Realignment 2023: Whither the Pac12?

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
75,534
Team should pretend to play in the bowl game, show up to practice. But then just not play.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jun 22, 2008
36,402
This is a waste of time and a show.
Why do you say that?

In general, where a contract stipulates a specific dollar amount as the penalty for breaching a contract, that provision is only enforceable if the dollar amount is a reasonable estimate (at the time the contract is made) of damages that would be difficult to calculate with certainty. I’ll buy that the ACC’s damages from FSU’s departure would be difficult to compute with certainty, but it’s not self-evident to me that the nine-figure exit fee is a reasonable estimate of those damages; it feels more like a punitive amount designed to deter breach. In most jurisdictions, that’s void as against public policy.

So FSU’s lawsuit doesn’t strike me as obviously meritless, but I don’t know much about the particulars.
 

steeplechase3k

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 25, 2005
3,015
Portland, OR
The orphans of the PAC-X, Oregon State and Washington State, are joining the WCC for two years in pretty much everything other than football.

https://wccsports.com/news/2023/12/22/general-west-coast-conference-adds-oregon-state-and-washington-state-as-affiliate-members.aspx

The WCC extended invitations to OSU and WSU in 12 sports, with both institutions set to compete as affiliate members in men’s basketball, women’s basketball, women’s soccer, volleyball, men’s golf, women’s golf, women’s cross country and women’s rowing. Oregon State will also participate in the Conference in men’s soccer and softball, and Washington State will also compete in the WCC in women’s tennis and men’s cross country.
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
75,534
Rutgers, UCLA/USC, and FSU all in the same conference

Jet fuel supplier’s dream scenario
 

Awesome Fossum

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
3,954
Austin, TX
The orphans of the PAC-X, Oregon State and Washington State, are joining the WCC for two years in pretty much everything other than football.

https://wccsports.com/news/2023/12/22/general-west-coast-conference-adds-oregon-state-and-washington-state-as-affiliate-members.aspx
Looking at what's still homeless, WSU says:

WSU continues to work diligently to finalize the right competitive opportunities for the sports of men's and women's track and field, swimming and baseball.
https://wsucougars.com/news/2023/12/22/wsu-athletics-ten-wsu-programs-join-west-coast-conference-as-affiliate-members.aspx

While Oregon State says:

Gymnastics, wrestling, indoor/outdoor track & field and men's rowing will continue competing as members of the Pac-12 Conference.

Department leaders are in continued exploration of opportunities for the baseball program and an announcement will be made when there is more information to share.
https://osubeavers.com/news/2023/12/22/general-oregon-state-athletics-enters-affiliation-with-west-coast-conference

I'm guessing "continue competing as members of the Pac-12 Conference" is code for independent, effectively?

Curious what the plan is for the baseball programs, since the WCC does in fact have the sport. Maybe they're thinking Big West would a better schedule?
 

Humphrey

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2010
3,253
Looking at what's still homeless, WSU says:



https://wsucougars.com/news/2023/12/22/wsu-athletics-ten-wsu-programs-join-west-coast-conference-as-affiliate-members.aspx

While Oregon State says:



https://osubeavers.com/news/2023/12/22/general-oregon-state-athletics-enters-affiliation-with-west-coast-conference

I'm guessing "continue competing as members of the Pac-12 Conference" is code for independent, effectively?

Curious what the plan is for the baseball programs, since the WCC does in fact have the sport. Maybe they're thinking Big West would a better schedule?
Why not the ACC in baseball- a couple southern swings covers most of the schools? Those baseball programs that have to go to the West Coast every year or two for Stanford & Cal can make another stop.

Unless something's changed, OSU plays baseball on a very high level.
 

OCST

Sunny von Bulow
SoSH Member
Jan 10, 2004
24,751
The 718
Many no, some possibly
Thinking wrestling and men’s cross country and swimming
As I shared in this post some time ago, http://sonsofsamhorn.net/index.php?threads/lawsuit-against-the-ivy-league.39051/post-5462854

St. Francis (NY), as it used to be known in the chryon score scrolls to distingiush it from its NEC sister school St. Francis (PA), just nuked all of its athletic programs. These were nothing special - they had some hoops tradition, as you’d expect from a big city Catholic school, and oddly were the only East Coast school to feature in the national water polo rankings, due to a strong presence of Croats and Serbs - I guess water polo is the bees knees in that part of the world. And they had the usual batch of Olympic and team sports.

