worth thus far, and I'm very happy I both did so and started young. 
 

3ea01b4fd62a372af2fd10e3127c7981.jpg
  • Haha 4
Posted
1 hour ago, MuellerHorn said:

I'm going to preface the following with the information that I am a younger millennial, a home owner, a personal finance nerd, and listen to/read a ton of content on the subject. However, this is obvious a nuanced conversation and not one-size-fits-all.

Myriad data sources do show that Millennials and Gen Z do have greater median net worths at their current ages than previous generations did at those ages, adjusted for inflation. They also show lower percentages with mortgages, but higher percentages of investing in long-term retirement vehicles, as well as taxable brokerage accounts. In general, Millennials and Gen Z are prioritizing investing for retirement, mini retirements, sabbaticals, and value financial flexibility and financial freedom more than just a long-term career trajectory to 59.5-65. Yes, some of this is due to an increasingly costly and less obtainable housing market. However, it's a trend that exists outside of that fact, as well.

Partly, this is also due to greater access to personal finance information and content (internet, social media, podcasts personal finance being introduced into more than half of state high school curriculum at this point, etc.), a greater willingness to openly discuss money than previous generations, automatic enrollment in 401k plans, as well as an emphasis on controlling what you can control (income, debt, investing and savings rates) over what you can't control (housing prices) I.e., it's now common thought one can build substantive financial resources outside of the historical "American Dream" of owning a home (renting from a bank for 15-30 years before owning).

In summary, for many Millennials and Gen Z, the "New American Dream" is "FU money" and financial flexibility, not hoarding a bunch of equity in a home you live in. They value liquid and accessible assets over illiquid, use assets. One's primary home is a use asset. Yes, while it should grow in value, that value is both hard to access and generally requires you to sell it to access it's full value. 

Also, please clarify, because I don't understand this comment: "so they don’t have the negative net worth from the mortgage." You shouldn't have any negative effect on net worth when buying a house, unless you bought poorly (for example: an emotional purchase and spent more than it was worth) and are immediately underwater, or the market shifts precipitously (for example: bought close and prior to 2008 or during Covid) and the market declines. In most circumstances, you have a somewhat positive net worth on a home purchase because there is some equity built in already via a down payment and the housing market generally grows at an average of ~3%/year in the United States.    

As to, "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?" Well, the stock market returns, on average, higher annual returns than primary home single-family real estate over time. So, while those who didn't buy, won't/may not own a home at 40-50, it's very likely their net worths still might be higher. Obviously, not everyone's will be, but it's likely many will have higher net worths assuming they're investing a comparable amount to the total that Gen X and Boomers did between their mortgages and other asset classes at the same age. Higher returns from a similar capital basis will do that.

Another reason this is likely to happen, although not tied to your question, is the huge transfer of wealth (inheritance) to many Millennials and Gen Z over the next 30 years. While there are many advantages to owning a home, renting is a much better option for many of us nowadays; especially given all of the other "hidden" costs to suck up money when owning a home. Keeping my fixed housing expenses low and investing more into the market has been the greatest boon to my net worth thus far, and I'm very happy I both did so and started young. 

 

That's a lot of words to say that a lot of net worth is tied up in hilarious memecoins and crypto (literally all stocks right now) and when the correction comes/happens that they won't be feeling the long term damaging effects of losing that net worth.

I get that it's great that they invest more, but part of them investing more and having 401k's etc is that it's all a real ticking time bomb when stocks just stop continuing to "always go up". Stocks don't always go up, the S&P 500 has a long term rate of return yadda yadda, you know that buying the index isn't a real thing? if you bought shares in the S&P based on corporations inside of it that the game wouldn't look like that because the ones that fall out have lost substantial value. The cheat code for the index is that they remove things that make the index do things they don't like over the long term. 

Stocks in fact do not always go up and a lot of stocks are actually terrible speculative investment vehicles that a lot of people collectively depend on to get lucky so they can support their net worth. There are a few stocks that have survived the test of time and have survived through cycles, but there's mostly a bunch of companies that haven't done jack shit or outright died in the GFC. Those stocks are eventually removed from the indexes or whatever people are doing, but they aren't removed from the real value lost in people's portfolios. It's why investing in the stock market isn't a guarantee for money and it's why Warren fucking Buffett is sitting on 300B+ in cash right now.

Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, immamac said:

That's a lot of words to say that a lot of net worth is tied up in hilarious memecoins and crypto (literally all stocks right now) and when the correction comes/happens that they won't be feeling the long term damaging effects of losing that net worth.

I get that it's great that they invest more, but part of them investing more and having 401k's etc is that it's all a real ticking time bomb when stocks just stop continuing to "always go up". Stocks don't always go up, the S&P 500 has a long term rate of return yadda yadda, you know that buying the index isn't a real thing? if you bought shares in the S&P based on corporations inside of it that the game wouldn't look like that because the ones that fall out have lost substantial value. The cheat code for the index is that they remove things that make the index do things they don't like over the long term. 

Stocks in fact do not always go up and a lot of stocks are actually terrible speculative investment vehicles that a lot of people collectively depend on to get lucky so they can support their net worth. There are a few stocks that have survived the test of time and have survived through cycles, but there's mostly a bunch of companies that haven't done jack shit or outright died in the GFC. Those stocks are eventually removed from the indexes or whatever people are doing, but they aren't removed from the real value lost in people's portfolios. It's why investing in the stock market isn't a guarantee for money and it's why Warren fucking Buffett is sitting on 300B+ in cash right now.

A lot of what you said is true. However, the market indices do go up and to the right over time. That’s the point of the indices over just speculating on individual stocks.  Yes, I understand how rebalancing works. Yes, there is volatility in the mix. Yes, there are many ways to create wealth and a sizable net worth. I’m not sure what you’re taking exception with. Corrections, depressions, etc. are part of the ride. Obviously, people need emergency money and cash set aside too. Aggressive market investing is not the only piece to a good personal financial strategy. 

Edited by MuellerHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Just now, MuellerHorn said:

A lot of what you said is true. However, the market indices do go up and to the right over time. Yes, I understand how rebalancing works. Yes, there is volatility in the mix. Yes, there are many ways to create wealth and a sizable net worth. I’m not sure what you’re taking exception with. Corrections, depressions, etc. are part of the ride. Obviously, people need emergency money and cash set aside too. Aggressive market investing is not the only piece to a good personal financial strategy. 

I'm saying the net worth is inflated by the sheer stupidity and length of "the good times" we are experiencing 

Millenials are set up to be rugged harder than any generation 

Posted
2 minutes ago, immamac said:

I'm saying the net worth is inflated by the sheer stupidity and length of "the good times" we are experiencing 

Millenials are set up to be rugged harder than any generation 

That could be true, but it doesn’t dilute the fact that millennials and gen z are investing more and earlier on than previous cohorts. It’s not just stupid speculative shit that aren’t real assets. 

Also, I wholeheartedly agree that a housing market that’s running away from normal buying power is a bad thing for us. That’s certainly true. There are headwinds, but there are a lot of positive behavioral and knowledge changes that have occurred. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, MuellerHorn said:

That could be true, but it doesn’t dilute the fact that millennials and gen z are investing more and earlier on than previous cohorts. It’s not just stupid speculative shit that aren’t real assets. 

Also, I wholeheartedly agree that a housing market that’s running away from normal buying power is a bad thing for us. That’s certainly true. There are headwinds, but there are a lot of positive behavioral and knowledge changes that have occurred. 

I can agree with that. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, immamac said:

I can agree with that. 

Now that that’s behind us, when are we fleecing rabid speculative yuts looking to get rich quick via the deployment of Surlycoin?

image.gif.41daedbcf87dc3f1b9a6fc8d440bec46.gif

Edited by MuellerHorn
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, MuellerHorn said:

I'm going to preface the following with the information that I am a younger millennial, a home owner, a personal finance nerd, and listen to/read a ton of content on the subject. However, this is obvious a nuanced conversation and not one-size-fits-all.

Myriad data sources do show that Millennials and Gen Z do have greater median net worths at their current ages than previous generations did at those ages, adjusted for inflation. They also show lower percentages with mortgages, but higher percentages of investing in long-term retirement vehicles, as well as taxable brokerage accounts. In general, Millennials and Gen Z are prioritizing investing for retirement, mini retirements, sabbaticals, and value financial flexibility and financial freedom more than just a long-term career trajectory to 59.5-65. Yes, some of this is due to an increasingly costly and less obtainable housing market. However, it's a trend that exists outside of that fact, as well.

