Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

To restart this thread, a few notable things yesterday:

- Iowa lost in classic Iowa fashion (by a safety)

- Wisky somehow won with their punter as their leading passer.  The weather was bad, but still that's wild.  I'm sure this win will help Cig talk up Wisky in advance of playing us.  Line is around IU -30 so hopefully not much drama for us next week but of course you never know because injuries can happen in any game and we need to avoid those.

- The ACC continued to sh1t the bed with UL and UVA losing at home (plus Duke lost to UConn)

- A&M is playing well at the moment, though Mizzou's QB was out.  Bama looked okay to good though they have an iffy run game.  Miss St. was a perfect match-up for UGA so not much to take from that imo.

Posted
21 minutes ago, Stuhoo said:

Big props to Oregon. I was clearly biased based on what I saw IUBB do against each, and that’s not how it works.

What's the football equivalent of long 2's then, running on 3rd and 15?

Posted
9 minutes ago, LIHoosier said:

I don’t really understand the deal so I can’t say who is right. Seems odd the schools would need upfront money for anything 

Posted
14 minutes ago, str8baller said:

I don’t really understand the deal so I can’t say who is right. Seems odd the schools would need upfront money for anything 

Yea, they really shouldn't need this if they were responsible.  But ADs can't help but overspend.

Off the top of my head: IU's AD got a $30M loan from IU -- we've got the donors to cover it but it's still out there.  OSU had a $38M deficit in FY2024.  I know Washington is broke from overspending on their stadium and reduced media rights for a period after joining the B1G.  I'm sure there are many other examples of financial distress throughout the conference if we looked closely, especially with rev share kicking in and donors needing to also fund ever increasing amounts of NIL.

I'm sure the rationale will be that this helps schools adjust to the rev share era until the media rights increase more, which the media rights will.  But.  But!  We all know all the schools are probably going to spend an influx of cash fairly irresponsibility and get themselves back into not so great situations.

As you mentioned, it will be interesting what the actual terms of the deal are.  16 of the 18 schools are clearly pretty gung ho about it, so much so they're ready to go around USC and UM.  Wild.

As a fan, I guess I don't care much.  Is what it is.  If $100M comes in and that helps with a Memorial Stadium renovation... well I have to admit that would be pretty nice!  lol

 

Posted
1 hour ago, str8baller said:

I don’t really understand the deal so I can’t say who is right. Seems odd the schools would need upfront money for anything 

Don't forget that athletic departments are "non-profit," which means they don't have a bunch of money saved from profitable years. They have to spend what they bring in. That's why years with decreased revenue, like during COVID, can really, really hurt them. Up front money allows them make quick, expensive purchases without having to go through the trouble of getting donor money or loans from their schools. Most of the money would probably be squandered, since athlete departments (and the schools themselves) aren't really incentivized to spend money well or run efficiently.

Posted

The answer is probably as simple as “almost everyone stinks”, but how exactly did Louisville only drop 4 spots after losing at home to Cal? Or UVA drop 6 after losing at home to Wake?

Posted
32 minutes ago, Hoosierfan2017 said:

I don’t either but I can’t think of a single thing/experience that private equity has touched and made better, so it’s a firm no from me. 

Note that the deal would be with the University of California pension system, who isn’t classic private equity and is much more passive or put differently not operationally involved.  

No one will care about this, but technically “private equity” owns tens of thousands of companies and many do very well or even great.  In general mostly only the bad ones get noticed or make the news.  Other types of ownership have their pros and cons too.

Everyone can feel how they want about this, I don’t care, but I’ll wait to see the terms of the deal here.  The B1G doesn't have to do anything, so I'm optimistic the terms are favorable, but we'll see...

Posted

Kind of a bummer — the Rose Bowl is a much more interesting venue than SoFi.

I guess they’re really hoping they can sell more premium seats and tickets at SoFi.  They’ll have to to make up that buyout.

 

IMG_0108.jpeg

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...