2025 NCAA Football Thread

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, Deleterious said:

It wasn't total loss, it was a line item.  Looks like I also had the number a bit off.

https://mgoblue.com/news/2025/6/12/general-michigan-athletics-projects-balanced-budget-for-fiscal-year-2026

 

somewhere upthread I think I posted the number reported by the URecord for the amount the Regents approved to transfer from the general fund to the AD and IIRC it was $16M or $20M - in that vicinity anyway. That may actually represent a bigger one year drop off. Prior to all this upheaval, the AD generally returned money - maybe $10M/yr, to the general fund, but I couldn't tell you if that has still been true recently.

Edited Tuesday at 10:47 AM by gehringer_2

[Deleterious]

And now we know why USC was not on board.

https://x.com/tonypaul1984/status/1990516355913937366

[gehringer_2]

2 hours ago, Deleterious said:

And now we know why USC was not on board.

https://x.com/tonypaul1984/status/1990516355913937366

and they probably knew M would be a point of resistance so they sweetened that pot a much as they dared. But the real answer was further down the thread. M's revenue for a single year is estimated at $142M, which sounds pretty close to me. You're being asked to give away a 10% interest for a third more than one year's rev? Just not a good deal anyway.. Perception fallacy of large numbers. $2B doesn't go that far when you divide it 18 ways and then put it up against current budgets. 

[Deleterious]

13 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

and they probably knew M would be a point of resistance so they sweetened that pot a much as they dared. But the real answer was further down the thread. M's revenue for a single year is estimated at $142M, which sounds pretty close to me. You're being asked to give away a 10% interest for a third more than one year's rev? Just not a good deal anyway.. Perception fallacy of large numbers. $2B doesn't go that far when you divide it 18 ways and then put it up against current budgets. 

Here is how I would judge the deal.

You receive $190 million and if revenue grows at 2% a year for the next 20 years, you give up over $350,000,000 in future revenue.

At 4% growth, it's $439 million.  

6% growth, it's just over $550 million.

No thanks.

Quote

Year	Revenue	Growth Rate	New Rev	10% Yearly Payment
1	$142,000,000	2.00%	$144,840,000	$14,484,000
2	$144,840,000	2.00%	$147,736,800	$14,773,680
3	$147,736,800	2.00%	$150,691,536	$15,069,154
4	$150,691,536	2.00%	$153,705,367	$15,370,537
5	$153,705,367	2.00%	$156,779,474	$15,677,947
6	$156,779,474	2.00%	$159,915,064	$15,991,506
7	$159,915,064	2.00%	$163,113,365	$16,311,336
8	$163,113,365	2.00%	$166,375,632	$16,637,563
9	$166,375,632	2.00%	$169,703,145	$16,970,314
10	$169,703,145	2.00%	$173,097,208	$17,309,721
11	$173,097,208	2.00%	$176,559,152	$17,655,915
12	$176,559,152	2.00%	$180,090,335	$18,009,033
13	$180,090,335	2.00%	$183,692,142	$18,369,214
14	$183,692,142	2.00%	$187,365,984	$18,736,598
15	$187,365,984	2.00%	$191,113,304	$19,111,330
16	$191,113,304	2.00%	$194,935,570	$19,493,557
17	$194,935,570	2.00%	$198,834,282	$19,883,428
18	$198,834,282	2.00%	$202,810,967	$20,281,097
19	$202,810,967	2.00%	$206,867,186	$20,686,719
20	$206,867,186	2.00%	$211,004,530	$21,100,453
				$351,923,104

 

[buddha]

its an incredibly bad deal.  it undervalues the product.  it is a payday loan.  michigan is right.

this should be the canary in the coalmine for college sports.  if the big ten - the biggest and richest conference in america - cannot reliably make a profit under the current system, then the current system is not sustainable.

[gehringer_2]

49 minutes ago, buddha said:

its an incredibly bad deal.  it undervalues the product.  it is a payday loan.  michigan is right.

this should be the canary in the coalmine for college sports.  if the big ten - the biggest and richest conference in america - cannot reliably make a profit under the current system, then the current system is not sustainable.

