Sources: Big Ten discussing $2 billion private capital deal

The Big Ten is in talks about a private capital deal, which includes a 10-year grant of rights extension through '46, that would infuse at least $2 billion, sources told ESPN.

ESPN.com

Sources: Big Ten mulling $2B private capital deal

The Big Ten is in talks about a private capital deal, which includes a 10-year grant of rights extension through 2046, that would infuse at least $2 billion into the league and its schools, sources to

Big Ten’s Latest Bad Idea: Selling Its Future for Private Capital

Talks about a $2 billion capital deal have dragged for months and lacked unanimity, but Wednesday brought a new sign of progress.

SI

Big Ten’s Latest Bad Idea: Selling Its Future for Private...

Talks about a $2 billion capital deal have dragged for months and lacked unanimity, but Wednesday brought a new sign of progress.

Is this money going to help the non revenue sports? Is it to offset the travel costs of the expanded map already in play or potentially when the league expands into the South with FSU, North Carolina, Virginia and Georgia Tech ? Why are Michigan and Ohio State potentially against this?

"If a private equity firm can create a win-win scenario where it invests, fine. But if not, it will create a win for itself first and foremost."

'nough said.

32 minutes ago, GatOrlando said:

Is this money going to help the non revenue sports? Is it to offset the travel costs of the expanded map already in play or potentially when the league expands into the South with FSU, North Carolina, Virginia and Georgia Tech ? Why are Michigan and Ohio State potentially against this?

$2 billion for media rights extension through 2046? For 100% of the media rights. Are the B1G media rights now pledged by all member schools through 2036, with the current media deal expiring in 2030?

On the surface, the deal appears to be thin, no? Future media deal projections estimate each school receiving up to $100 million a year in revenue distributions beginning in 2031. If the new deal runs through 2036, that's $600 million a member, $10.8 billion total. But, wait a minute ...

As Pete Thamel's article on ESPN notes, the equity share payment to each member would be tiered; Northwestern would not receive the same share as Ohio State. And the entity infusing the capital would own 5%, one twentieth, of Big Ten Enterprises. The conference would remain in control of its business affairs.

Now, the potential deal makes more sense. I trust Petitti and the Big Ten's investment bankers not to get taken advantage of. So-called 'Expert Journalists,' excluding Pete Thamel, whose article is explanatory rather than critical, opining that this is another bad idea from the B1G, are again clueless. (We will see an AQ PO format and PO expansion, probably sooner than later.)

Tony Petitti's goal is to keep the Big Ten together as a holistic enterprise; no need to form a Super Conference. No need to leave any program behind, while also taking into consideration that not all members, when it comes to the bottom line, are equal. Coming from a media background, another likely goal of Petitti is to own and control Big Ten broadcasts, including when football games kick off.

The B1G and other big-time college sports conferences and teams will continue to seek out new revenue sources. As the conference with the most revenue, the B1G is in the driver's seat.

AAaaannddd there it is. As soon as college football became NFL-lite "money" ideas started to be put into play by Non-football entities. Always, always seems, looks, feels positive and a greAt idea (sold to us that way), and sometimes it can be, but as Steven A pointed out that when the "profits" hit the bottom line the ONLY concern a "private equity" firm has is for themselves and their Largest investors. Maybe the B1G should have a "chat" with struggling Las Vegas and how their "partnerships" with the "private equity" firms have worked out for them so far.

Lord please let the Ducks win the "Natty" before too much of what we love About this sport, that we enjoy and follow so adamantly; gets morphed into simply another "product" to mold, control, manipulate, and bullrushed into squeezing every last penny of profit out of it by people who give an absolute rat'butt about the product that they squeeze the life out of.

Hope they know what can-O-worms they are opening and how the echos of the consequence's will become permanent and irreversible to the NFL-lite landscape.

Be careful for what you wish for.

Monkeypaw energy with this announcement.

Go Ducks.