Partly, this is also due to greater access to personal finance information and content (internet, social media, podcasts personal finance being introduced into more than half of state high school curriculum at this point, etc.), a greater willingness to openly discuss money than previous generations, automatic enrollment in 401k plans, as well as an emphasis on controlling what you can control (income, debt, investing and savings rates) over what you can't control (housing prices) I.e., it's now common thought one can build substantive financial resources outside of the historical "American Dream" of owning a home (renting from a bank for 15-30 years before owning).

In summary, for many Millennials and Gen Z, the "New American Dream" is "FU money" and financial flexibility, not hoarding a bunch of equity in a home you live in. They value liquid and accessible assets over illiquid, use assets. One's primary home is a use asset. Yes, while it should grow in value, that value is both hard to access and generally requires you to sell it to access it's full value. 

Also, please clarify, because I don't understand this comment: "so they don’t have the negative net worth from the mortgage." You shouldn't have any negative effect on net worth when buying a house, unless you bought poorly (for example: an emotional purchase and spent more than it was worth) and are immediately underwater, or the market shifts precipitously (for example: bought close and prior to 2008 or during Covid) and the market declines. In most circumstances, you have a somewhat positive net worth on a home purchase because there is some equity built in already via a down payment and the housing market generally grows at an average of ~3%/year in the United States.    

As to, "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?" Well, the stock market returns, on average, higher annual returns than primary home single-family real estate over time. So, while those who didn't buy, won't/may not own a home at 40-50, it's very likely their net worths still might be higher. Obviously, not everyone's will be, but it's likely many will have higher net worths assuming they're investing a comparable amount to the total that Gen X and Boomers did between their mortgages and other asset classes at the same age. Higher returns from a similar capital basis will do that.

Another reason this is likely to happen, although not tied to your question, is the huge transfer of wealth (inheritance) to many Millennials and Gen Z over the next 30 years. While there are many advantages to owning a home, renting is a much better option for many of us nowadays; especially given all of the other "hidden" costs to suck up money when owning a home. Keeping my fixed housing expenses low and investing more into the market has been the greatest boon to my net worth thus far, and I'm very happy I both did so and started young. 

 


I worded that poorly but what I meant was the relative comparison of the 35 year old who paid the cost of financing a house and paying mostly interest early in the life of the loan comparing negatively with the 35 year old that couldn’t afford to buy a house so they rented and invested some amount, and then revisiting those people’s net worth in 10 years when the early home buyer had a paid off house and the late home buyer has now purchased a house and gotten into the housing market later after years of renting. It was a massive oversimplification.*

Regardless of why, boomers at a median generation age owned 33% of the household real estate wealth. Gen X owned 20% at the same age. Millennials 16%. At 50 boomers owned 49% and gen X 30%.

And those later generations didn’t just buy stocks instead of homes. At 35 boomers owned 20% of all household wealth. Gen X 9%, millennials 8%. At 50 boomers had 47%, at 50 gen X had 25%. 


*edit: I’m also a moron, so that’s probably all wrong. 

Edited by heso
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, heso said:


I worded that poorly but what I meant was the relative comparison of the 35 year old who paid the cost of financing a house and paying mostly interest early in the life of the loan comparing negatively with the 35 year old that couldn’t afford to buy a house so they rented and invested some amount, and then revisiting those people’s net worth in 10 years when the early home buyer had a paid off house and the late home buyer has now purchased a house and gotten into the housing market later after years of renting. It was a massive oversimplification.

Regardless of why, boomers at a median generation age owned 33% of the household real estate wealth. Gen X owned 20% at the same age. Millennials 16%. At 50 boomers owned 49% and gen X 30%.

And those later generations didn’t just buy stocks instead of homes. At 35 boomers owned 20% of all household wealth. Gen X 9%, millennials 8%. At 50 boomers had 47%, at 50 gen X had 25%. 
 

Yeah, we obviously don’t know the implications yet, but the erosion of buying power for many goods and services (housing, education, healthcare, etc.) for varying reasons is not a good thing. For some people, it will be okay; others, certainly not. As @immamaceluded to, many young people have taken up wild speculation “investing” as the solution, which is another problem. Crypto busts, meme stocks, and gambling are burgeoning issues with young people building wealth. 

Edited by MuellerHorn
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
On 11/9/2025 at 12:33 PM, WBT said:

This seems to be where we're heading but I think the number will be a lot smaller than 50-60. 