Just cancelled them all. No more sports. The Terriers fight no more.

It’s a topic of its own- some colleges are going to fold entirely- there is overcapacity and superfluity. A school could go one of two ways. It’s interesting to compare them to Quinnipiac, a school of roughly the same stripe in college athletics at one time, but with a bigger endowment and student body. Quinnipiac invested big time in its hockey program which got it a national title and lots of visibility. Hockey is a very expensive sport but it’s yielded dividends for the school. St Francis is fighting to stay viable as a school, period, and it pulled the plug. More money spent on sports might have hastened the schools death spiral.

we’re going to see more cuts.
 
Last edited:

Senator Donut

post-Domer
SoSH Member
Apr 21, 2010
5,648
Richmond is moving their football program from the CAA, where they've been a member since 1986, to the Patriot League.

https://patriotleague.org/news/2024/5/14/patriot-league-announces-university-of-richmond-to-join-league-as-associate-member-for-football.aspx
This is the first realignment move that has me utterly surprised and confused. The Patriot League was a no-scholarship then a partial scholarship league not too long ago. I guess the CAA defections to FBS combined with supersizing the league had Richmond looking for a better fit or a better path to an AQ bid.
 

Awesome Fossum

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
3,954
Austin, TX
This is the first realignment move that has me utterly surprised and confused. The Patriot League was a no-scholarship then a partial scholarship league not too long ago. I guess the CAA defections to FBS combined with supersizing the league had Richmond looking for a better fit or a better path to an AQ bid.
Yeah, it's pretty surprising. The CAA is just a mess and I think Richmond was over it. Fans aren't happy though. I think the big question is if any of the other football affiliate schools (Villanova? URI?) are going to follow -- that would help it make more sense, imo.
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
33,395
As I shared in this post some time ago, http://sonsofsamhorn.net/index.php?threads/lawsuit-against-the-ivy-league.39051/post-5462854

St. Francis (NY), as it used to be known in the chryon score scrolls to distingiush it from its NEC sister school St. Francis (PA), just nuked all of its athletic programs. These were nothing special - they had some hoops tradition, as you’d expect from a big city Catholic school, and oddly were the only East Coast school to feature in the national water polo rankings, due to a strong presence of Croats and Serbs - I guess water polo is the bees knees in that part of the world. And they had the usual batch of Olympic and team sports.

Just cancelled them all. No more sports. The Terriers fight no more.

It’s a topic of its own- some colleges are going to fold entirely- there is overcapacity and superfluity. A school could go one of two ways. It’s interesting to compare them to Quinnipiac, a school of roughly the same stripe in college athletics at one time, but with a bigger endowment and student body. Quinnipiac invested big time in its hockey program which got it a national title and lots of visibility. Hockey is a very expensive sport but it’s yielded dividends for the school. St Francis is fighting to stay viable as a school, period, and it pulled the plug. More money spent on sports might have hastened the schools death spiral.

we’re going to see more cuts.
Q started raising serious cash about 20 or so years ago and it’s still going on. I don’t remember the full history but that arena was something like fifty million bucks.
 

OCST

Sunny von Bulow
SoSH Member
Jan 10, 2004
24,751
The 718
Q started raising serious cash about 20 or so years ago and it’s still going on. I don’t remember the full history but that arena was something like fifty million bucks.
But the hockey has given Q a national profile that dozens of similar schools don’t have. The trade off must be worth it.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
25,301
Maybe this has been brought up in another thread, but I haven't seen it.

Landscape of college athletics about to change forever in light of today's agreement.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/how-historic-house-v-ncaa-settlement-will-impact-college-athletics-on-and-off-the-field-for-years-to-come/

One quibble that I have (that maybe many of you will disagree with): "The entire system of college athletics was built on the idea of an unpaid labor force."

