College Sports (Football)

Status
Not open for further replies.
#226      
This is the key point. Would VC management want to do anything to sabotage their new product?

NFL, NBA, NASCAR, etc insist on strong measures to level the playing field. They do it for business reasons, not out of any sense of fairness. It would be easy to allow or create unbalance and dynasties, but they deliberately work to prevent it. Why would VC see it any differently?
With few exceptions the VC and Private Equity firms are about making money and selling out to someone else. They could care less about what state they leave the company, customer's, or employees after they have recovered their initial investment and a targeted profit.

I remember the VC that ran a start up I was in dismiss a question about profitability another employee naively asked about at an all hands. He explicitly stated that the VC didn't consider profitability of our company a measure of success. Basically saying that as long as the VC profited by reselling their ownership for more than they had invested, the VC would be happy.

There are numerous destructive mechanisms that have been used by private equity to make large amounts of money at the long term expense of everyone else involved. The classic example, buying a company that has cash reserves and low debt, they then take over as corporate officers, and start approving ridiculous consulting fee payments to the VC firm or just cash distributions to the investors, then when the target company's cash runs out, they start taking out large loans on the companies assets to keep up the payments to themselves. At some point the company is so saddled in debt it is unviable and the VCs wash their hands and shut things down.

Another interesting example I recent read of is that some private equity firm basically bought all fire truck manufactures in the US. Jacking up the pricing to municipalities for new trucks while at the same time not supplying spare parts. Great for the VC. Bad for every city in the country.
 
Last edited:
#232      
This whole tiered revenue idea seems like a bad idea.

I have zero insight into the details, but it seems to go in the opposite direction of what the NFL does, and will do nothing to help level the field, at least at a conference level. And for us, how would it benefit Illinois to get even less revenue than OSU, Michigan, Penn State, USC, and whoever else? Where will we fall in the conference, and how big a deficit does that put us at vs where we are today? I assume Josh and whatever consultants they are working with understand the details, but this seems like a bad idea at the surface.

Maybe we feel good about our current position and feel it will separate us from the bottom half of the B1G (and other conferences), but this is a slippery slope for not only the B1G but all of college football.
 
#233      
Terrible idea. One might ask why is the NFL so diligent about keeping the playing field very level? Think about it. It protects their product, giving all fans equal hope over the long haul.

Schools starting with an unequal share could buy even more talent, then demand an even bigger share for their even better results until the whole tilted field collapses. My currently intense interest and support would go to zero as soon as an unfair deal was signed. The VC/PE vultures will then have destroyed college football, to me anyway. I wouldn’t even tune in to a broadcast, much less renew a 77 Club lease. There are more compelling ways to invest my time than watching the league’s serfs thrown into the gladiator ring with the elite warriors.
 
#234      
Terrible idea. One might ask why is the NFL so diligent about keeping the playing field very level? Think about it. It protects their product, giving all fans equal hope over the long haul.

Schools starting with an unequal share could buy even more talent, then demand an even bigger share for their even better results until the whole tilted field collapses. My currently intense interest and support would go to zero as soon as an unfair deal was signed. The VC/PE vultures will then have destroyed college football, to me anyway. I wouldn’t even tune in to a broadcast, much less renew a 77 Club lease. There are more compelling ways to invest my time than watching the league’s serfs thrown into the gladiator ring with the elite warriors.
You think we get shortchanged by the zebras at times now, just wait til some PE big wigs are calling the shots behind the scenes.
 
#235      
This whole tiered revenue idea seems like a bad idea.

I have zero insight into the details, but it seems to go in the opposite direction of what the NFL does, and will do nothing to help level the field, at least at a conference level. And for us, how would it benefit Illinois to get even less revenue than OSU, Michigan, Penn State, USC, and whoever else? Where will we fall in the conference, and how big a deficit does that put us at vs where we are today? I assume Josh and whatever consultants they are working with understand the details, but this seems like a bad idea at the surface.

Maybe we feel good about our current position and feel it will separate us from the bottom half of the B1G (and other conferences), but this is a slippery slope for not only the B1G but all of college football.
I don't know the answer for sure, but my guess is that the money would be great for everyone, but more great for others, and a lot of the money is up front. Kind of depends on how you're looking at it. If you're Maryland and you're saying, "Well how does this compare to what I get now? Isn't this a lot more wealth?" then probably, yeah, it's a huge improvement. Huge cash infusion that can be used for revenue-generating capital improvements? That's a good thing. But if you're Maryland and you're saying "We want to be competitive in the Big Ten, we want to win conference championships in as many sports as we can, and that's a zero-sum game. Therefore the idea that OSU and Michigan will get more money than Maryland, in perpetuity, is a bad thing, as we will have to compete against those schools under a system in which they, by design, will always have more resources." That's also correct!

