Good article from Ross Dellenger below, but I have to wonder if UNC System President Peter Hans already knew what is going on with this and wants UNC to do something with Michigan & USC because Dr. Carol Folt, president/past president USC was a past president of UNC-CH. (Verified by AI on Dr. Folt & UNC) Things that make you go hmm.

https://sports.yahoo.com/college-footbal...03624.html

It's a sports conference. And any conference would add us. We are committed to our success not a conference.

(10-16-2025 11:02 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Good article from Ross Dellenger below, but I have to wonder if UNC System President Peter Hans already knew what is going on with this and wants UNC to do something with Michigan & USC because Dr. Carol Folt, president/past president USC was a past president of UNC-CH. (Verified by AI on Dr. Folt & UNC) Things that make you go hmm.

https://sports.yahoo.com/college-footbal...03624.html

The ACC would likely very happily trade any 4 schools for Michigan and USC.

Mr Dellenger’s report is about resistance to the private capital proposal.

The B1G is exceedingly unlikely to go forward with any financial partnership if it means risking the loss of key members like Michigan or Southern Cal. Those members are accommodated or nothing happens.

Could cracks never lead to a Berlin Wall-falling surprise? There’s always that outside possibility, as we saw with the PAC. But to get that result you need to beat the odds on poor decision-making. A critical mass of key people would need to be unthinking outside the box.

(10-16-2025 11:02 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Good article from Ross Dellenger below, but I have to wonder if UNC System President Peter Hans already knew what is going on with this and wants UNC to do something with Michigan & USC because Dr. Carol Folt, president/past president USC was a past president of UNC-CH. (Verified by AI on Dr. Folt & UNC) Things that make you go hmm.

https://sports.yahoo.com/college-footbal...03624.html

Folt was given the opportunity to leave Chapel Hill by the Board of Governors.

I doubt that there is anyone on the current BOG that would welcome an association with USC.

(10-16-2025 11:26 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  It's a sports conference. And any conference would add us. We are committed to our success not a conference.

SEC adds Ohio State, USC, Michigan and Notre Dame if they can, Penn State as the fallback, got it.

(10-17-2025 05:13 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-16-2025 11:02 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Good article from Ross Dellenger below, but I have to wonder if UNC System President Peter Hans already knew what is going on with this and wants UNC to do something with Michigan & USC because Dr. Carol Folt, president/past president USC was a past president of UNC-CH. (Verified by AI on Dr. Folt & UNC) Things that make you go hmm.

https://sports.yahoo.com/college-footbal...03624.html

Folt was given the opportunity to leave Chapel Hill by the Board of Governors.

I doubt that there is anyone on the current BOG that would welcome an association with USC.

Peter Hans, UNC System President, (not really a part of the BOG, but appointed by the BOG), was not in UNC administration when Dr. Folt was at UNC and therefore might be unaware of the circumstances under which Dr. Folt left. But I have noticed that old university employees do talk to each other quite a bit, so Dr. Folt could have spoken with Peter Hans.

LOL

One paragraph in the article stands out:

"For more than 15 months, Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti and his executives have worked to amass a plan that they believe addresses four main priorities from their membership: (1) long-term stability (grant-of-rights extension); (2) the creation of a privatized business entity to better monetize the league’s assets (Big Ten Enterprises); (3) immediate cash at a financially stressful time (the $2.4 billion that UC Investments agreed to commit by purchasing 10% of Big Ten Enterprises); and (4) the establishment of uneven revenue distributions (keeping happy its big brands)."


Are these really the top priorities of B1G members???? Petitti is in way over head if he's spent 15 months addressing these issues as the B1G's top priorities.

1) The Big Ten already has the longest GOR of any conference. FSU and Clemson (the ACC's tent-poll football brands) sued the ACC to weaken its GOR. Extending the GOR will not stabilize the conference.

2) Creating a privatized business entity (BTE) to monetize the league's assets seems like a good idea. The purpose of the conference is to generate additional revenue for members by bundling services and products.

3) Immediate cash infusion to members may make theoretical sense...but why not just provide a conference loan to the schools that need the money? Rutgers and Maryland were known to have borrowed Big Ten moneys previously. There are already mechanisms in place to lend money to needy schools.

4) Uneven revenue distribution seems like the "bribe" that is funding the GOR extension. In other words, it's a quid pro quo to get Ohio State and the other major brands aligned with this deal.

(10-17-2025 04:38 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  Mr Dellenger’s report is about resistance to the private capital proposal.

The B1G is exceedingly unlikely to go forward with any financial partnership if it means risking the loss of key members like Michigan or Southern Cal. Those members are accommodated or nothing happens.

Could cracks never lead to a Berlin Wall-falling surprise? There’s always that outside possibility, as we saw with the PAC. But to get that result you need to beat the odds on poor decision-making. A critical mass of key people would need to be unthinking outside the box.

I don't think you understand what leverage they have. Its not about pissing them off or alienating them, they literally cannot be compelled to extend their guarantee of rights if they don't want to and if they don't then the PE investors won't sign the deal.

/coach speak

USC and Michigan are members of the Big Ten Conference and are happy in their roles. They have a game coming up on Saturday and would like to focus on that.

/end