I’m not going to dig too much into anything I have zero control over, such as how my entertainment is funded.

That being said, agreeing to anything that goes until 2046 seems completely insane on the surface imo. If you want an example, just look at how bad (moving forward) the ACC current grant of rights deal looks right now…and it still has 11 years to go.

Edited October 2Oct 2 by JabbaNoBargain

Beware of wolves in sheep’s clothing.

Let’s see…Private equity looks at ways they can improve the BIG 10 (they just want to make money), all you have to do is sell us equity rights, in something that is very hard to value.

The problem is that each University brings a different valuation to the table. Therefore, you immediately set up an argument over proper valuation, and distribution.

Absolutely no way this goes smoothly.

32 minutes ago, MicroBurst61 said:

AAaaannddd there it is. As soon as college football became NFL-lite "money" ideas started to be put into play by Non-football entities. Always, always seems, looks, feels positive and a greAt idea (sold to us that way), and sometimes it can be, but as Steven A pointed out that when the "profits" hit the bottom line the ONLY concern a "private equity" firm has is for themselves and their Largest investors. Maybe the B1G should have a "chat" with struggling Las Vegas and how their "partnerships" with the "private equity" firms have worked out for them so far.

Lord please let the Ducks win the "Natty" before too much of what we love About this sport, that we enjoy and follow so adamantly; gets morphed into simply another "product" to mold, control, manipulate, and bullrushed into squeezing every last penny of profit out of it by people who give an absolute rat'butt about the product that they squeeze the life out of.

Hope they know what can-O-worms they are opening and how the echos of the consequence's will become permanent and irreversible to the NFL-lite landscape.

Be careful for what you wish for.

Monkeypaw energy with this announcement.

Go Ducks.

I get your well-made point. But CFB is a hard beast to kill.

According to Fox Media Analytics president Mike Mulville, CFB viewership is up 19% year to year and 36% over the last five years.

Even amongst all of the free agent transfer portal chaos and pay-for-play concerns, CFB is a growth industry.

This seems like a huge risk that is not necessary at this time. This is something the PAC-12 should have considered when the ship was starting to sink in an effort to save the conference. This is not something the BIG should do in position No.1 among all the conferences, IMO.

This has a Goodfellas Restaurant scene vibe:

Edited October 2Oct 2 by GeotechDuck

38 minutes ago, MicroBurst61 said:

AAaaannddd there it is. As soon as college football became NFL-lite "money" ideas started to be put into play by Non-football entities. Always, always seems, looks, feels positive and a greAt idea (sold to us that way), and sometimes it can be, but as Steven A pointed out that when the "profits" hit the bottom line the ONLY concern a "private equity" firm has is for themselves and their Largest investors. Maybe the B1G should have a "chat" with struggling Las Vegas and how their "partnerships" with the "private equity" firms have worked out for them so far.

Lord please let the Ducks win the "Natty" before too much of what we love About this sport, that we enjoy and follow so adamantly; gets morphed into simply another "product" to mold, control, manipulate, and bullrushed into squeezing every last penny of profit out of it by people who give an absolute rat'butt about the product that they squeeze the life out of.

Hope they know what can-O-worms they are opening and how the echos of the consequence's will become permanent and irreversible to the NFL-lite landscape.

Be careful for what you wish for.

Monkeypaw energy with this announcement.

Go Ducks.

Concerns noted and understood. However, the proposed deal gives the investor(s) only a 5% stake in the to-be-formed Big Ten Enterprises through 2046. If $2B buys 5% for a fixed term only, the conference, through 2046, is valued at $40 billion.

Tony Petitti, the Big Ten, and the conference's investment bankers will not be hosed over.

The conference retains all of its governance rights. After 2046, the investor(s) one twentieth interest ends.

Well the Devil is in the details. One thing I absolutely like is that would obliterate a Super League. I'm no longer a fan of the Second P2, but millions of people are, and they matter to the future of college football if it will thrive as an institution like it thrives now.

