What We Know About the U’s Private Equity Deal 26%

6/2/2026, 7:27:13 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 12 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, and Halo Effect, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 35.2% saturation with 86 hits. Analysis detected 373 faulty-reasoning hits from 244 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 37.8% and a BS Rank of 26% (16,282 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 74.40% of the article peer group.

The school announced the deal in December, and said it would be partnering with the New York-based firm Otro Capital. 
Together, they’ll form a new company that handles things like events, ticketing and  importantly  NIL, the mechanism that allows student athletes to earn money for playing. 
Essentially, the goal is to do a better job of raising money for the school than it could on its own. 
This matters because the U’s athletic department has actually been operating in a deficit for some years now. 
And the problem won’t go away: Just last year, it became legal for schools to pay student athletes directly, up to $20.5 million. 
That money has to come from somewhere, especially if the University of Utah hopes to remain relevant in an increasingly competitive landscape. 
Journalists from The Athletic and The Salt Lake Tribune are joining us to talk it through. 
GUESTS  
Matt Baker | He’s a senior writer for The Athletic, covering college sports. 
You can read the story he, Justin Williams, and Stewart Mandel wrote about the University of Utah’s private equity deal here. 
Jason Batacao | He covers sports at the University of Utah for The Salt Lake Tribune. 
You can read his recent reporting about the state auditor here, and his reporting about layoffs at the U here. 
NOTE: KUER is licensed through The University of Utah. 
Airdate: June 4 and 6, 2026 
Confirmation Bias
0%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
0%
Representativeness Heuristic
0%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
0%
Framing Effect
20.5%
Loss Aversion
0%
Status Quo Bias
0%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
8.6%
Pessimism Bias
9.4%
Negativity Bias
7.4%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Fundamental Attribution Error
0%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
0%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
11.9%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
8.6%
Primacy Effect
0%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
35.2%
False Dilemma
9%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
0%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
7.4%
Begging the Question
0%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
0%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
8.6%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
0%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
9.4%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
0%
Quote-first Misdirection
0%
Biased Writer Voice
0%
Indoctrination
0%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
16.8%

244 words analyzed.

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.