Brian Kelly’s Tenure at LSU: Promise, Performance, and Fall

Brian Kelly’s Tenure at LSU: Promise, Performance, and Fall

When Brian Kelly arrived in Baton Rouge in December 2021, the expectations were high. He was hired away from University of Notre Dame after a solid tenure there and was given a long‐term contract by LSU. (ABC News)

Key Facts & Figures

• Contract: A 10-year deal worth about $95-100 million. (On3)

• Buy-out: Around $52-54 million (based on estimates) if fired early. (CBS Sports)

• Record at LSU: 34-14 overall across roughly four seasons. (The Washington Post)

• SEC record under Kelly: 19-10. (https://www.wcax.com)

• 2025 season record at time of firing: 5-3 overall, 2-3 in SEC play. (The Washington Post)

• The ending trigger: A 49-25 home loss to No. 3 Texas A&M Aggies (Texas A&M) on Oct 25 2025. (ABC News)

Why Did it End?

Despite the solid overall win-loss record, LSU’s leadership concluded that Kelly’s tenure had not reached the level the program demands. Some of the specific concerns:

• No appearance in the College Football Playoff during his time at LSU — a key benchmark for a program of LSU’s stature. (The Washington Post)

• The program started the 2025 season 4-0, but faltered and lost three of its last four games leading up to the Texas A&M blow-out. (CBS Sports)

• The blow-out loss at home raised questions about competitiveness in high-stakes games: “When Coach Kelly arrived … we had high hopes… Ultimately, the success at the level that LSU demands simply did not materialize.” — Woodward. (foxsports.com)

Immediate Aftermath

• Kelly was relieved of his duties on Sunday night, Oct 26, 2025, effective immediately. (LSU)

• Associate head coach & running backs coach Frank Wilson was named interim head coach. (ABC News)

• LSU immediately launched a national search for a new head coach. (https://www.waff.com)

---

Scott Woodward’s Role and Departure

Scott Woodward, the athletic director at LSU since 2019, was the person who hired Kelly and was central to the department’s strategic direction. His departure became the next major development.

Context and Criticism

• Governor Jeff Landry publicly criticized Woodward’s role in the Kelly hire (and earlier coaching contracts) and declared that Woodward would not pick LSU’s next football coach. (The Guardian)

• Landry pointed to a “pattern” of expensive buyouts: he referenced Kelly’s ~$54 million and a prior deal at Texas A&M that resulted in a ~$77 million buyout under Woodward’s previous employ. (Louisiana Sports)

Departure

• LSU and Woodward parted ways effective late October 2025. (nypost.com)

• Verge Ausberry, executive deputy athletics director, was named interim AD. (nypost.com)

What It Means

Woodward’s departure signals a broader reset: the institution is not only changing its head coach but reworking leadership of the athletics department — presumably to manage risk, accountability, and cost-control of high‐stakes coaching hires.

---

Bigger Picture & Implications

Financial Stakes

• The buyout for Kelly is one of the largest in college football history. (CBS Sports)

• Signing multi‐year, high guarantee contracts for coaches carries major institutional risk (especially if results don’t follow).

• With the AD’s departure and the governor’s involvement, there’s increased scrutiny over how financial decisions are made in college sports at public universities.

Expectations vs. Reality

• LSU has a rich history with national championships (for example under Ed Orgeron in 2019). Kelly’s tenure was solid but not elite.

• For a “blue-blood” program in the SEC, success often means competition for national championships — anything short is seen as underperforming.

• The mid-season firing (rather than waiting till after the year) suggests urgency and a determination to change course immediately.

Organisational Change

• The simultaneous (or near-simultaneous) firing of both the head coach and the athletic director is unusual and signals institutional upheaval.

• The governor’s move to preclude Woodward from hiring the next coach shows involvement of state government in public-university athletics governance — noteworthy for governance watchers.

---

Looking Ahead

• LSU now must find a new head coach and new AD leadership, while stabilizing the football program amid high expectations and high stakes.

• The incoming coach will face immense pressure: succeed quickly or risk becoming the next casualty in this cycle.

• Financial prudence, structural safeguards (buyout terms, performance metrics) and alignment between coach, athletics department and university will likely receive more attention.

• For fans, boosters and broader stakeholders: this moment represents a crossroads — either LSU resets and re-builds upward, or the program risks sliding.

---

Conclusion

The departures of Brian Kelly and Scott Woodward at LSU mark a dramatic inflection point for the university’s athletics program. Despite a respectable record (34-14) under Kelly, the failure to reach major milestones (Playoff, national championship) combined with high financial cost for early termination triggered the change. Woodward’s exit underscores the extent to which leadership, contracts and strategic decisions are being recalibrated in the face of mounting pressure for elite results and fiscal accountability.