While this may be true in terms of *salary*, there's no way you can say that a Syracuse football player on full scholarship, for example, isn't getting "paid". It may not be what he'd get if this was a true free market, but the value of room, board, tuition, tutoring, clothing, per diem, and more, comes to way over $90,000 a year. Which isn't bad at all for a 19 year old fresh out of high school. If your employer furnished you with all those things, you can bet that the IRS would consider those things as income for tax purposes. So no, the system isn't built on "unpaid labor". Schools are paying out a lot of money in those ways; but not in salary.
 

Remagellan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Maybe this has been brought up in another thread, but I haven't seen it.

Landscape of college athletics about to change forever in light of today's agreement.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/how-historic-house-v-ncaa-settlement-will-impact-college-athletics-on-and-off-the-field-for-years-to-come/

One quibble that I have (that maybe many of you will disagree with): "The entire system of college athletics was built on the idea of an unpaid labor force."

While this may be true in terms of *salary*, there's no way you can say that a Syracuse football player on full scholarship, for example, isn't getting "paid". It may not be what he'd get if this was a true free market, but the value of room, board, tuition, tutoring, clothing, per diem, and more, comes to way over $90,000 a year. Which isn't bad at all for a 19 year old fresh out of high school. If your employer furnished you with all those things, you can bet that the IRS would consider those things as income for tax purposes. So no, the system isn't built on "unpaid labor". Schools are paying out a lot of money in those ways; but not in salary.
I think the problem developed as more and more those players were recruited to play sports and not really to pursue a degree. For sure that has been the case in the "one and done" or "two and done" years in basketball. And while I think they still have to stay three years in football, some of the student-athletes have been directed into majors intended more to protect their eligibility than to further their intellectual interests. I recall former Vikings running back Robert Smith talking about how he almost left Ohio State because at the time he wanted to take pre-med courses and the program advisors tried to discourage him from doing so because they thought he'd have a hard time maintaining his eligibility if he did. Tuition and tutoring are fine, but of what value is that really to a student athlete if the only purpose of their studies is to keep them eligible to perform their main job of playing their sport so the college can make money off of them?

(Edit--Dopes, I think this discussion should be split off to a thread titled NCAA 2025: The League Where They Play for Pay.)
 
Last edited:

yeahlunchbox

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 21, 2008
828
Maybe this has been brought up in another thread, but I haven't seen it.

Landscape of college athletics about to change forever in light of today's agreement.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/how-historic-house-v-ncaa-settlement-will-impact-college-athletics-on-and-off-the-field-for-years-to-come/

One quibble that I have (that maybe many of you will disagree with): "The entire system of college athletics was built on the idea of an unpaid labor force."

While this may be true in terms of *salary*, there's no way you can say that a Syracuse football player on full scholarship, for example, isn't getting "paid". It may not be what he'd get if this was a true free market, but the value of room, board, tuition, tutoring, clothing, per diem, and more, comes to way over $90,000 a year. Which isn't bad at all for a 19 year old fresh out of high school. If your employer furnished you with all those things, you can bet that the IRS would consider those things as income for tax purposes. So no, the system isn't built on "unpaid labor". Schools are paying out a lot of money in those ways; but not in salary.
One quibble with this post. The "value" isn't anywhere near $90,000 per year, that's the sticker price. The value is far, far lower. This is how college athletics has gotten away with this terrible system for so long, but the courts have rightly seen through this charade.
 

yeahlunchbox

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 21, 2008
828
I think the problem developed as more and more those players were recruited to play sports and not really to pursue a degree. For sure that has been the case in the "one and done" or "two and done" years in basketball. And while I think they still have to stay three years in football, some of the student-athletes have been directed into majors intended more to protect their eligibility than to further their intellectual interests. I recall former Vikings running back Robert Smith talking about how he almost left Ohio State because at the time he wanted to take pre-med courses and the program advisors tried to discourage him from doing so because they thought he'd have a hard time maintaining his eligibility if he did. Tuition and tutoring are fine, but of what value is that really to a student athlete if the only purpose of their studies is to keep them eligible to perform their main job of playing their sport so the college can make money off of them?

