• New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.

Big Ten and other Conference Expansion

Which Teams Should the Big Ten Add? (please limit to four selections)

  • Boston College

    Votes: 32 10.2%
  • Cincinnati

    Votes: 19 6.1%
  • Connecticut

    Votes: 6 1.9%
  • Duke

    Votes: 21 6.7%
  • Georgia Tech

    Votes: 55 17.6%
  • Kansas

    Votes: 46 14.7%
  • Maryland

    Votes: 67 21.4%
  • Missouri

    Votes: 90 28.8%
  • North Carolina

    Votes: 39 12.5%
  • Notre Dame

    Votes: 209 66.8%
  • Oklahoma

    Votes: 78 24.9%
  • Pittsburgh

    Votes: 45 14.4%
  • Rutgers

    Votes: 40 12.8%
  • Syracuse

    Votes: 18 5.8%
  • Texas

    Votes: 121 38.7%
  • Vanderbilt

    Votes: 15 4.8%
  • Virginia

    Votes: 47 15.0%
  • Virginia Tech

    Votes: 62 19.8%
  • Stay at 12 teams and don't expand

    Votes: 27 8.6%
  • Add some other school(s) not listed

    Votes: 25 8.0%

  • Total voters
    313
20 years is a long fucking time. The investors are hoping for the current valuation trend in media rights to continue on their current trajectory. In which case they will make a large fortune. The fact that this deal is coming tells me the schools think we may be in a bubble and are trying to capitalize.

The ACC thought similarly when they signed a 30 year contract in 2013.
 
Upvote 0
You are mixing the concepts of debt and equity. There is no note or bond or any of those kind of structures (from what we know and what makes logical sense). It's equity.

You hit the key right here:


It won't be forever because the investor wants to make a profit sometime in the next 3-5 years most likely. Different groups have different time lines.

I think it's important for people to really see this as a win for the "academic" side of the University house. Keeping it very high level-you have two businesses in one. The "school side of all these places and the "sports" side, let's call it.

By doing it this way, you are keeping all risk, any kind of contagion from a blow up in sports, firewalled away from the "school" side of the balance sheet. The same concept applies when people ask why do it this way. If you don't go get the money this way then you have to borrow it or take it from the school side of the ledger. Borrowing would indeed create the nightmare scenario a lot of people are expressing here in which school side assets get put at risk for sports side borrowing.

This is a win for the school side and for the record, I very much believe in and hope we continue to see them go this way. I've been on record many times saying they should split sports off entirely. The University mission is far mar important (and bigger money) so sports shouldn't be out there as a possible risk t it.

Well, now we are seeing that play out in a way. This new venture is keeping sports from hurting school.
Yeah, but if the sports side tanks, do you think the university will let the sports side fail (whatever that looks like), or will they bail it out? They may be separated legally, but I think the reality is a bit different.
 
Upvote 0
I think that the likelihood is VERY low that universities would step in to support the sports administration project tanks. The press is up in arms about this in Pennsylvania. Stories highlight that the $49 million buyout is the second-largest in college football history. Under the leadership of Neeli Bendapudi (one-time Fisher College marketing professor), Penn State has been on a cost-cutting campaign that includes the closure of seven branch campuses, due to enrollment and financial challenges. The buyout has inflamed prominent faculty criticism of the University's misplaced priorities, especially given recent budget cuts to campuses and Bendapudi's own recent 47% pay raise. Critics argue the $50 million could have supported struggling campuses, students, and local communities, bringing the disconnect between University financial decisions and the needs of students and staff into the spotlight.

A storm that will disappear? Maybe, but as student fees go up and faculty research funds are impacted already in the politics of the time, there may be another storm brewing.
 
Upvote 0
I think that the likelihood is VERY low that universities would step in to support the sports administration project tanks. The press is up in arms about this in Pennsylvania. Stories highlight that the $49 million buyout is the second-largest in college football history. Under the leadership of Neeli Bendapudi (one-time Fisher College marketing professor), Penn State has been on a cost-cutting campaign that includes the closure of seven branch campuses, due to enrollment and financial challenges. The buyout has inflamed prominent faculty criticism of the University's misplaced priorities, especially given recent budget cuts to campuses and Bendapudi's own recent 47% pay raise. Critics argue the $50 million could have supported struggling campuses, students, and local communities, bringing the disconnect between University financial decisions and the needs of students and staff into the spotlight.

A storm that will disappear? Maybe, but as student fees go up and faculty research funds are impacted already in the politics of the time, there may be another storm brewing.
And many in-state students cannot even afford Penn State or Pitt tuition. They find it cheaper to go to school at the SUNY schools, while Penn State pays a 49 million buyout to their coach, and probably will shell out more to his Assistants too.
 
Upvote 0
Yeah, but if the sports side tanks, do you think the university will let the sports side fail (whatever that looks like), or will they bail it out? They may be separated legally, but I think the reality is a bit different.