• nypost.com
• And The Valley Shook
• reuters.com
• The GuardianHere’s a detailed account of the shake-up at Louisiana State University (LSU) athletics — the firing of head football coach Brian Kelly and the subsequent exit of athletic director Scott Woodward — with actual data and context.

  ---

  Brian Kelly’s Tenure at LSU: Promise, Performance, and Fall

  When Brian Kelly arrived in Baton Rouge in December 2021, the expectations were high. He was hired away from University of Notre Dame after a solid tenure there and was given a long‐term contract by LSU. (ABC News)

  Key Facts & Figures

  • Contract: A 10-year deal worth about $95-100 million. (On3)

  • Buy-out: Around $52-54 million (based on estimates) if fired early. (CBS Sports)

  • Record at LSU: 34-14 overall across roughly four seasons. (The Washington Post)

  • SEC record under Kelly: 19-10. (https://www.wcax.com)

  • 2025 season record at time of firing: 5-3 overall, 2-3 in SEC play. (The Washington Post)

  • The ending trigger: A 49-25 home loss to No. 3 Texas A&M Aggies (Texas A&M) on Oct 25 2025. (ABC News)

  Why Did it End?

  Despite the solid overall win-loss record, LSU’s leadership concluded that Kelly’s tenure had not reached the level the program demands. Some of the specific concerns:

  • No appearance in the College Football Playoff during his time at LSU — a key benchmark for a program of LSU’s stature. (The Washington Post)

  • The program started the 2025 season 4-0, but faltered and lost three of its last four games leading up to the Texas A&M blow-out. (CBS Sports)

  • The blow-out loss at home raised questions about competitiveness in high-stakes games: “When Coach Kelly arrived … we had high hopes… Ultimately, the success at the level that LSU demands simply did not materialize.” — Woodward. (foxsports.com)

  Immediate Aftermath

  • Kelly was relieved of his duties on Sunday night, Oct 26, 2025, effective immediately. (LSU)

  • Associate head coach & running backs coach Frank Wilson was named interim head coach. (ABC News)

  • LSU immediately launched a national search for a new head coach. (https://www.waff.com)

  ---

  Scott Woodward’s Role and Departure

  Scott Woodward, the athletic director at LSU since 2019, was the person who hired Kelly and was central to the department’s strategic direction. His departure became the next major development.

  Context and Criticism

  • Governor Jeff Landry publicly criticized Woodward’s role in the Kelly hire (and earlier coaching contracts) and declared that Woodward would not pick LSU’s next football coach. (The Guardian)

  • Landry pointed to a “pattern” of expensive buyouts: he referenced Kelly’s ~$54 million and a prior deal at Texas A&M that resulted in a ~$77 million buyout under Woodward’s previous employ. (Louisiana Sports)

  Departure

  • LSU and Woodward parted ways effective late October 2025. (nypost.com)

  • Verge Ausberry, executive deputy athletics director, was named interim AD. (nypost.com)

  What It Means

  Woodward’s departure signals a broader reset: the institution is not only changing its head coach but reworking leadership of the athletics department — presumably to manage risk, accountability, and cost-control of high‐stakes coaching hires.

  ---

  Bigger Picture & Implications

  Financial Stakes

  • The buyout for Kelly is one of the largest in college football history. (CBS Sports)

  • Signing multi‐year, high guarantee contracts for coaches carries major institutional risk (especially if results don’t follow).

  • With the AD’s departure and the governor’s involvement, there’s increased scrutiny over how financial decisions are made in college sports at public universities.

  Expectations vs. Reality

  • LSU has a rich history with national championships (for example under Ed Orgeron in 2019). Kelly’s tenure was solid but not elite.

  • For a “blue-blood” program in the SEC, success often means competition for national championships — anything short is seen as underperforming.

  • The mid-season firing (rather than waiting till after the year) suggests urgency and a determination to change course immediately.

  Organisational Change

  • The simultaneous (or near-simultaneous) firing of both the head coach and the athletic director is unusual and signals institutional upheaval.

  • The governor’s move to preclude Woodward from hiring the next coach shows involvement of state government in public-university athletics governance — noteworthy for governance watchers.

  ---

  Looking Ahead

  • LSU now must find a new head coach and new AD leadership, while stabilizing the football program amid high expectations and high stakes.

  • The incoming coach will face immense pressure: succeed quickly or risk becoming the next casualty in this cycle.

  • Financial prudence, structural safeguards (buyout terms, performance metrics) and alignment between coach, athletics department and university will likely receive more attention.

  • For fans, boosters and broader stakeholders: this moment represents a crossroads — either LSU resets and re-builds upward, or the program risks sliding.