Congress should have stepped in after the 1st NIL court ruling and decided which genies needed to stay in which bottles, Legislation is probably the only thing that can fix it all now, but without getting political about it in more than the most general way, this is the kind of stuff that can run off the rails for years when the government stops functioning.

Edited Wednesday at 04:10 AM by gehringer_2

[Deleterious]

$350m repaid on $190m borrowed over 20 years is about a 3.5% loan.  How bad/good the deal is depends on what type of ROI you think you can get on the $190m infusion.  If you think you can earn >=6% welllllll

[buddha]

4 hours ago, Deleterious said:

$350m repaid on $190m borrowed over 20 years is about a 3.5% loan.  How bad/good the deal is depends on what type of ROI you think you can get on the $190m infusion.  If you think you can earn >=6% welllllll

theyre going to spend all of that in year one or two buying players and coaches and balancing budgets.  its taking a loan to pay off short term operational costs.  only a couple are in debt for making capital investments like penn state with their stadium.

[gehringer_2]

3 hours ago, buddha said:

theyre going to spend all of that in year one or two buying players and coaches and balancing budgets.  its taking a loan to pay off short term operational costs.  only a couple are in debt for making capital investments like penn state with their stadium.

right. And not borrowing for operational expenses is a pretty good rule of thumb for anybody other than a start-up. And didn't PSU issue LT bonds for the stadium? Have they got weird rules in PA or something?

Edited Wednesday at 02:45 PM by gehringer_2

[buddha]

9 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

right. And not borrowing for operational expenses is a pretty good rule of thumb for anybody other than a start-up. And didn't PSU issue LT bonds for the stadium? Have they got weird rules in PA or something?

im not sure about psu's status.

but i do know that if money making machines like ohio state and michigan are operating at deficits (of differing size), the system is not working.  unless the schools are willing to permanently operate with deficits of varying size and justify it as a marketing tool or some mumbo jumbo about how "sports buikds character" type line in order to take money from the university's general fund, etc.

the solution to that is not taking out a short term loan to make payroll while lowering your future revenues.

again, extending the grant of rights has to be key for all the schools other than michigan, osu, psu, and usc.  not sure why osu is going along with that just for $190 million.

[4hzglory]

28 minutes ago, buddha said:

again, extending the grant of rights has to be key for all the schools other than michigan, osu, psu, and usc.  not sure why osu is going along with that just for $190 million.

Yeah, I don't get it at all from OSU and am very thankful UM and USC came against this.

[Hongbit]

Big time football is a weird business.  It’s has all the parts of a non-profit but also this huge revenue engine that makes money on its own every year.  Donors give to it like a charity and aren’t looking for equity or even financial gain.   It’s either a super ego stroke or an estate planning vehicle for the super wealthy.    

There’s no real reason for the top programs to sell off an equity stake and also tie up their TV rights for another ten years.   What they need to do is stop spending like a Russian Crypto Billionaire.   Thats the reason these programs are operating at deficits.  Too much ludicrous spending things they don’t need.    

USC is building a brand new state of the art football facility to replace the brand new state of the art facility they created 12 years ago.  The prior redo before that was in the early 80’s.   They also completely expanded and redid their practice fields a few years back at a huge cost.   Nationally, we’ve seen all of the ridiculous locker room expansions with no expense spared.  Most have more amenities than NFL facilities.  None of these school spare any expense on the staff, facilities, and programs for nutrition and weight training.    

The funniest part is now that stuff doesn’t really matter that much getting players.   The cost of doing business in recruiting isn’t how much you put into infrastructure.  It’s how much you can pay players.  

Edited Wednesday at 05:22 PM by Hongbit

[Deleterious]

5 hours ago, buddha said:

theyre going to spend all of that in year one or two buying players and coaches and balancing budgets.  its taking a loan to pay off short term operational costs.  only a couple are in debt for making capital investments like penn state with their stadium.

Irrelevant when they spend it.  And I want them spending it on better players and coaches.  There isn't a faster way to increase revenue for a CFB program than investing in better talent.  Better talent usually creates a better product (Not always) and a better product creates demand, and demand is king.   Demand lets me charge $20 more a ticket, $10 more for parking, $2 more per beer, $1 more per hot-dog, etc.  Now your stadium is at capacity, maybe we need another 10,000 seats added on in the south end zone.  So on and so on.