I think that the likelihood is VERY low that universities would step in to support the sports administration project tanks. The press is up in arms about this in Pennsylvania. Stories highlight that the $49 million buyout is the second-largest in college football history. Under the leadership of Neeli Bendapudi (one-time Fisher College marketing professor), Penn State has been on a cost-cutting campaign that includes the closure of seven branch campuses, due to enrollment and financial challenges. The buyout has inflamed prominent faculty criticism of the University's misplaced priorities, especially given recent budget cuts to campuses and Bendapudi's own recent 47% pay raise. Critics argue the $50 million could have supported struggling campuses, students, and local communities, bringing the disconnect between University financial decisions and the needs of students and staff into the spotlight.

A storm that will disappear? Maybe, but as student fees go up and faculty research funds are impacted already in the politics of the time, there may be another storm brewing.

Both touch on the fundamental concept that I have been calling out.

You can't serve two masters, no person can, no organization can. Schools/universities have just kind of found their way into the world of professional sports and entertainment over the years but now it's big enough and has to be handled properly.

To protect the University/school side of the house, I say you spin off the sports side. The school can still make money off of it (just not all of the money) so that shouldn't be the excuse. It will require letting go of the outdated model of the amateur student athlete (in the revenue sports). That's it. Nothing else needs to change.

The problem, as I see it, is that the heads of the schools/U's are trying to have their cake and eat it too. They want all the money from sports and are willing to just keep trying to patch up clunky frameworks of old governance on a new reality. Organizational entropy 101.
 
Upvote 0
SUNY schools are in New York, not PA.
Exactly, it's cheaper to go out of state than in-state at Ped State. Ohio's a very high tuition state too, so we shouldn't get too full of ourselves on that issue. Ohio State is helped by the fact that Fredo and Beavis are so galactically stupid as to try and charge significantly higher tuition while at the same time not having near the endowment resources for need and merit based scholarship aid as the flagship.
 
Upvote 0
Exactly, it's cheaper to go out of state than in-state at Ped State. Ohio's a very high tuition state too, so we shouldn't get too full of ourselves on that issue. Ohio State is helped by the fact that Fredo and Beavis are so galactically stupid as to try and charge significantly higher tuition while at the same time not having near the endowment resources for need and merit based scholarship aid as the flagship.
Google AI: Penn State has a higher in-state tuition than Ohio State ($20,644 vs $13,244), while the out-of-state tuition is similar, though slightly higher at Penn State ($41,790 vs. $40,022). Ohio State may be a more affordable overall option due to a lower cost of living in its location compared to Penn State.

University In-State Tuition Out-of-State Tuition
Ohio State University ~$13,244 ~$40,022
Pennsylvania State University ~$20,644 ~$41,790

Which one is "Beavis"?

2025–2026 undergraduate in-state tuition and fees
The following are estimated annual costs for new in-state undergraduates at the main campus of each school:
  • Miami University: $18,520
  • Ohio University (main campus): $14,582
  • University of Cincinnati: $14,394
  • Bowling Green State University: $14,342
  • University of Akron: $13,740
  • Ohio State University (main campus): $13,641
  • Kent State University: $13,466
  • Cleveland State University: $13,262
  • University of Toledo: $12,524 (additional fees may apply)
  • Wright State University: $11,816
  • Youngstown State University: $11,376
  • Shawnee State University: $10,180
  • Central State University: $9,912
 
Upvote 0
Both touch on the fundamental concept that I have been calling out.

You can't serve two masters, no person can, no organization can. Schools/universities have just kind of found their way into the world of professional sports and entertainment over the years but now it's big enough and has to be handled properly.

To protect the University/school side of the house, I say you spin off the sports side. The school can still make money off of it (just not all of the money) so that shouldn't be the excuse. It will require letting go of the outdated model of the amateur student athlete (in the revenue sports). That's it. Nothing else needs to change.

The problem, as I see it, is that the heads of the schools/U's are trying to have their cake and eat it too. They want all the money from sports and are willing to just keep trying to patch up clunky frameworks of old governance on a new reality. Organizational entropy 101.
But, if everything I’ve read is true, only a handful of schools are making money on sports and Ohio State is no longer one of them. Further, how much control does a university have over NIL?
 
Upvote 0
But, if everything I’ve read is true, only a handful of schools are making money on sports and Ohio State is no longer one of them. Further, how much control does a university have over NIL?

The B1G is making money on football, OSU is a major part of that. If they had an operational shortfall this year it's legacy budget math from COVID as I recall.

Point being, football itself is hugely profitable, the athletic department using that money to pay for every other sport might be what you are reading?

The control a school has over NIL right now is all being worked out. That's part of my point on organizational entropy. They just keep bolting on new rules to over come the foundational misalignment. I say get the alignment right and the governance becomes much simpler.
 
Upvote 0
Back
Top