  ---

  Conclusion

  The departures of Brian Kelly and Scott Woodward at LSU mark a dramatic inflection point for the university’s athletics program. Despite a respectable record (34-14) under Kelly, the failure to reach major milestones (Playoff, national championship) combined with high financial cost for early termination triggered the change. Woodward’s exit underscores the extent to which leadership, contracts and strategic decisions are being recalibrated in the face of mounting pressure for elite results and fiscal accountability.

  • nypost.com
  • And The Valley Shook
  • reuters.com
  • The Guardian  (other reading)

 

Are Coaching Buyouts in College Football Too High? A Comparison to the Dot-Com Bubble

Introduction

In recent years, we’ve witnessed a dramatic increase in contract buyouts for head coaches in college football. Schools are committing tens of millions of dollars to buy out failed coaching contracts—regardless of the on-field success of the coach. At the same time, in the business world, the late-1990s “Dot‑com bubble” (1995-2002) stands as a classic example of a rapid escalation in valuations and promises, followed by a sharp reckoning.

Is the world of college-football coaching buyouts heading toward a similar boom-and-bust dynamic? In this article, we’ll examine the numbers of buyouts, review the dot-com bubble data, and ask whether the escalating buyout market may be unsustainable.

---

Section 1: The Rise of Coaching Buyouts

A snapshot of the numbers

• According to data from USA Today and aggregated by outlets: for the 2023 season, several of the largest buyouts among major FBS schools included:

  • Kirby Smart (Georgia Bulldogs) – ~$92.62 million. (Boardroom)

  • Jimbo Fisher (Texas A&M Aggies) – ~$77.56 million. (Boardroom)

  • Brian Kelly (LSU Tigers) – ~$70.02 million. (Saturday Down South)

• By late 2025, buyouts for head coaches had ballooned further. One data set listed the top buyouts as:

  • Kirby Smart – ~$105.1 million. (On3)

  • Ryan Day (Ohio State Buckeyes) – ~$70.9 million. (On3)

• On the broader level: The five years ending 2021 showed that from Jan. 1 2010 to Jan. 31 2021, the “Power 5 and Group of 5 programs” owed more than $533 million in “dead money” (buyouts) to coaches and assistants. (ESPN)

• Moreover: since the beginning of the 2022 season, one report finds ~$146 million in buyouts among Power 5 schools alone. (ESPN)

Why have buyouts escalated?

• Guaranteed contracts have become more common. As one story puts it: “The first fully guaranteed contract is believed to have been signed in 2007 … Ten years later … a 10-year deal worth $95 million.” (CBS Sports)

• The competition for elite coaches is intensifying. Large revenue potential (TV deals, bowl games, playoff access) mean that schools view hiring the “right coach” as a high-stakes investment.

• Once contracts are guaranteed, buyouts become de-facto termination-payments; the coach’s salary becomes a sunk cost if things go sideways.

• The arms-race mentality: when one school offers an enormous contract (and thus buyout), others feel they must respond to keep up.

The concern

Are these buyout figures sustainable? When a school pays $70-100 million to a coach they’re firing (or would fire), that money is diverted from other uses. It raises questions: How does this affect athletic department budgets? What happens if programs underperform repeatedly and schools face financial pressures? Could there be a systemic correction or “bubble” in coach-contract valuations?

---

Section 2: The Dot-Com Bubble – A Quick Review

What happened

• The Nasdaq Composite index rose from ~750 in early 1995 to a peak of 5,048.62 on March 10, 2000. (MoneyWeek)

• After the peak, the index collapsed to around 1,139.90 by October 4, 2002—a drop of roughly 77%.

• Estimates suggest more than $5 trillion in market value was erased in the tech sector during that downfall. (Wikipedia)

• The bubble was characterized by exuberant valuation of companies with little or no earnings, especially internet startups, and massive speculative investment.

Key lessons

• Rapid escalation in valuations doesn’t guarantee actual performance or sustainability.

• Once expectations outran fundamentals, the correction was sharp.

• It took years for full recovery; for example, it took until 2015 for Nasdaq to regain its March 2000 high. (Press Democrat)

• Many firms that were overhyped failed or shrank dramatically.

---

Section 3: Drawing the Comparison

Similarities

• Escalation of commitments: Just as tech companies saw valuations skyrocketing, college programs are increasingly committing to massive guaranteed contracts (and buyouts) for coaches.

• High-stakes investment: In both cases, the logic is “spend big now to win big later” — whether that’s dominating an industry or dominating college football.

• Escalating expectations: In college football the expectation of winning quickly (big games, conferences, playoff) drives urgency; in the dot-com era, the expectation was rapid growth of web companies.