(Edit--Dopes, I think this discussion should be split off to a thread titled NCAA 2025: The League Where They Play for Pay.)
And this is not just a power 4 conference thing. A URI football player left the team because he felt like he had to choose between football and pursuing an engineering degree. Next time you watch a football or basketball game and they show the players' majors take a look at which ones most of them are in and which ones don't seem to be represented.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
25,301
One quibble with this post. The "value" isn't anywhere near $90,000 per year, that's the sticker price. The value is far, far lower. This is how college athletics has gotten away with this terrible system for so long, but the courts have rightly seen through this charade.
The IRS would see it as worth $90,000 (thereabouts), I'm pretty sure. That's what SU charges, so if they give it to you in exchange for you playing football for them, the IRS would count it all as income.

If you're not an athlete or don't have any other scholarship, you're being charged the $80,000 for tuition and room/board, plus athletes get about ten grand in other things (gear, tutoring, per diem, etc) that normal students don't get.
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,555
Southwestern CT
The IRS would see it as worth $90,000 (thereabouts), I'm pretty sure. That's what SU charges, so if they give it to you in exchange for you playing football for them, the IRS would count it all as income.

If you're not an athlete or don't have any other scholarship, you're being charged the $80,000 for tuition and room/board, plus athletes get about ten grand in other things (gear, tutoring, per diem, etc) that normal students don't get.
Every time this subject comes up, someone feels compelled to defend the status quo by pointing out the “value” of a scholarship.

It is absolutely true that the IRS would value the scholarship at some level. It is equally true that non-cash compensation for someone who is not attending school for the purposes of receiving a degree is meaningless.

The vast majority of athletes in revenue-generating sports are/were there to compete for “their school.” For decades, they have risked their health and generated tens of millions of dollars for the institution while receiving no monetary remuneration and no long-term health benefits for the injuries they suffered.

That morally indefensible feudal system has finally ended. Thank God.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
25,301
I am very worried about non-revenue sports in light of this. Athletic departments are going to be on the hook for paying out millions of dollars to athletes, but do we really think that most of the pay will go to field hockey players or men's XC athletes and not football and basketball players?

I know that it's always been that schools have had non-revenue sports, which operate at a deficit. But they haven't ALSO had to pay football and basketball players millions of dollars in actual salary on top of it. I could easily see schools ditching non-revenue sports. Of course, it would have to work with Title IX, so you'd see women's and men's sports go to keep balance. At UConn for example (not that I have any inside knowledge on these discussions), I could see these programs on the chopping block:

- Men's golf (12 athletes)
- Women's tennis (9 athletes)
- Women's rowing (48 athletes)
- Women's XC (16 athletes)

Of course, to keep things equal, any drop in women's sports would require cutting equal numbers of men's spots, which would mean more than men's golf - it would also mean another sport that tends to draw well at UConn. Here are all the men's sports:

Basketball - uh, not cutting that
Football - uh, not cutting that either
Baseball - uh, not cutting that - they're always really good and draw pretty well
Golf - yeah, goodbye
Ice Hockey - always have one of the better teams out there...I don't see them cutting hockey, especially since they just built a new arena
Soccer - this one would be the tough one, right? they're traditionally pretty decent at soccer (with two national titles)
Track & Field - I could see this one going, but what D1 athletic department doesn't have men's T&F? It would be insane, right?

But something's gonna give. They can't afford to just pay out tons of $$ to football and basketball players in salary and not cut costs somewhere.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
25,301
Every time this subject comes up, someone feels compelled to defend the status quo by pointing out the “value” of a scholarship.

It is absolutely true that the IRS would value the scholarship at some level. It is equally true that non-cash compensation for someone who is not attending school for the purposes of receiving a degree is meaningless.

The vast majority of athletes in revenue-generating sports are/were there to compete for “their school.” For decades, they have risked their health and generated tens of millions of dollars for the institution while receiving no monetary remuneration and no long-term health benefits for the injuries they suffered.