I realize it's easy to say, just spend more on players/coaches and then start backing up revenue dump trucks.  I understand it will still take a lot of smart people to come up with and execute a plan to make that money work.  I also understand not all 18 schools will be able to do it.  I don't care.  If we wait around for a plan that all 18 schools can implement successfully, we will never have a plan.

No, these are not payday loans.  A payday loan starts the same as any loan.  They give you money today, and you give them some of your future revenue.  What makes a payday loan bad is the 300%, 400%, 500% interest they are going to charge you.  At a 3.5% interest rate, these are the furthest thing from payday loans.  I doubt the Big Ten could approach a commercial bank and get a 3.5% loan.  

Having said that, I still wouldn't make the deal.  But the money side of things isn't nearly as bad as people want to make it out to be.  

[gehringer_2]

2 hours ago, buddha said:

im not sure about psu's status.

but i do know that if money making machines like ohio state and michigan are operating at deficits (of differing size), the system is not working.  unless the schools are willing to permanently operate with deficits of varying size and justify it as a marketing tool or some mumbo jumbo about how "sports buikds character" type line in order to take money from the university's general fund, etc.

the solution to that is not taking out a short term loan to make payroll while lowering your future revenues.

again, extending the grant of rights has to be key for all the schools other than michigan, osu, psu, and usc.  not sure why osu is going along with that just for $190 million.

I've seen some OSU folks complaining in social media (for what that's worth of course....) that the top leadership at OSU right now are political hacks and looking for leadership there is futile. But  I'll state I've not personally done nor do I plan to do any research into the quality of the OSU leadership.  🎓

Edited Wednesday at 05:43 PM by gehringer_2

[Deleterious]

OSU could get that money in a super league, probably even more.  The fact they are willing to give up 10 more years on GoR should show you they don't want anything to do with a super league.  Right now, the only school with the power and influence they enjoy in their conference is Michigan.  A super league would erode their power base by quite a large margin.  

[gehringer_2]

7 minutes ago, Deleterious said:

And I want them spending it on better players and coaches.  There isn't a faster way to increase revenue for a CFB program than investing in better talent.  Better talent usually creates a better product (Not always) and a better product creates demand, and demand is king. 

I think I have to disagree with the premise. The quality of NCAA football has always been miles below that of the NFL, but that never kept  schools from filling their stadiums. So the key in college football hasn't been how good the players are, it's the draw of the ties to the schools that people are attached to - either by direct relationship, geography or just general fandom.  Back in the Bo/Woody days of the B10, they were clearly  playing an inferior brand of football than what was appearing on fields in the South and West, didn't affect the popularity of the product in the midwest at all. No M fan moved his allegiance to UCLA because they had figured out how to pass the ball. The beauty of football is that you get exciting games as long as teams are well matched at whatever level that is. The rest is all in the legacy allegiances. 

As I argued to Buddha the other day and still believe, if you took all the players in the NCAA and put them in a 'AAA' minor football league, that league with the same players playing the same game would only be worth only a fraction of what they are attached to their Universities.

[Deleterious]

6 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

I think I have to disagree with the premise. The quality of NCAA football has always been miles below that of the NFL, but that never kept  schools from filling their stadiums. So the key in college football hasn't been how good the players are, it's the draw of the ties to the schools that people are attached to - either by direct relationship, geography or just general fandom.  Back in the Bo/Woody days of the B10, they were clearly  playing an inferior brand of football than what was appearing on fields in the South and West, didn't affect the popularity of the product in the midwest at all. No M fan moved his allegiance to UCLA because they had figured out how to pass the ball. The beauty of football is that you get exciting games as long as teams are well matched at whatever level that is. The rest is all in the legacy allegiances. 

As I argued to Buddha the other day and still believe, if you took all the players in the NCAA and put them in a 'AAA' minor football league, that league with the same players playing the same game would only be worth only a fraction of what they are attached to their Universities.

 

[Deleterious]

None of this really matters.  Eventually, that NFL revenue will flatten out.  When that happens, they lobby congress to change the laws about broadcasting on Saturdays and crush the NCAA or whatever version they have at the time.  That gives them another 5-7 nationally televised games to charge advertisers for.  