• Potential misalignment of risk: In tech, many companies were valued despite minimal earnings. In college football, schools are making large guarantees with less guarantee of sustained success, and termination means large payout anyway.

Differences

• Different markets: One is the public equity market of billions of investors; the other is the athletic-department / university financing realm.

• Revenue sources: Many top college football programs have large revenue streams (TV, bowl games, merchandise, etc.), which arguably justify higher spending. But that may not always shield risk.

• Contract vs. investment timeline: The dot-com bubble was about future potential; coaching buyouts are about backward-looking guarantees and future termination risk.

• Survivors vs. fungibility: In tech, many firms failed and dropped out; in college football there are fewer “firms” (programs) and more continuity—but the risk is institutional financial stress.

The key question: Is there a “bubble”?

When we talk about a bubble, we mean inflated commitments relative to underlying value, with the risk of a sharp correction. Are coach buyouts analogous?

One could argue yes:

• Buyouts exceeding $50-100 million (for a single coach) are extraordinary in any context.

• The “market” for coaches seems to be escalating rapidly—possibly driven by competition rather than careful calculus.

• If programs underperform and schools cannot sustain the spending, corrections may occur (e.g., smaller contracts, more offset clauses, less guarantee).

On the other hand, one could argue no:

• Many elite college football programs generate enormous revenues, perhaps justifying large contracts.

• Unlike highly speculative tech firms, the business model (sell tickets, TV rights, donations, NIL deals) is more established.

• Schools still have incentives to win and to invest in successful coaches; so it may not be purely speculative.

---

Section 4: The Warning Signs

• The steepest buyouts (e.g., $100 million for Kirby Smart) may act as a “sunk cost” risk: If things go wrong, the cost of termination is enormous.

• Smaller or less-funded programs may face financial strain if they try to emulate elite programs.

• If many schools begin locking up coaches with massive guarantees and corresponding buyouts, the cost of failure may climb system-wide.

• As with the dot-com bubble, the driver of escalation (competition, hype) may outpace fundamentals (sustained wins, program stability, return on investment).

• Contracts may shift to include stricter offset clauses or performance triggers; if so, that may be evidence of a correction beginning.

---

Conclusion

The rapid rise of head-coach buyouts in college football asks a serious question: Are we in an unsustainable escalation of commitments? The dot-com bubble of the late 1990s provides a cautionary tale: dramatic promises, escalating valuations, and then a sharp downturn.

While the analogy is not perfect, the key takeaway is that institutions (whether schools or investors) should remain mindful of risk-vs-reward, sustainability, and what happens if expectations are not met.

In college football: when a school writes a $100 million guaranteed contract with a $100 million buyout, it must ask: if the coach fails to deliver, how will that payout impact the program, the budget, the students, the university? Just because the money is there today doesn’t mean the risk is gone.

---

Call to Action

School administrators, athletic-directors, donors, and fans alike should ask:

• What realistic return do we expect on a multi-million-dollar guaranteed coach contract?

• Do we have contingencies for underperformance?

• Are we maintaining fiscal discipline even as competitive pressures rise?

The big question remains: if coaching buyouts continue to grow unbounded, will we eventually see a systemic “correction” — and will schools be prepared? The dot-com episode reminds us that when escalation gets detached from fundamentals, the reckoning may be painful and protracted.

---

LSU Tigers’ Blowout Loss and the Burning Question: Is the Brian Kelly Era Coming to a Close?

 

LSU Tigers’ Blowout Loss and the Burning Question: Is the Brian Kelly Era Coming to a Close?

On Saturday in Tiger Stadium, the LSU Tigers suffered a devastating 49-25 loss to the Texas A&M Aggies — a defeat that not only stings for the players and fans, but raises serious questions about the future of head coach Brian Kelly. (CBS Sports)

---

The Game in Numbers

• LSU entered the game with a lead at halftime, 18-14, but the Aggies erupted in the second half, putting up 35 unanswered points. (CBS Sports)

• With this loss, LSU’s record dropped to 5-3 overall and 2-3 in SEC play. (CBS Sports)

• The Tigers, once ranked in the Top 20, now face a steep hill if they hope to contend in the conference or make a postseason run. (SI)

• Key breakdowns: overwhelming second-half collapse, failure to sustain drives and momentum, and a loss of control of the game despite being competitive early on. (CBS Sports)

---

What’s Wrong with LSU This Season?