That morally indefensible feudal system has finally ended. Thank God.
I'm not really defending the status quo. I just don't agree that these athletes don't get "paid". As someone who has put four kids through college, I can assure you, to NOT have to pay those costs and yet have them get their degrees would be an enormous financial benefit.

But I get what you're saying about many/most of these athletes not really caring about their degree, or the schools not really asking them to be real students. At least in some sports.
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
75,534
I am very worried about non-revenue sports in light of this. Athletic departments are going to be on the hook for paying out millions of dollars to athletes, but do we really think that most of the pay will go to field hockey players or men's XC athletes and not football and basketball players?

I know that it's always been that schools have had non-revenue sports, which operate at a deficit. But they haven't ALSO had to pay football and basketball players millions of dollars in actual salary on top of it. I could easily see schools ditching non-revenue sports. Of course, it would have to work with Title IX, so you'd see women's and men's sports go to keep balance. At UConn for example (not that I have any inside knowledge on these discussions), I could see these programs on the chopping block:

- Men's golf (12 athletes)
- Women's tennis (9 athletes)
- Women's rowing (48 athletes)
- Women's XC (16 athletes)

Of course, to keep things equal, any drop in women's sports would require cutting equal numbers of men's spots, which would mean more than men's golf - it would also mean another sport that tends to draw well at UConn. Here are all the men's sports:

Basketball - uh, not cutting that
Football - uh, not cutting that either
Baseball - uh, not cutting that - they're always really good and draw pretty well
Golf - yeah, goodbye
Ice Hockey - always have one of the better teams out there...I don't see them cutting hockey, especially since they just built a new arena
Soccer - this one would be the tough one, right? they're traditionally pretty decent at soccer (with two national titles)
Track & Field - I could see this one going, but what D1 athletic department doesn't have men's T&F? It would be insane, right?

But something's gonna give. They can't afford to just pay out tons of $$ to football and basketball players in salary and not cut costs somewhere.
Why not cutting football? You can practically save every other sport that way at Uconn, no?
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
25,301
Why not cutting football? You can practically save every other sport that way at Uconn, no?
Yes for sure. I think they probably should have done that a few years ago. But that's not going to happen. The AD absolutely values football here.
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
75,534
Yes for sure. I think they probably should have done that a few years ago. But that's not going to happen. The AD absolutely values football here.
Yet Benedict was one of only 2 FBS AD's to cancel the season for Covid.

I would feel differently if they were P4, but they're not getting that sweet conference $.
 

ThePrideofShiner

Crests prematurely
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
10,905
Washington
I don't think track and field will be getting cut because so few of the kids are on full scholarships, that the huge rosters help with enrollment.

I don't really understand what the agreement yesterday means. Does it mean schools CAN pay athletes or schools HAVE to pay athletes?
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
25,301
I'm not sure. And I think it means the players get a portion of the revenue, even if their sport actually is a net *negative* cost on the athletic department. So for example, UConn football absolutely takes in legit revenue through ticket sales, advertising, and merchandise. But they operated at a $14 million deficit in Mora's first season. So are the players getting a cut of the revenue even if their program is a net negative on the athletic department budget? I'm guessing....yes.
 

Remagellan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I'm not sure. And I think it means the players get a portion of the revenue, even if their sport actually is a net *negative* cost on the athletic department. So for example, UConn football absolutely takes in legit revenue through ticket sales, advertising, and merchandise. But they operated at a $14 million deficit in Mora's first season. So are the players getting a cut of the revenue even if their program is a net negative on the athletic department budget? I'm guessing....yes.
People still get paid even if the business they work for loses money that year, so I guess yet. The question will be how long the school could continue the program with that added expense. But if they swallowed a 14 million dollar deficit, I doubt whatever the student-athletes will be making will make much of a difference.
 

Awesome Fossum

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
3,954
Austin, TX
One thing to remember when doing the calculus with UConn football is that the current P4 paradigm is not permanent. Another set of dominos will fall (probably when the ACC splinters but maybe something more drastic like the Big 10 and SEC breaking away entirely), and maybe UConn finds a spot during the next round of musical chairs that changes the math.