I absolutely love the idea of "play in" games for the college playoff. But only if the field is twelve teams. The second P2 won't see much in a boost in ratings, but they'll get much needed money.

We're way past the late 1800s. CFB has been an money making business institution since the 70s. The kids were massively exploited, and now they're not. While I despise knowing 17 year olds are getting paid millions because they might be good, now any kid that can garnish a huge social media following can and should get paid.

And average players are getting paid for the time they invest in the sport. That just. Not fair, but actually a just act on the part of the universities.

Us "mummies" remember an era when integrity was an actual institution itself. Now greed, as Michael Douglas so eloquently explained, is good.

The idea that the B1G is looking at preserving itself as an institution isn't horrible, it is pragmatic. Clearly the SEC is trying to scheme everyone else. So I see nothing wrong with the B1G mapping out a future for itself.

We'll have to scour the details to determine if they pulled off a wise move. If course it's no surprise seeing Ohio State and Michigan trying to rule things. Methinks OBD need to win this conference five years straight so they recognize a new sheriff is in town.

I've changed mind about going undefeated all year and winning the conference again. Ohio State and Michigan need a tremendous dose of humble pie.

Sorry for the rant, but I'm getting tired of being ignored when it's clear "new money" is here to stay. The Rockefellers and Vanderbilts are getting rocked by new blood. We're taking the mantle damn it, and there's nothing they can do about it.

Now if we can get a couple of Natty's...

I have worked with private equity firms and they use questionable tactics.

33 minutes ago, Mike West said:

Well the Devil is in the details

They will always tout their management expertise to increase values, but generally look for short term profits with little regard to the long term health. Private equity works best when valuation of assets is based upon an active marketplace.

They will pay themselves huge management fees, and once they own something, they also have the rights to sell it.

I would immediately vote no on the idea of capitalization of something that is so very difficult to value. How often do you see equity right to a Universities ability to generate income up for sale?

I hate private equity that typically seems to strip mine everything it can at everyone's expense.

In this case it appears the B1G is getting:

1. $2B

2. Outsourced Business Management

3. Outsourced Business development, with incentives to drive growth

The entity is getting 5% of the profits going forward.

It seems like a reasonable deal.

My concerns lie in strip mining fans which the B1G governance has to limit, but they will be under a lot more incentive and pressure from the entity to do bad things for the fans that increase profits (i.e. corruption).

I'm also nervous about how this affects the flexibility of the league and it's compounded by extending the grant of right to TWO DECADES which as another poster commented sounds extremely foolish in light of the ACC experience.

Is conference realignment frozen by this? Are distributions to the equity holders frozen by this? Are the media deals frozen by this?

Bottom line, anytime private equity gets involved the public's pockets are going to get picked. This will be no different. The inflation of prices for everything the B1G gets a cut of will be huge as the find the pricing pain point where hardcore fans tap out. Jerseys, game and tailgating tickets, B1G network subscriptions, longer commercial breaks, etc.

And who knows what the future holds and how the lack of flexibility could leave the B1G out in the cold as the industry innovates, resulting in hollowing out the league.

Edited October 2Oct 2 by Solar

I am reminded of a short story I read in high school some 71 plus years ago about a fellow who sold his soul to the devil. Didn't turn out too great for him.

This deal is being promoted by people who will make a commission off the sale. I'm reasonably positive that the best interests of Duck fans are not at the top of their list of goals.

Right now, college football and college athletics in general are in a constant state of change. Not a time to put your feet in concrete for the next 20 years.

A $40 billion valuation. $2 billion for 5% which reverts to the conference in 2047. The conference retains management of its own affairs. How does a 5% owner of a to-be-formed Big Ten Enterprises have the power to run and ruin the conference now or in the future? It doesn't.

The goal is to keep the conference together and not have to look at partnerships with teams from other conferences to raise the operating cash to compete for championships. To have the money on hand to avoid draconian cuts to athletic departments and non-revenue sports.