Several red flags are emerging:

• Strategy and execution collapse: Even with a halftime lead, LSU could not keep it. The coach acknowledged that the second half was “the most disappointing part” of the game. (The Spun)

• Fan unrest and optics: The crowd at Tiger Stadium was reportedly clearly frustrated, with “Fire Kelly!” chants heard, signaling discontent with the direction of the program. (CBS Sports)

• Staffing pressure: Reports suggest LSU may make changes to the coaching staff following the loss. (The Spun)

• Recruiting / expectation mismatch: Kelly came in promising to build LSU into a national contender. But the results so far — especially in pivotal games — suggest there's a gap between aspirations and accomplishments.

---

The Bigger Question: Is the Brian Kelly Era Over?

Now we arrive at the real focal point: with this loss and mounting pressure, is the Kelly era at LSU essentially coming to a close? Some key factors to weigh:

• Accountability: Kelly himself said, “That’s out of my hands … This is my responsibility.” (CBS Sports) He acknowledged the disappointment, and that the job decision isn’t up to him — but that may also suggest he realizes the stakes are high.

• Buy-out / contract implications: Changing head coaches isn’t trivial. Even if momentum turns negative, financial and logistical factors come into play. Reports indicate LSU’s buy-out and contract details are non-trivial. (The Spun)

• Fan sentiment & program expectations: At a storied program like LSU, where national championships have been won in recent decades, tolerance for mediocrity or inconsistent performance is low. This defeat adds to a growing list of major mis-steps for the Tigers under Kelly.

• Time and patience running out: With four seasons in Baton Rouge (Kelly joined in 2022) and a high standard to meet, many believe the margin for error is shrinking. The optics of this loss — and the lack of a clear turnaround yet — may contribute to perceptions that the era has peaked.

---

Final Thoughts

The 49-25 loss to Texas A&M is more than just one bad night for LSU. It exposes deeper issues: loss of control, strategic lapses, and waning confidence in the head coach. While it’s too early to declare definitively that the Brian Kelly era is over, the signs are ominous for his tenure at LSU.

LSU fans and observers must now ask themselves: Can Kelly right the ship and deliver at the level expected at LSU, or has the program’s next chapter already begun?

The remainder of the season will be telling. If the Tigers fail to respond, it may not be if Kelly is gone, but when.

---

bama secures win over SC

 Here’s an article summarizing yesterday’s exciting showdown between the Alabama Crimson Tide and the South Carolina Gamecocks:

---

A Curtain-Raiser of Drama

On Saturday in Columbia, S.C., Alabama secured a gutsy 29–22 victory over South Carolina to improve their record to 7-1 overall and 5-0 in the Southeastern Conference. (University of South Carolina Athletics) The Gamecocks fell to 3-5 (1-5 SEC) with the defeat. (University of South Carolina Athletics)

Trailing by eight points late in the fourth quarter, Alabama mounted a 79-yard drive over 14 plays to tie the game at 22-22 when quarterback Ty Simpson hit wide-receiver Germie Bernard on a 4-yard touchdown pass with 2:16 remaining. (https://www.wbrc.com) Then after a forced fumble by Alabama’s Deontae Lawson gave the Tide the ball at the South Carolina 38, Bernard took a direct snap and raced 25 yards for the go-ahead score with just 34 seconds left. Alabama held on for the win. (https://www.wbrc.com)

---

Key Performances

• Ty Simpson completed 24 of 43 passes for 253 yards and two touchdowns, maintaining his streak of games with multiple TD passes. (Alabama Athletics)

• Germie Bernard ended the night with five catches for 54 yards and a receiving touchdown, plus the aforementioned 25-yard rushing score. (Alabama Athletics)

• On defense, Alabama’s DaShawn Jones intercepted a pass and returned it 18 yards for a touchdown, marking back-to-back games with a defensive score for the Tide. (Alabama Athletics)

• For South Carolina, quarterback LaNorris Sellers accounted for 222 passing yards with a touchdown, and added 67 yards rushing with another score — but a late fumble proved costly. (University of South Carolina Athletics)

---

Turning Point & Takeaways

South Carolina looked in control with a 22-14 lead with about ten minutes left in the game. But in those final moments, Alabama out-gained the Gamecocks 117-2 and scored 15 unanswered points to pull off the comeback. (Alabama Athletics) The forced fumble by Lawson and Bernard’s unique direct-snap touchdown were especially decisive.

The win stands out for the Tide: not just a victory, but a demonstration of clutch execution under pressure and complementary football — offense, defense, and special teams all contributing. Meanwhile, South Carolina once again showed fight but couldn’t close it out, highlighting lingering issues with turnovers and late-game execution.

---

Looking Ahead

With this victory, Alabama remains undefeated in SEC play and strengthens its playoff-hope résumé. South Carolina, meanwhile, faces a deeper hole in the conference standings and must regroup quickly to salvage a tough season.