The brand isn't strong enough for them to force their way in, but it is valuable enough to help someone round out a tier 2 conference (eg, the have nots of an ACC split).
 

bsj

Renegade Crazed Genius
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2003
22,825
Central NJ SoSH Chapter
I legitimately can't even keep track of this anymore. Between realignment and the money aspect. My head is spinning.

I just want to fast forward to the end at this point, an ending in which Syracuse (and likely BC) end up in some new incarnation of an Eastern/Academic conference that likely will be a step below the "big 3" for football but will still have a pathway to the playoff, and will be a legitimate power for all other sports.

As far as broader makeup, I'm thinking schools like

Syracuse
BC
Duke
Wake Forest
UConn
Georgia Tech
Army
Tulane
Navy
Cal
Stanford
SMU

It's clearly a step below the top 3, but clearly better than the typical G of 5. And most importantly, it's stability. There's not a single school in there who likely will be looking to bolt tomorrow. I could see this conference champ getting a spot in the 12 team playoff, while the big 3 would get 2 guaranteed spots.
 
Last edited:

canderson

Mr. Brightside
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
40,006
Harrisburg, Pa.
@bsj I can’t keep it straight either. At this point I hope every school not in the Big 10 and SEC breaks off and forms their own association.

And I say this a Texas alum and support.
 

Old Fart Tree

the maven of meat
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 10, 2001
14,296
Boulder, CO
I’ve actually come around on Stanford in the ACC. I’ve concluded that it’s actually a positive good, because it makes clear beyond a shadow of a fucking doubt that college sports was always bullshit and it was always and only ever about the dollar bills. The absurdity of Stanford in the ACC makes that transparently obvious, so that’s a good thing.
 

Joe D Reid

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
4,259
I don't think track and field will be getting cut because so few of the kids are on full scholarships, that the huge rosters help with enrollment.

I don't really understand what the agreement yesterday means. Does it mean schools CAN pay athletes or schools HAVE to pay athletes?
This will be as short as I can make it and probably still be too technical and make no sense.

The settlement has two parts. One is backwards looking and establishes a $2.75 bn fund to pay antitrust damages to former athletes. Those are funded by the NCAA (I believe) and will be distributed pursuant to some formula approved by the court. The second part is meant to let future cohorts of P5 athletes to enter the settlement class established in the suit. In order to induce those folks to join the class (and waive the chance to bring a new lawsuit in the future), P5 schools can offer them up to a total of $20 million per cohort. So they do not HAVE to pay the money. But if they don’t pay (or don’t pay enough), entering students won’t enter the settlement class and the schools will be open to new antitrust suits from those students in the future. Each school will have to make that call themselves.
 

OCST

Sunny von Bulow
SoSH Member
Jan 10, 2004
24,751
The 718

Barring some unforeseen event, the last game in the last sport to conclude of the last Pac12 season saw Arizona taking the conference baseball tournament (they were also regular season champions).

Yea there were disparities in media markets, and weak sisters, but the competitive balance in this league over time was as good as any - and it had geographical, cultural, and historical unity more than any other classic league. The SEC was the South, the Big Ten was the Midwest, but even in those leagues there was some fuzziness around the boundaries that excluded some natural rivals. The PAC 8-10-12 WAS the West. It made sense. The fans cared, a lot.

Crazy that it’s dead.
 

Philip Jeff Frye

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 23, 2001
10,403
Naming rights being sold for conference names now. The Big 12 may soon to be named the Allstate 12 and Conference USA may soon be the Globe Life conference.

It is becoming so easy to not care anymore about college sports.

https://sports.yahoo.com/sources-big-12-exploring-naming-rights-deal-for-conference-worth-hundreds-of-millions-155434875.html
And private equity firm CVC Capital Partners, which has invested in a bunch of sports thing like the Women's Tennis Association, LaLiga and Six Nations Rugby, is supposedly negotiating a billion dollar investment in the Pepsi/Carquest/Coinbase 12.

At what point do these schools just IPO their sports teams and put the remaining stock in their endowments? What a farce.
 

Humphrey

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2010
3,253