I, too, have worked with private equity businesses. I'm certain Tony Petitti has worked with private equity. They have their valuation experts, and so does the Big Ten. This has been a protracted negotiation. Petitti and his advisers did not fall off the last pumpkin wagon coming through town. They are not going to give control and the future of the conference away.

How else do the critics of the proposed transaction plan on raising additional operating funds? The choice is the same choice every business enterprise in growth mode faces: incur debt or sell a slice of equity. The sports inventory has already been leveraged, and the Big Ten has secured the best return of all the competing conferences.

The predicate, as Mike West noted above, that many people refuse to recognize: college athletics is big business. The B1G is the biggest in the industry.

IMO, selling a small slice of equity for a fixed time is much more favorable than incurring long-term debt, and the goal of holding the conference together is worthwhile. A goal a conference commissioner should see as Job One.

17 hours ago, Jon Joseph said:

$2 billion for media rights extension through 2046? For 100% of the media rights. Are the B1G media rights now pledged by all member schools through 2036, with the current media deal expiring in 2030?

On the surface, the deal appears to be thin, no? Future media deal projections estimate each school receiving up to $100 million a year in revenue distributions beginning in 2031. If the new deal runs through 2036, that's $600 million a member, $10.8 billion total. But, wait a minute ...

As Pete Thamel's article on ESPN notes, the equity share payment to each member would be tiered; Northwestern would not receive the same share as Ohio State. And the entity infusing the capital would own 5%, one twentieth, of Big Ten Enterprises. The conference would remain in control of its business affairs.

Now, the potential deal makes more sense. I trust Petitti and the Big Ten's investment bankers not to get taken advantage of. So-called 'Expert Journalists,' excluding Pete Thamel, whose article is explanatory rather than critical, opining that this is another bad idea from the B1G, are again clueless. (We will see an AQ PO format and PO expansion, probably sooner than later.)

Tony Petitti's goal is to keep the Big Ten together as a holistic enterprise; no need to form a Super Conference. No need to leave any program behind, while also taking into consideration that not all members, when it comes to the bottom line, are equal. Coming from a media background, another likely goal of Petitti is to own and control Big Ten broadcasts, including when football games kick off.

The B1G and other big-time college sports conferences and teams will continue to seek out new revenue sources. As the conference with the most revenue, the B1G is in the driver's seat.

Thank you for that explanation Jon. So private equity will own a percentage of the brands merchandising? They'll have say so over which brand plays on a certain platform or timeslots? If Ohio State is deemed more valuable than Northwestern, does that mean Ohio State will be moved into more primetime matchups while Northwestern plays a MAC school?

Seems like a slippery slope. What happens if the investors start interjecting and forcing Oregon, Ohio State, and Michigan into bigger matchups while Purdue, Wisconsin, and Minnesota get easier opponents?

7 hours ago, Jon Joseph said:

A $40 billion valuation. $2 billion for 5% which reverts to the conference in 2047. The conference retains management of its own affairs. How does a 5% owner of a to-be-formed Big Ten Enterprises have the power to run and ruin the conference now or in the future? It doesn't.

The goal is to keep the conference together and not have to look at partnerships with teams from other conferences to raise the operating cash to compete for championships. To have the money on hand to avoid draconian cuts to athletic departments and non-revenue sports.

I, too, have worked with private equity businesses. I'm certain Tony Petitti has worked with private equity. They have their valuation experts, and so does the Big Ten. This has been a protracted negotiation. Petitti and his advisers did not fall off the last pumpkin wagon coming through town. They are not going to give control and the future of the conference away.

How else do the critics of the proposed transaction plan on raising additional operating funds? The choice is the same choice every business enterprise in growth mode faces: incur debt or sell a slice of equity. The sports inventory has already been leveraged, and the Big Ten has secured the best return of all the competing conferences.