For Alabama fans, it’s a reminder: regardless of the opponent or the venue (this game was on the road at Williams-Brice Stadium), the Tide can find ways to win. For the Gamecocks, it’s an opportunity to learn from mistakes in closing moments and build toward next year.

---

Next game for the tide : Lsu (nov 8th)

Alabama Dominates Rival Tennessee, 37–20

 

Alabama Dominates Rival Tennessee, 37–20

In a much-anticipated showdown between conference rivals, the Alabama Crimson Tide delivered a commanding 37–20 victory over the Tennessee Volunteers on Saturday night in Tuscaloosa. (University of Tennessee Athletics)

From the opening drive, Alabama set the tone. The Tide marched 91 yards on their first possession, culminating in a touchdown pass from quarterback Ty Simpson to Isaiah Horton, putting them ahead early. (Roll 'Bama Roll) Their defense followed up with a safety, and just before halftime, the Tide delivered a 99-yard interception return for a touchdown by Zabien Brown—giving Alabama a 23–7 lead into the break. (University of Tennessee Athletics)

Key Statistics & Turning Points

• Alabama held Tennessee to 410 total yards, well under the Volunteers’ average of 529 yards per game. (FOX Sports)

• Ty Simpson completed 19 of 29 passes for 253 yards and two touchdowns, with zero interceptions. (FOX Sports)

• Tennessee’s quarterback Joey Aguilar finished 28 of 44 for 268 yards, with one touchdown and one interception—his streak of games with 200+ passing yards continues at 31. (University of Tennessee Athletics)

• Tennessee running back DeSean Bishop rushed for 123 yards and two touchdowns on 14 carries—one of the few bright spots for the Vols. (Rocky Top Talk)

• Late in the third quarter, Alabama engineered a 99-yard touchdown drive, capped by an 11-yard strike from Simpson to Rico Scott, pushing the lead to 30-13. (University of Tennessee Athletics)

Analysis & Context
The win solidifies Alabama’s standing in the conference and adds to their momentum against ranked opponents. According to Fox Sports, it marked their fourth straight victory over a ranked team. (FOX Sports) The Tide’s defense deserves particular credit: not only did they limit Tennessee’s explosive offense, but they also created game-changing plays (e.g., Brown’s interception return). Tennessee’s offense showed flashes, but turnovers and opportunistic Alabama defense tilted the game.

For the Volunteers, the rushing attack led by Bishop was effective, but their defense struggled to contain Alabama’s balanced offense, and the special teams/mistake-side of the game (e.g., safety, red-zone execution) cost them dearly.

Looking Ahead
Alabama (now 6-1, 4-0 in the SEC) will look to build from this performance as they continue their conference schedule. Tennessee (5-2, 2-2 in the SEC) will have to respond quickly to stay competitive in the division race.

---

Private Equity Moves into College Football: A New Frontier or a Faustian Bargain?

 

---

Private Equity Moves into College Football: A New Frontier or a Faustian Bargain?

In recent years, private equity firms—long active in industries from healthcare to real estate—have begun circling one of America’s most storied but financially stressed arenas: college athletics, and particularly major football programs. As athletic departments across the country struggle with budget shortfalls, rising costs, and pressure to compete in the evolving Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) era, some private capital players see opportunity. But the entrance of profit‑driven investors raises thorny questions of governance, mission, fairness, and legal risk.

Below, we examine how private equity is approaching cash‑strapped athletic departments, what the Big Ten is reportedly considering via a deal with Elevate, and how Washington may block or constrain these deals through new legislation.

---

Why Private Equity Is Eyeing Athletic Departments

The Financial Strain on Athletic Departments

Athletic departments, especially at mid-tier or lower-revenue Division I institutions, are squeezed. Many rely heavily on subsidization from university budgets, student fees, and state appropriations, and still struggle to cover operating costs, facility maintenance, travel, compliance, and increasing NIL-related payouts. In many cases, donors are experiencing “donor fatigue” after years of capital campaigns. (Loeb & Loeb)

The business model of college athletics has been under pressure: media rights deals are growing, but so are expectations for facilities, staffing, and athlete compensation. At elite programs, the revenue upside is significant; at smaller ones, the financial challenges are existential.

The PE Playbook: Capital + Operational Expertise

Private equity (PE) firms believe they can bring more than just capital. Their value proposition often includes:

• Operational improvement: Optimizing sponsorships, ticketing, digital monetization, revenue sharing, cost controls, and fan engagement. (Sports Business Journal)

• Project capital / bridge financing: Funding stadium upgrades, premium seating, technology infrastructure, or NIL platforms that may not be easy to finance through university debt or bonds. (Football Scoop)

• Revenue-sharing structures: Instead of outright ownership, many proposals use a model in which the PE firm gets a percentage of “incremental” revenues (above a baseline) rather than full control. (Football Scoop)

• Alignment of incentives: With capital invested, PE firms may push for performance metrics, benchmarks, and accountability.