It will come to this in the secsecsec too.  It made no sense for Texas and Oklahoma to throw away century-long rivalries to go subsidize the likes of Kentucky, Vanderbilt, Auburn, Arkansas, and the Mississippis instead.

It was most likely done to prove that the money is there for matchups like: 

Texas - Alabama

Oklahoma - LSU 

Etc.

The rest will be scuttled. There is a point of diminishing returns though. You have to include some cannon fodder. Just pick the ones that have a big and loyal following. Nebraska and Iowa St fill that role perfectly. Where as schools like Houston and TCU serve absolutely no purpose. 

Posted (edited)

Gen Z also actually owns homes at a higher rate than Gen X or Millennials did at the same age.  They took advantage of a deflated covid market and they are also inheriting homes at a much larger tick (presumably left by boomer grandparents).

Edited by JBJ
Posted
8 hours ago, immamac said:

That's a lot of words to say that a lot of net worth is tied up in hilarious memecoins and crypto (literally all stocks right now) and when the correction comes/happens that they won't be feeling the long term damaging effects of losing that net worth.

I get that it's great that they invest more, but part of them investing more and having 401k's etc is that it's all a real ticking time bomb when stocks just stop continuing to "always go up". Stocks don't always go up, the S&P 500 has a long term rate of return yadda yadda, you know that buying the index isn't a real thing? if you bought shares in the S&P based on corporations inside of it that the game wouldn't look like that because the ones that fall out have lost substantial value. The cheat code for the index is that they remove things that make the index do things they don't like over the long term. 

Stocks in fact do not always go up and a lot of stocks are actually terrible speculative investment vehicles that a lot of people collectively depend on to get lucky so they can support their net worth. There are a few stocks that have survived the test of time and have survived through cycles, but there's mostly a bunch of companies that haven't done jack shit or outright died in the GFC. Those stocks are eventually removed from the indexes or whatever people are doing, but they aren't removed from the real value lost in people's portfolios. It's why investing in the stock market isn't a guarantee for money and it's why Warren fucking Buffett is sitting on 300B+ in cash right now.

I got smart and have moved most of my portfolio into Labubus. But seeking out rare combos to ensure I diversify. 

  • Haha 2
Posted
10 hours ago, MuellerHorn said:

I'm going to preface the following with the information that I am a younger millennial, a home owner, a personal finance nerd, and listen to/read a ton of content on the subject. However, this is obvious a nuanced conversation and not one-size-fits-all.

Myriad data sources do show that Millennials and Gen Z do have greater median net worths at their current ages than previous generations did at those ages, adjusted for inflation. They also show lower percentages with mortgages, but higher percentages of investing in long-term retirement vehicles, as well as taxable brokerage accounts. In general, Millennials and Gen Z are prioritizing investing for retirement, mini retirements, sabbaticals, and value financial flexibility and financial freedom more than just a long-term career trajectory to 59.5-65. Yes, some of this is due to an increasingly costly and less obtainable housing market. However, it's a trend that exists outside of that fact, as well.

Partly, this is also due to greater access to personal finance information and content (internet, social media, podcasts personal finance being introduced into more than half of state high school curriculum at this point, etc.), a greater willingness to openly discuss money than previous generations, automatic enrollment in 401k plans, as well as an emphasis on controlling what you can control (income, debt, investing and savings rates) over what you can't control (housing prices) I.e., it's now common thought one can build substantive financial resources outside of the historical "American Dream" of owning a home (renting from a bank for 15-30 years before owning).

In summary, for many Millennials and Gen Z, the "New American Dream" is "FU money" and financial flexibility, not hoarding a bunch of equity in a home you live in. They value liquid and accessible assets over illiquid, use assets. One's primary home is a use asset. Yes, while it should grow in value, that value is both hard to access and generally requires you to sell it to access it's full value. 

Also, please clarify, because I don't understand this comment: "so they don’t have the negative net worth from the mortgage." You shouldn't have any negative effect on net worth when buying a house, unless you bought poorly (for example: an emotional purchase and spent more than it was worth) and are immediately underwater, or the market shifts precipitously (for example: bought close and prior to 2008 or during Covid) and the market declines. In most circumstances, you have a somewhat positive net worth on a home purchase because there is some equity built in already via a down payment and the housing market generally grows at an average of ~3%/year in the United States.    