The predicate, as Mike West noted above, that many people refuse to recognize: college athletics is big business. The B1G is the biggest in the industry.

IMO, selling a small slice of equity for a fixed time is much more favorable than incurring long-term debt, and the goal of holding the conference together is worthwhile. A goal a conference commissioner should see as Job One.

Sorry John. I've literally never heard of a private equity deal that didn't ultimately screw over the little guy. They will find a way.

They will be a stage 4 cancer the B1G office will never admit they have for the next 20 years as fans get the short end of the stick in an insidious manner.

6 hours ago, GatOrlando said:

Thank you for that explanation Jon. So private equity will own a percentage of the brands merchandising? They'll have say so over which brand plays on a certain platform or timeslots? If Ohio State is deemed more valuable than Northwestern, does that mean Ohio State will be moved into more primetime matchups while Northwestern plays a MAC school?

Seems like a slippery slope. What happens if the investors start interjecting and forcing Oregon, Ohio State, and Michigan into bigger matchups while Purdue, Wisconsin, and Minnesota get easier opponents?

Gat, I'm not saying anyone's concerns about a new enterprise aren't warranted. But how does a 5% equity holder tell the other 95% what they have to do? The format of the newly formed Big Ten Enterprises will own 95% of the equity.

In 2007, B1G commissioner Jim Delaney had an idea. The conference would start its own network dedicated solely to the broadcast and coverage of a single conference's athletics. He convinced Fox to provide 61% of the new venture's start-up capital.

Delaney, the Big Ten, and Fox were laughed at and skewered coast to coast over an insane idea that would be a disaster for the conference and Fox. I'm pretty sure Jim, the B1G, and Fox got the last laugh.

27 minutes ago, Solar said:

Sorry John. I've literally never heard of a private equity deal that didn't ultimately screw over the little guy. They will find a way.

They will be a stage 4 cancer the B1G office will never admit they have for the next 20 years as fans get the short end of the stick in an insidious manner.

Friend Solar, there is risk, of course. However, with a 95% equity stake in Big Ten Enterprises, I believe Tony Petitti and his advisers have mitigated the risk. How is a 5% stake holder going to call the shots?

I also note that Microsoft, Google, and Apple start ups were all funded with private equity. The financial world opined that Microsoft and its idea of personal computers would never work. Microsoft came close to taking down IBM.

If this deal happens as was the case with the Big Ten Network, others will follow suit.

1 minute ago, Jon Joseph said:

Friend Solar, there is risk, of course. However, with a 95% equity stake in Big Ten Enterprises, I believe Tony Petitti and his advisers have mitigated the risk. How is a 5% stake holder going to call the shots?

I also note that Microsoft, Google, and Apple start ups were all funded with private equity. The financial world opined that Microsoft and its idea of personnel computers would never work. Microsoft came close to taking down IBM.

If this deal happens as was the case with the Big Ten Network, others will follow suit.

Capitalism is risk and private equity is an integral part of that risk diversification. Jon noted several huge and now publicly owned companies that received PE boosts during their 20th century startup phases. Add 21st century successes like Spotify, Uber, Fanatics, DocuSign, Shopify, AirBnB to that list. Not to mention the 800# gorillas Facebook (Meta) and Twitter (X).

A significant majority of the universities that importantly figure in CFB are state run enterprises. We have seen how that management and fiscal wisdom sometimes works out: PAC12 demise. This is not to make an economic or political statement on state run vs private run entities, as billions of dollars of private money have been dumped into fruitless holes in the ground. It is merely to point out that PE is not to be feared or avoided simply because that part of the deal is focused on return to investors.

Of course the PE suits will push for the best deal they can get. The negotiators for B1G are not babes in the woods that will give away the farm. They are not total fools like Larry Scott. Remember that Petitti's background is law, media and MLB, all hardnosed private enterprises. I imagine that he and the B1G negotiators know what they are doing so I would give them the benefit of the doubt as these proposals get fleshed out.