But this model carries inherent tension: PE firms prioritize returns within a finite investment horizon, whereas universities often prioritize stability, educational mission, compliance (e.g., Title IX), and institutional reputation.

Not Just Universities — Conferences & Funds Entering

It’s not only individual schools. Some firms are structuring funds that can invest in athletic departments or even entire conferences. For example:

• Collegiate Athletic Solutions (CAS): A fund launched by RedBird Capital and Weatherford Capital offering up to $2 billion for athletic departments, in exchange for a slice of future earnings. (Loeb & Loeb)

• Elevate’s College Investment Initiative: A $500 million program (backed by Velocity Capital Management and the Texas Permanent School Fund) directed at “Power Four” programs, offering capital support tied to revenue growth. (Front Office Sports)

Some schools, like Boise State, are reported to be “actively considering” such deals. (Front Office Sports)

Still, adoption has been cautious. Many universities are reluctant to train investors on their operations or risk losing control. (Front Office Sports)

---

The Big Ten & a $10 B Infusion: Fact or Fiction?

In media coverage and conference discourse, rumors have circulated that the Big Ten is contemplating accepting a $10 billion infusion (or some variant of that scale) through an Elevate‑style deal to back its athletic departments and member schools.

However:

• Reports indicate that Elevate’s actually launched program is $500 million, not $10 billion. (Front Office Sports)

• While media speculation continues, officials at schools like UCLA and Penn State have denied doing deals involving private equity, asserting that any Elevate relationship is limited to ticketing services rather than capital investment. (CBS Sports)

• The $10 billion figure may represent a hypothetical maximum scaling or media exaggeration rather than a concrete offer currently under negotiation.

In short: the idea of a 10‑figure infusion is more speculative than factual at this juncture. But even the half‑billion scale of Elevate’s current initiative signals that institutional private capital in college athletics is no longer a fringe idea.

---

Risks, Challenges & Criticisms

Introducing private equity into college athletics is not without controversy. Key concerns include:

Mission & Institutional Control

Universities and athletic departments are not profit-maximizing enterprises. They have obligations to academics, student welfare, Title IX compliance, community engagement, and public accountability. Critics worry that an investor-driven culture could conflict with these missions. (Sports Business Journal)

Equity & Title IX Pressure

A PE-backed push might disproportionately favor football and men’s basketball (the big revenue drivers), potentially leaving non-revenue and women’s sports underfunded. Ensuring gender equity under Title IX would require careful structuring. (Sports Business Journal)

Financial Risk & Contractual Complexity

Revenue-sharing or payout agreements may create unpredictable obligations. If projected revenue growth fails to materialize, universities could find themselves saddled with debt or unfavorable payouts. (Football Scoop)

Regulatory & Legal Uncertainty

Evolving federal or state laws on NIL, athlete compensation, and university-athlete employment status could create liability or instability. (Sports Business Journal)

Cultural & Public Backlash

Alumni, fans, and university stakeholders may resist turning their beloved athletic departments into quasi-commercialized ventures, especially if some perceive loss of control or influence by outside capital.

---

Congressional Pushback: The PROTECT Act (H.R. 5693) & Legislative Guardrails

Recognizing the potential perils of private equity involvement in college sports, lawmakers are already proposing restrictions.

H.R. 5693 — “Protect College Sports from Private Equity and Foreign Influence Act”

• Introduced October 6, 2025, by Rep. Michael Baumgartner (R‑WA). (Congress.gov)

• The bill would amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to prohibit certain private‑equity or sovereign wealth fund agreements involving intercollegiate athletics. (Congress.gov)

• Under the bill, agreements that convey ownership, revenue-sharing, control rights (e.g. vetoes), or security interests in athletic programs would be disallowed, with limited exceptions. (McGuireWoods)

• Institutions would have a 24-month transition period to bring existing agreements into compliance or unwind them. (McGuireWoods)

• Annual certification and public disclosure requirements of any exempted agreements would be included. (McGuireWoods)

If passed, this legislation would place significant barriers in the path of PE deals with athletic programs—particularly those seeking formal control or revenue claims. (McGuireWoods)

What Stage Is the Bill In?

• As of now, H.R. 5693 has been introduced and referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce. No further action has yet been reported. (Congress.gov)

• The bill faces considerable political hurdles, including competing priorities, differing views on college autonomy, and pushback from some university and investment stakeholders.