[buddha]

1 hour ago, Deleterious said:

OSU could get that money in a super league, probably even more.  The fact they are willing to give up 10 more years on GoR should show you they don't want anything to do with a super league.  Right now, the only school with the power and influence they enjoy in their conference is Michigan.  A super league would erode their power base by quite a large margin.  

or it shows you the people in charge are dealing with a shorter time line and want the money now.  there is a political element to those spots.

and let us not forget before we praise michigan's sudden fit of principle pique, their former president was leading the committee that was in charge of seeking new revenue ideas from where this proposal initially came.

typical if michigan, it decided to get all snooty and principled about it after the fact.  😉

[buddha]

1 hour ago, Deleterious said:

Irrelevant when they spend it.  And I want them spending it on better players and coaches.  There isn't a faster way to increase revenue for a CFB program than investing in better talent.  Better talent usually creates a better product (Not always) and a better product creates demand, and demand is king.   Demand lets me charge $20 more a ticket, $10 more for parking, $2 more per beer, $1 more per hot-dog, etc.  Now your stadium is at capacity, maybe we need another 10,000 seats added on in the south end zone.  So on and so on.

I realize it's easy to say, just spend more on players/coaches and then start backing up revenue dump trucks.  I understand it will still take a lot of smart people to come up with and execute a plan to make that money work.  I also understand not all 18 schools will be able to do it.  I don't care.  If we wait around for a plan that all 18 schools can implement successfully, we will never have a plan.

No, these are not payday loans.  A payday loan starts the same as any loan.  They give you money today, and you give them some of your future revenue.  What makes a payday loan bad is the 300%, 400%, 500% interest they are going to charge you.  At a 3.5% interest rate, these are the furthest thing from payday loans.  I doubt the Big Ten could approach a commercial bank and get a 3.5% loan.  

Having said that, I still wouldn't make the deal.  But the money side of things isn't nearly as bad as people want to make it out to be.  

it is relevant when and how they spend it.  if they blow through 100 million in a year to patch up debt ir pay players who arent going to change the overall trajectory of the program - and not every team in the big ten or will be indiana - and dont change the infrastructure or spending in their programs, gheyre going to be right back where they started in two or three years except now they get 10% less revenue each year.

[Deleterious]

39 minutes ago, buddha said:

or it shows you the people in charge are dealing with a shorter time line and want the money now.  there is a political element to those spots.

That is fair. 

But both conference have recently signed new GoR deals and there was almost no momentum for a super league.  The little there was mostly came from ESPN.  Both decided to punt on it for the next 10+ years.  

I think fans are more interested in a super league than the actual football programs are.

 

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, buddha said:

and let us not forget before we praise michigan's sudden fit of principle pique, their former president was leading the committee that was in charge of seeking new revenue ideas from where this proposal initially came.

typical if michigan, it decided to get all snooty and principled about it after the fact.  😉

It's always been a big point in A^2 that the football program was always cash flow positive back the rest of the U, which I suppose is or should be true in a lot of places, but in any case, you can understand leadership that didn't want to responsible for that changing. Goes to show just because you look doesn't mean you find something useful!

[gehringer_2]

27 minutes ago, Deleterious said:

That is fair. 

But both conference have recently signed new GoR deals and there was almost no momentum for a super league.  The little there was mostly came from ESPN.  Both decided to punt on it for the next 10+ years.  

I think fans are more interested in a super league than the actual football programs are.

 

Yup. We've talked about it before, the fans tend to be very short horizon, what the schools realize that fans don't is that you put together one conference of all the perennial top 20 teams, half of them will start losing half their games, and I don't think that's an appealing future for a Michigan or a Clemson. In the heyday of the Yankees being the Yankees, was when the Senators were being the Senators. Someone has to willing the be the Northwesterns of a new super league and I don't imagine any one is.

Edited Wednesday at 08:12 PM by gehringer_2

[Hongbit]

If I was in charge Ohio State, I’d be exploring every avenue to remove Les Wexner’s money from anything having to do with the program.     Hard thing to do since his name is everywhere at the university.    

 

[Deleterious]