That makes this challenging. If you're the current AD, is it easy to turn down a massive cash infusion you can use for major capital improvements because maybe it makes your team less competitive down the line, when you're not there anymore? I would argue you should say no, but I think that's hard to do. At the end of the day, competing for championships is the entire point. Certain programs will always have advantages, but the have-nots should not vote for anything that increases those advantages. Unfortunately I think the massive amounts of money at stake will carry the day.
 
#238      
Is this a bad thing (PE firm)?
This isn't a traditional PE firm. Here is what UC Investments is, per them:

UC Investments manages the University of California’s retirement, endowment, working capital, and cash assets. Serving students, alumni, faculty, and staff, UC Investments provides fiduciary oversight and long-term stewardship of the university’s $193 billion investment portfolio.

Similar to what SURS is for the University of Illinois system, at least the pension aspect.

These large pension plans need ways to "invest" the money and just using normal stocks and bonds limits the diversification. I know SURS (and TRS) throw a bunch of money at different investment managers/firms to diversify (e.g. some real estate, etc...).

Apparently this is another avenue to invest the funds of the UC retirement system. Seems logical and fairly safe on their end. For the B1G, they get an immediate infusion of cash, long term, I'm not sure of the benefit. But this is nothing like turning over control to a PE firm.

I don't believe UC Investments is going to have any say in how the B1G operates. That will be left to the Universities and Big Ten Enterprises, which I believe will be managed by the B1G.

Sidenote: the UC systems is far better funded than any Illinois retirement system (some of the worst in the world).
 
Last edited:
#240      
If I recall, USC also killed the Pac12 media deal extension looking for more. That rejection ultimately led to the demise of the Pac12. I am not a fan of the PE deal and getting in bed with the University of California pension system sounds gross, but the Big Ten should be careful about listening to USC.

If they’re against it, maybe they learned from mistakes of the past,

That said, it’s more likely they aren’t happy someone is getting more than them.
 
#242      
This isn't a traditional PE firm. Here is what UC Investments is, per them:

UC Investments manages the University of California’s retirement, endowment, working capital, and cash assets. Serving students, alumni, faculty, and staff, UC Investments provides fiduciary oversight and long-term stewardship of the university’s $193 billion investment portfolio.

Similar to what SURS is for the University of Illinois system, at least the pension aspect.

These large pension plans need ways to "invest" the money and just using normal stocks and bonds limits the diversification. I know SURS (and TRS) throw a bunch of money at different investment managers/firms to diversify (e.g. some real estate, etc...).

Apparently this is another avenue to invest the funds of the UC retirement system. Seems logical and fairly safe on their end. For the B1G, they get an immediate infusion of cash, long term, I'm not sure of the benefit. But this is nothing like turning over control to a PE firm.

I don't believe UC Investments is going to have any say in how the B1G operates. That will be left to the Universities and Big Ten Enterprises, which I believe will be managed by the B1G.

Sidenote: the UC systems is far better funded than any Illinois retirement system (some of the worst in the world).
IMRF Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund is run pretty well. 96% funded and well managed. Although I don’t know if this is comparable to UC. Other than that I liked your post. Informative.
 
#243      
IMRF Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund is run pretty well. 96% funded and well managed. Although I don’t know if this is comparable to UC. Other than that I liked your post. Informative.
You're correct, I forget it's a public pension plan because it's managed independently of the state. Total funds in IMRF is 2.4B or so.

Another way to understand this is UC Investments isn't a PE firm but gives money to PE firms, among many other various investments. All these large pension funds do it, this just is the first to give to a conference (as far as I know).
 
#244      
So it’s apparent why PE might want to invest in B1G (diversified returns), but what does PE do for us? Is there not enough money sloshing around the conference already?
 
#245      
So it’s apparent why PE might want to invest in B1G (diversified returns), but what does PE do for us? Is there not enough money sloshing around the conference already?
There's NEVER enough $ in the eyes of these big conferences. They want not just a slice of the pie, they want the whole pie, the kitchen & the baker all to themselves. Competitive balance, fairness, etc be damned.

Someday years from now, these big leagues may regret what they have done but I'm sure the people sitting in those spots today will be either retired & counting $ or in the ground by the time that day hits.

I still suspect there is perhaps irreparable long term damage being done to college sports with all this money grab & related upheaval (conference expansion/realignment, NIL, absurd transfer turnover, private equity, etc, etc).