---

Conclusion: A Turning Point for College Athletics

The entrance of private equity into college sports marks a bold inflection point. On one hand, sports business consultants and PE firms argue that dedicated capital and execution efficiency are precisely what many athletic departments need to thrive in the NIL era. On the other hand, the involvement of profit-driven investors in education-linked institutions raises fundamental questions about mission, fairness, and control.

Whether the Big Ten—or any conference—ultimately accepts multi‑billion-dollar private capital remains uncertain. What is clear: both in boardrooms and in Congress, the notion of private equity in college sports is no longer theoretical.

Tide Rolls Over Vanderbilt, 30‑14

 

---

Tide Rolls Over Vanderbilt, 30‑14: A Complete Game Recap

On Saturday, October 4, 2025, No. 10 Alabama hosted No. 16 Vanderbilt at Bryant‑Denny Stadium and picked up a convincing 30–14 victory over a tough Commodores team. (Vanderbilt Athletics) This win marked a measure of redemption after Vanderbilt’s shocking win over Bama the prior season.

Here’s how the game unfolded, who made the difference, and what it means going forward.

---

Game Summary & Flow

Quarter	Vanderbilt	Alabama	Notes
1	7	0	Vanderbilt struck early via a long run TD. (Vanderbilt Athletics)
2	7	14	Alabama answered with two touchdowns to take the lead. (Vanderbilt Athletics)
3	0	6	Alabama added a touchdown but missed the extra point or opted differently. (Vanderbilt Athletics)
4	0	10	Bama closed out with a touchdown and a field goal. (Vanderbilt Athletics)
Final	14	30	—

A few narrative notes on momentum and adjustments:

• Vanderbilt got off to a fast start in the first quarter, helping to quiet the home crowd.

• But Alabama responded in the second quarter, taking control before halftime and carrying the edge into the second half.

• The Commodores' offense faded in the second half, particularly on the ground, allowing the Tide defense to clamp down. (Vanderbilt Athletics)

• Alabama was efficient in red zone opportunities, turning all four trips into points. (Vanderbilt Athletics)

---

Standout Performers & Key Stats

Alabama

• Ty Simpson (QB): 23 of 30 passing, 340 yards, 2 touchdowns. (Vanderbilt Athletics)

• Jam Miller (RB): 22 carries, 136 rushing yards, 1 touchdown. (Vanderbilt Athletics)

• Germie Bernard & Ryan Williams: Each hauled in touchdown catches; Williams had 6 receptions for 98 yards. (Vanderbilt Athletics)

• Defense / Turnovers: Alabama forced 3 takeaways (2 interceptions, 1 forced fumble) which proved decisive in key moments. (Vanderbilt Athletics)

Vanderbilt

• Diego Pavia (QB): Completed 183 yards passing and scrambled for 58 yards total. (Vanderbilt Athletics)

• Sedrick Alexander (RB): Delivered a stunning 65‑yard touchdown burst in the first. (Vanderbilt Athletics)

• But after a strong first half, Vanderbilt’s ground game was throttled — only 9 rushing yards in the second half. (Vanderbilt Athletics)

• Vanderbilt turned the ball over in the red zone (interception and fumble), stalling drives that might have changed momentum. (Vanderbilt Athletics)

---

Turning Points & Tactical Insights

1. Red Zone Efficiency vs. Missed Opportunities
   Alabama converted all four of its red zone visits into points, capitalizing on field position. Vanderbilt, in contrast, saw two drives end in turnovers when they were closest to scoring. (Vanderbilt Athletics)

2. Second‑Half Offensive Decline for Vanderbilt
   After a solid first half, Vanderbilt essentially lost its rushing attack and passing balance in the second half, which allowed Bama’s defense to tee off. (Vanderbilt Athletics)

3. Turnovers & Momentum Shifts
   The forced turnovers by Alabama, especially when Vanderbilt was threatening in the red zone, swung momentum decisively. (Vanderbilt Athletics)

4. Balanced Attack for Alabama
   The Tide’s mix of explosive passing and steady rushing kept Vanderbilt off-balance. Simpson’s high completion rate and Miller’s ground production made it hard for Vanderbilt’s defense to key on just one dimension.

---

What It Means & Looking Ahead

This victory over a ranked Vanderbilt squad shows that Alabama is capable of bouncing back from adversity. It also acts as a measure of revenge after last season’s upset in Nashville.

• The Crimson Tide improve their SEC standing and solidify their résumé for national ranking ascension.

• Vanderbilt, though beaten, demonstrated flashes of explosiveness but needs consistency and ball security if they want to contend in the SEC.

• For Alabama, maintaining this level of efficiency and avoiding sloppy mistakes will be crucial through the tougher stretch of their schedule.

---