So what's the Big 12 gonna do with this new money?

Good morning, and thanks for spending part of your day with Extra Points.

And welcome to all of our new readers from NIL Wire! I’m excited to have you here, and hope you find value in this newsletter. For a recap on bringing NIL Wire into Extra Points, read here.

Now, let’s talk about money. But first a word from our sponsor.

While many businesses are solving problems at lightspeed, their payroll systems seem to stay stuck in the past. Deel's free Payroll Toolkit shows you what's actually changing in payroll this year, which problems hit first, and how to fix them before they cost you. Because new compliance rules, AI automation, and multi-country remote teams are all colliding at once.

Check out the free Deel Payroll Toolkit today and get a step-by-step roadmap to modernize operations, reduce manual work, and build a payroll strategy that scales with confidence.

Download the Toolkit for free today

Just about every major (and a few not-so-major) college sports conference has at least kicked the tires on bringing in outside institutional investment. This week, the Big 12 became the first league to actually pull the trigger, as their league presidents approved a multipronged deal with RedBird Capital.

It’s easy to get private capital and private equity confused, but they’re not exactly the same thing, and the differences are pretty important in this specific example. The Big 12, and Big 12 member institutions, aren’t actually giving up any equity, ownership or direct control to RedBird or any other institutional investor. Think of this as a relationship much closer to a loan than say, selling an ownership stake.

As part of the agreement, the Big 12 will get a $12.5 million capital infusion that the conference can use for revenue-generating projects or investments. That means the conference itself could potentially take ownership stakes in other companies or projects, or make internal investments so it can earn more money from events, licensing, media rights, etc. The Big 12 and RedBird will also work together to secure additional sponsorship and “commercial development” projects for the league.

Those could potentially involve other firms where RedBird has a commercial interest, like the Fenway Sports Group, streaming platforms, OneTeam Partners, Front Office Sports, or other entities outside the sports industry.

At the campus level, individual schools can also elect to accept up to $30 million in up-front capital from RedBird. Again, that would not mean that any Big 12 institution is selling a stake in their athletic department revenues, (like Utah is looking to do), but simply getting a cash advance to make additional investments.

Multiple outlets, like ESPN, Yahoo and FOS, are reporting that a majority of Big 12 institutions are not expected to accept this money. That lines up with what I’ve been hearing from league ADs and industry consultants (my best educated guess right now is between two and four schools will sign up). Plenty of Big 12 schools need additional capital, but public schools can often get more favorable lending terms or sell bonds.

According to financial data in the Extra Points Library, Houston had the smallest operating budget among Big 12 public institutions in FY25, with roughly $99 million in total spending. Here’s the full list:

The question I’m most interested in, even beyond which Big 12 schools take the money, is what the Big 12 decides to do with their extra cash. Do they attempt to buy stakes (or own outright) startups that could save money for Big 12 schools or provide additional revenue via licensing? Does the league try to get involved in real estate investments? Or will the money be used more for increasing commercial capacity from the league office? Will other conferences follow suit?

In a world where EVERYBODY is trying to earn more revenue, to both pay players and pay for rising operational expenses in higher education, expect leagues and schools to leave no stone unturned.

My old colleague at NIL Wire, Kyle Rowland, was DEAD SET against additional expansion to the NCAA basketball tournaments. Well, he lost. March Madness is going to expand to 76 teams.

The smartest story I’ve read about this so far comes from my pal Matt Norlander over at CBS. I don’t think it’s fair to say that the tournament expansion is exactly about money, since the revenue boost from television broadcasters will be modest. It was about making sure the power conferences could get more teams into the Big Dance so they won’t be tempted to start their own tournament. Norlander thinks that threat wasn’t credible.

My fellow sportswriters seem united in hating this move. I gotta be honest…I’m not especially bothered. I don’t think the world ended when March Madness expanded to include the First Four in Dayton, and the D1 ranks have grown considerably since the mid-1980s, when the 64-team bracket was established. Expanding the field doesn’t have to be a handout to crummy SEC and Big Ten teams, although it probably will be, unless the NET is tweaked.

But among the interesting angles here, to me, is where you play these new games. The First Four as we knew it is dead. Now we’ll have ‘the “Opening Round” before the field of 64. Some of those games are likely to continue to be held in Dayton, but there will need to be another site, likely west of the Eastern Time Zone.

Brett McMurphy is reporting that Vegas is already preparing to host those games. My understanding is that Vegas sports officials had previously made a run at prying the First Four away from Dayton, and even though other cities have interest, Vegas is the front runner to host the additional games.

There’s plenty of hotel space, basketball courts and affordable flights to Vegas, no doubt. There’s a reason so many conference tournaments are held there. But in the wake of yet another major gambling scandal, is this the best place for the NCAA to cozy up to? Is there a smaller market that could adopt the games and provide more of a Dayton-like atmosphere? I dunno…some place like Salt Lake, Sioux Falls or San Antonio? Perhaps other western cities that don’t start with S? We shall see….

If you’re considering a new job, there’s a decent chance you’d check out a website like Glassdoor during that process, right? You’d want to know if other people who worked there had a positive experience.

Athletes.org, perhaps the largest college athlete advocacy group at the moment, just launched their own version of that tool.

According to their survey data, athletes gave high marks to programs like Ohio State, Clemson and Georgia for things like athletic training, career development, NIL strategy, and more. But schools like Purdue and Nebraska, teams that haven’t been as successful on the football field, also saw positive rankings. Some of the schools with lower ratings included Baylor, Stanford and Seton Hall.

Not every program has a robust enough sample size to maybe be completely useful, and everyone’s experiences are different. But this information could potentially be an important tool for athletes looking to decide not only where to play…but where to study and live.

That’s a big week! You can support our work and read all of our newsletters, and play all of our computer games, by upgrading to a premium subscription. That’s just nine bucks a month, or less than the cost of a Taco Bell Deluxe Combo.

Thanks for reading, everybody. I’ll see you on the internet next week.