Sports Illustrated's balanced look at the issue of private capital. Arguments pro and con are well expressed.

SI

Inside the Big Ten’s Private Capital Gamble: What It Mean...

The conference is weighing a $2 billion deal that could reshape revenue, control and the future of college athletics.

Using assets (ability to generate income), and creating a security with very little liquidity creates the need for the Private Equity Firm to secure a favorable deal.

Private Equity will need to generate a return on investment that pays for their internal management fees (1.5 to as high as 2.5% is common), and also a high enough return to offset the liquidity risk to investors. The security would need to pay investors a higher return than investment grade bonds (AAA to BBB ratings).

Bonds pay interest and return principal upon maturity, and have a very active market to sell when needed.

I would simply question what is the underlying motive for entering into a deal like this when you will be paying higher than normal market rates.

On 10/3/2025 at 8:41 AM, Jon Joseph said:

Gat, I'm not saying anyone's concerns about a new enterprise aren't warranted. But how does a 5% equity holder tell the other 95% what they have to do? The format of the newly formed Big Ten Enterprises will own 95% of the equity.

In 2007, B1G commissioner Jim Delaney had an idea. The conference would start its own network dedicated solely to the broadcast and coverage of a single conference's athletics. He convinced Fox to provide 61% of the new venture's start-up capital.

Delaney, the Big Ten, and Fox were laughed at and skewered coast to coast over an insane idea that would be a disaster for the conference and Fox. I'm pretty sure Jim, the B1G, and Fox got the last laugh.

On 10/3/2025 at 8:41 AM, Jon Joseph said:

Gat, I'm not saying anyone's concerns about a new enterprise aren't warranted. But how does a 5% equity holder tell the other 95% what they have to do? The format of the newly formed Big Ten Enterprises will own 95% of the equity.

In 2007, B1G commissioner Jim Delaney had an idea. The conference would start its own network dedicated solely to the broadcast and coverage of a single conference's athletics. He convinced Fox to provide 61% of the new venture's start-up capital.

Delaney, the Big Ten, and Fox were laughed at and skewered coast to coast over an insane idea that would be a disaster for the conference and Fox. I'm pretty sure Jim, the B1G, and Fox got the last laugh.

I got you Jon. Ididn't see it like that, I was hung up on the language. I was just questioning what these private investors are going to want or are getting promised to invest in these brands. I know private donors get things named after them, and the larger ones get some voice in the room. I know these are going to be very small percentile in comparison to what the B1G has already, but they will want something.

I hope we don't get patches on the uniforms or fields. That's my only hope.

On 10/4/2025 at 9:19 AM, Drake said:

Using assets (ability to generate income), and creating a security with very little liquidity creates the need for the Private Equity Firm to secure a favorable deal.

Private Equity will need to generate a return on investment that pays for their internal management fees (1.5 to as high as 2.5% is common), and also a high enough return to offset the liquidity risk to investors. The security would need to pay investors a higher return than investment grade bonds (AAA to BBB ratings).

Bonds pay interest and return principal upon maturity, and have a very active market to sell when needed.

I would simply question what is the underlying motive for entering into a deal like this when you will be paying higher than normal market rates.

In a word, the motivation for PE to pay 'higher than market' rates is growth. If the investment in B1G results in growth of the product (media contracts, etc), then that investment is more like an equity than a debt instrument (say, AAA bond, which is just a promise to repay the loan at a set interest rate). Thus the motivation to pay a bit more, even if you are angling for the best possible deal at the same time.

5 minutes ago, EastBayDuckDad said:

equity than a debt instrument

Equity with an expira

12 minutes ago, EastBayDuckDad said:

In a word, the motivation for PE to pay 'higher than market' rates is growth. If the investment in B1G results in growth of the product (media contracts, etc), then that investment is more like an equity than a debt instrument (say, AAA bond, which is just a promise to repay the loan at a set interest rate). Thus the motivation to pay a bit more, even if you are angling for the best possible deal at the same time.

