Probably. Several/many(?) athletic programs are bleeding money, from what everyone above is saying. If the university puts $ in the athletic programs, (net contributor), then cannot be spent on students. tOSU is one of the few that kicks cash into the general fund, and is paying for all their own capital improvements. Most cannot say that. And of course, the NIL/portal has added a new spending element to programs that are otherwise strapped for cash. Of course the 'big boys' are looking for a larger share of the pie, versus the equal shares that have been given from TV revenues. No one can argue that Northwestern deserves an equal share of TV revenues than tOSU/Michigan and ? A USC, while has a glorious history, hasn't done much in the past decade, but isn't hesitant in calling themselves a 'blueblood' and brings in many TV subscriptions from their major media market, and demanding (?) a larger share. Plus, this is one-time money. Should be spent on one-time expenses, but would bet the ranch that most schools will put into NIL, or other expenses that are on-going (never spend one-time money on things that eat ((ie recurring expenses)) ). This sounds like a problem for a McKinsey & Co to noodle out, but will boil down to making the big revenue generators happy. Ultimately giving this 'bond' a 1/20th share of the revenues (TV or ? - unclear what goes into this pot), will hurt those schools that get a reduced piece of the $2B, unless the one-time payout is sized to be paid back in other than 1/20th fractions. (not real clear, I know, but if you get more than equal shares, say tOSU and Xichigan get 20% of the pie, then they should pay back 20% of the annual payment).