As to, "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?" Well, the stock market returns, on average, higher annual returns than primary home single-family real estate over time. So, while those who didn't buy, won't/may not own a home at 40-50, it's very likely their net worths still might be higher. Obviously, not everyone's will be, but it's likely many will have higher net worths assuming they're investing a comparable amount to the total that Gen X and Boomers did between their mortgages and other asset classes at the same age. Higher returns from a similar capital basis will do that.

Another reason this is likely to happen, although not tied to your question, is the huge transfer of wealth (inheritance) to many Millennials and Gen Z over the next 30 years. While there are many advantages to owning a home, renting is a much better option for many of us nowadays; especially given all of the other "hidden" costs to suck up money when owning a home. Keeping my fixed housing expenses low and investing more into the market has been the greatest boon to my net worth thus far, and I'm very happy I both did so and started young. 

 

So damn true. We're probably the same give or take a few years. It always shocks the boomers in my HOA when I tell them my home is not my biggest investment. They're so focused like a laser on "preserving their property value" because for many of them it's their only investment. It's kinda sad to be honest. But at the end of the day it's just a generational difference. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

I 100% agree the idea of big equity in a big house is terribly overrated.  For that matter, if you don't have kids owning at all can be rationally questioned.  Owning a house is expensive.  Roof, windows, kitchen.  All will need replaced someday.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
23 hours ago, GreenspointTexas said:

Wtf is going on in here

The B1G is considering some sort of PE carve out.

Also, I bought a bunch of AMD under $100 in March.

Posted (edited)

There is even some noise that Michigan is willing to leave the BIG over this, amazing . 

I don't think Michigan is wrong, PE kills everything it touches . Total Offense intended for any PE Lurkers floating around. 

I could see why some lower tier schools may want what they think are some low rate loans or whatever, but we all know this is just the first hit to get their knives into the house to cut them into pieces. 

Agree with @Francisco 2.0 there is 0 reason for OSU or other top schools to even entertain this. WTF are they going to do with an extra 133M anyways ? 

 

Edited by BigHornedLurker
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Of all the schools in the Big Ten wanting to do this, I'm most surprised by Ohio State.  

 

 

They hired the aggy AD who gave Jimbo his contract. Apparently he’s friends with the osu pres who is part owner in a crypto mining company. And this would get osu an unequal payout from the PE money. 

They are running the athletic department at a massive loss despite being one of the top schools in revenue and need short term cash to balance their budget. 

They are more than happy to sell out the rest of the conference long term if it looks good for them in the short term. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
10 minutes ago, heso said:

They are more than happy to sell out the rest of the conference (REPLACE WITH ANY ENTITY) long term if it looks good for them in the short term. 

applies to almost anything these days

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 2
Posted
4 hours ago, heso said:

They hired the aggy AD who gave Jimbo his contract. Apparently he’s friends with the osu pres who is part owner in a crypto mining company. And this would get osu an unequal payout from the PE money. 

They are running the athletic department at a massive loss despite being one of the top schools in revenue and need short term cash to balance their budget. 

They are more than happy to sell out the rest of the conference long term if it looks good for them in the short term. 

This needs to be inscribed on the tombstone of college athletics:

"They are running the athletic department at a massive loss despite being one of the top schools in revenue and need short term cash to balance their budget. 

They are more than happy to sell out the rest of the conference long term if it looks good for them in the short term. '

Posted

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6812124/2025/11/18/big-ten-conference-too-big-identity-private-equity/

 

Quote

Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti and the Big Ten’s presidents and athletic directors spent more than a year exploring potential outside investors in hopes of raising a bonanza of cash. As of late last week, it appeared they would finally land their white whale.

Petitti was prepared to go forward on a deal by which UC Investments, a public pension plan manager, would pay the league $2.4 billion for a 10 percent cut of a new company, Big Ten Enterprises, even if two holdouts, Michigan and USC, refused to sign on.

 

Quote

But on Monday, after several weeks of public dissension within league ranks — including the chairman of Michigan’s Board of Regents calling the plan a “payday loan” — the investors got spooked and hit pause on the discussions for at least several months. No $130 million checks for the other 16 schools just yet. No grant of rights — in which schools cede their media rights to the conference — extension through 2046 just yet.

On one hand, it’s surprising Petitti would even consider moving forward with such a transformative decision without the approval of all 18 members. On the other hand, is it even possible to get 18 schools spread across the entire continent to unanimously agree on anything?

The Big Ten has gotten too big.