I may be wrong, but once everything that made college sports unique is stripped away & sold for a profit, it is just rendered a watered down version of pro sports with no unique characteristics left. TBH it's kind of already happening on the hoops side. My interest in keeping up with 13 or 14 new guys on the team each year is seriously waning. It helps that football is churning along pretty well so that draws some of my interest, In the old days, by this time of year, I was fully invested in the upcoming hoops season, knew all the players names, numbers, etc. Now it's like I'll pay attention for a couple months from December to March & then all those guys will leave anyways.
 
#246      
So it’s apparent why PE might want to invest in B1G (diversified returns), but what does PE do for us? Is there not enough money sloshing around the conference already?
It's about a big up front cash infusion that can be used to fun large capital improvements and othet big ticket items. Like getting a large advance on future earnings.
 
#247      
It's about a big up front cash infusion that can be used to fun large capital improvements and othet big ticket items. Like getting a large advance on future earnings.

I know they've had many people 'running the numbers' to show that an up front $140M or whatever it is will be worth whatever we are giving away in future $ to this new entity, but 99 out of 100 times those numbers never work out. Teams will be getting a lot of $ up front, but lose a ton in future potential revenue. Kind of like Chicago selling all the parking meters for a billion $ thinking it was a windfall, only to realize it could have been worth $75 billion if they just kept the rights.

As stated in this thread earlier, it's really hard for any AD or President who needs money today to fund capital improvements to stay ahead of the rest of college football to pass up that money when they can make the future percentage of lost revenue a problem for another day or another AD or President.

Perhaps they think this new entity can improve overall B1G revenue via merchandising and new media/streaming/advertising deals (outside of the big TV deals), and that will make up for the revenue they are losing to pay out the additional shares, and it will be a net gain.

I read somewhere that OSU sold the rights to its stadium parking for 50 years for $500M up front; maybe these things can be worth it.

I guess time will tell, and I hope it benefits the Illini and we can make it to the next level in football - and stay there.
 
#250      
I know they've had many people 'running the numbers' to show that an up front $140M or whatever it is will be worth whatever we are giving away in future $ to this new entity, but 99 out of 100 times those numbers never work out. Teams will be getting a lot of $ up front, but lose a ton in future potential revenue. Kind of like Chicago selling all the parking meters for a billion $ thinking it was a windfall, only to realize it could have been worth $75 billion if they just kept the rights.

As stated in this thread earlier, it's really hard for any AD or President who needs money today to fund capital improvements to stay ahead of the rest of college football to pass up that money when they can make the future percentage of lost revenue a problem for another day or another AD or President.

Perhaps they think this new entity can improve overall B1G revenue via merchandising and new media/streaming/advertising deals (outside of the big TV deals), and that will make up for the revenue they are losing to pay out the additional shares, and it will be a net gain.

I read somewhere that OSU sold the rights to its stadium parking for 50 years for $500M up front; maybe these things can be worth it.

I guess time will tell, and I hope it benefits the Illini and we can make it to the next level in football - and stay there.

in my experience, these kinds of deals are typically done for one (sometimes more then one) of a few reasons:

1. Cash crunch - business is facing a cash crunch and needs a capital infusion to keep it growing. Certainly doesn't seem to be the case here.
2. Business Model Changes - the business model of the business is changing and requires heavier investment. I guess I see the argument that there's an arms race going on in college sports that requires heavy capital spending and this is an easy way (i.e. don't have to keep tapping donors) for AD's to get the capital investment
3. slowdown in Business - You're seeing that things are tapping out after a strong run. Your "stock" is priced higher than you think it will be in the next year, two years, etc. so you're going to "sell some" right now to an entity that either doesn't see it or doesn't believe you.
4. "Win win" - Sometimes both sides get what they want. Big ten might be getting a quick cash infusion that they want while not giving up that much, while the UC fund gets a unique returns source that is long-term, mostly locked in, and isn't highly correlated to other assets (and they don't have to pay a continuous management fee for it).

If you ask me, of the 4 above, it's probably mostly 3 with maybe some element of 4. College sports used to mostly be about money - now it's all that matters. Whether we like it or not (i don't), the foundational principles of the sport is effectively a pro league (at least basketball and football). With that you get more purely financial decisions. In this case, my theory is the powers at be realize this and may be worried about the down the line implications and are "selling their stock" while it's hot. At the same time, the UC fund gets something unique. Sports investments are a hot area in the investing world right now, and this is probably one of the better assets you could own, even if the stock isn't as valuable as it is right now, it has characteristics that make it more valuable in other ways.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back