Imagine a deal so controversial that it’s being compared to a payday loan—but instead of individuals, it’s universities on the hook. That’s exactly what’s happening in the Big Ten, where Michigan’s Board of Regents is sounding the alarm on a proposed private capital plan that has sparked fierce debate. On Thursday, regents Mark Bernstein and Jordan Acker didn’t hold back, calling the plan reckless and shortsighted. But here’s where it gets controversial: the deal would inject over $2 billion into Big Ten schools through a new entity called Big Ten Enterprises, funded by UC Investments—the University of California’s pension system. In exchange? A 20-year commitment to share future revenues, essentially tying the conference’s 18 schools together until 2046. Acker bluntly stated, ‘You can’t borrow your way out of a spending problem,’ and warned, ‘In five years, we’ll all regret this.’
And this is the part most people miss: while the cash infusion could help schools tackle debts and athlete revenue-sharing costs, critics argue it’s a risky long-term gamble. Consultants even advised Michigan’s regents to steer clear. Yet, not everyone agrees—some schools support the plan, while others, like USC, oppose it. No vote was planned at Thursday’s meeting of Big Ten presidents and chancellors, who would need unanimous approval to move forward. Acker emphasized Michigan’s century-long commitment to the conference but insisted any solution must be on the best financial terms. This raises a thought-provoking question: Is this deal a lifeline or a financial trap? What do you think—are the regents justified in their concerns, or is this the bold move the Big Ten needs? Let’s hear your take in the comments!
Connections: Sports Edition
Spot the pattern. Connect the terms. Find the hidden link between sports terms.