 

Spoiler

For nearly 20 years, the league was a stable, manageable group of 11 mostly Midwestern universities (save Penn State) that kept the members largely in lockstep with the league and with each other. There was no noticeable difference when Nebraska joined in 2011.

But the conference has added six members since 2014, two each under longtime commissioner Jim Delany (Rutgers and Maryland), short-lived successor Kevin Warren (USC and UCLA) and current leader Petitti (Oregon and Washington). In doing so, each achieved their most tangible goal: making more money.

The Big Ten’s TV rights jumped from about $250 million a year in 2014 to a $440 million average from 2017-23 to a staggering $1 billion average for the current deal, which runs from 2023-2030.

But that windfall was not without consequences: Michigan State fans forced to stay up until 2:30 a.m. (ET) to watch the Spartans play a football game in Pacific time. UCLA basketball fans trading Las Vegas for Indianapolis for conference tournament weekend. Maryland volleyball players flying cross-country to play a Thursday night match.

The conference no longer has a cohesive identity like its “It Just Means More” SEC counterpart, mostly because the schools no longer have much in common. No one tuning into the Week 9 UCLA-Indiana game on Fox thought to themselves, “Now this is Big Ten football!”

And now, behind the scenes, there is unprecedented friction in a long-harmonious conference.

It began in 2020, when Warren alienated many of the league’s coaches and administrators with his handling of the initial cancellation of the season during the pandemic. Several schools opposed the decision and threatened to play an independent schedule before the league ultimately reversed its decision.

Three years later came the Connor Stalions signal-stealing scandal at Michigan, when the Wolverines’ rivals pressured the still-new-on-the-job Petitti to drop a hammer on the school. His solution, suspending Jim Harbaugh for three games, was seen by Michigan as an egregious overreach and as not nearly enough punishment by everyone else.

Petitti to his credit did manage to get all 18 coaches and ADs to lock arms in support of his controversial 4-4-2-2-1 concept for an expanded College Football Playoff.

The problem: He couldn’t get anyone outside of the Big Ten on board.

And now, the most momentous venture of his three-year tenure has run into a wall.

The deal will pay out that up-front cash in a tiered structure. The most valuable programs, Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State, could receive as much as $190 million, while the others would get anywhere from $110-$150 million.

USC opposes it because the school feels it belongs in that top tier, which seems like something that could be negotiated.

“We greatly value our membership in the Big Ten Conference and understand and respect the larger landscape, but we also recognize the power of the USC brand is far-reaching, deeply engaging, and incredibly valuable,” USC AD Jen Cohen said in an open letter to Trojans fans last week. “And we will always fight first for what’s best for USC.”

And in Ann Arbor, Michigan board members and other officials have made it clear they oppose the entire concept of selling off long-term equity for short-term cash.

“The University of Michigan is not desperate,” Mark Bernstein, chairman of the Michigan board of regents, told The Athletic.

Perhaps Petitti and many of his members were too eager to land the plane. Perhaps easing the immediacy will give him time to win over the two dissenters.

With or without those two, the league is planning a shift to uneven revenue distribution going forward, where the more valuable and highest-performing programs make more than the middle or lower-tier schools, inspired by Florida State and Clemson and the ACC.

The conference’s new vibe is light-years different from the Big Ten’s longtime picture of dogged unity. It was the first conference to devise a grant of rights, back in 1988, preventing Ohio State and Michigan from ever pulling a Texas- and Oklahoma-level defection. Since then, the schools have shared conference-generated revenue and a portion of their own ticket sales equally, even though Ohio State and Michigan bake far more of the pie than Northwestern and Purdue.

Now, the league is on the verge of a new era that conjures the type of instability that has long plagued other conferences. Ask the early-2010s Big 12 how making special concessions to two of its members played out. Ask most of the present-day ACC what it’s like to sit in a room while a few schools threaten to leave them behind.

The shame of all this is that on the field, the Big Ten is thriving. After years of playing second fiddle (at best) to the SEC, Michigan (in 2023) and Ohio State (2024) won back-to-back national championships under the league’s banner. The Buckeyes and Hoosiers hold the Nos. 1 and 2 spots in the latest College Football Playoff rankings. They’ve come a long way from the days when Delany felt compelled to publish an open letter suggesting the SEC’s superior speed on its defensive lines was because of their inferior academics.

Ironically, Big Ten schools — when there were fewer of them, at least — got along better when they weren’t as good at football.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1

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...