Cost of the transaction is an important consideration. There are other “costs” that need to be considered.

One example is the non-profit status of Athletic Conferences, and Athletic Departments that is already under scrutiny. A multi-billion dollar transaction is quite visible, and will be opposed by people outside of the conference.

The tax exempt status of college athletics departments is hitched to the idea that the main mission of a University is education. The commercialization of college sports with literally billions involved really muddies those waters.

I am all for growth, just saying other costs are in play.

4 hours ago, Drake said:

Equity with an expira

Cost of the transaction is an important consideration. There are other “costs” that need to be considered.

One example is the non-profit status of Athletic Conferences, and Athletic Departments that is already under scrutiny. A multi-billion dollar transaction is quite visible, and will be opposed by people outside of the conference.

The tax exempt status of college athletics departments is hitched to the idea that the main mission of a University is education. The commercialization of college sports with literally billions involved really muddies those waters.

I am all for growth, just saying other costs are in play.

Kentucky has moved its Athletic Department from under the university umbrella and into a newly formed Limited Liability Company. In the pursuit of cash, one size will not fit all.

OBD fans are blessed to have an Athletic Department in the black. If you look across the landscape of B1G schools, this is the exception and not the rule. Where else could many unsuccessful 'subsidiaries' have their 'parent company' valued at $40 billion?

Private capital puts up $2 billion for 5%, with the 5% going away in 2046. Of course, beware the details, but on its face, it looks like a good deal, one that will deliver funds to flat-broke UCLA athletic department. But any deal will not happen, of course, without sign-offs from Ohio State and Michigan.

Yahoo with an update on B1G entering into a private capital agreement with California?🤔

https://sports.yahoo.com/college-football/article/big-ten-nearing-decision-on-24-billion-deal-with-california-pension-investment-fund-in-landmark-move-within-college-athletics-170051033.html

To my understanding, the current media deal led by Fox expires in 2029-30 and not 2037.

Prior articles had the investor receiving a 5% profit-sharing deal through 2026-27, and not 10% of the equity in the to be formed Big Ten Enterprises. This is a different deal with a state-owned entity. I'm not sure this deal makes sense. Especially for Oregon with an Athletic Department in the Black. However, both the Michigan and Ohio State Athletic Departments are bleeding Red ink. Could OBD veto the deal?

California Public Employee Pension Fund (PERS) is functionally insolvent. I can't tell whether the Department referred to in the article is the same department as PERS.

With all this, will I still be able to watch away games on the channels I already get? That's what I care about!

UC Investments and CalPERS are both large investment funds in California, but they serve different purposes and constituents. UC Investments manages assets for the University of California system, including its pension and endowment funds, while CalPERS manages retirement benefits for a wide range of public employees.

Big Ten nearing decision on $2.4 billion deal with California pension investment fund in landmark move within college athletics

If the Big Ten does adopt its deal, other conferences may be forced to respond with an equity agreement of their own

Sources: USC, Michigan question proposed Big Ten private capital deal

ESPN.com

Sources: USC, U-M question Big Ten capital deal

Trustees at Michigan and USC questioned the Big Ten's proposed $2 billion-plus private capital deal, with one sticking point being it doesn't address the root issue -- soaring costs -- that has made t

Another take on the proposed private capital deal from a Michigan site on the Wolverines and the Trojans possibly vetoing the deal.

Strange bedfellows after SC blew out the Wolverines in LA last Saturday? 😁

I understand the concern. With the fluidity of all things college football, is it in the best interest of sure-thing Super League teams to lock into an existing conference affiliation through 2046? Even members of the conference currently in the lead, finance-wise?

Maize n Brew

The Big Ten’s $2.4 billion private equity deal may be in...

The Big Ten wants to ink a $2.4 billion private equity deal, but needs unanimous approval from university presidents. The University of Michigan seems highly skeptical and perhaps even opposed to it,