Not only did the BW successfully coerce Boise into annual travel subs when they joined, but also received a $1.5 million exit fee without any issue whatsoever. Our dealings with Boise leaving was quick and relatively painless. Maybe the AAC ought to take a page out of the BW book of negotiations.

(05-23-2014 01:38 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  Not only did the BW successfully coerce Boise into annual travel subs when they joined, but also received a $1.5 million exit fee without any issue whatsoever. Our dealings with Boise leaving was quick and relatively painless. Maybe the AAC ought to take a page out of the BW book of negotiations.

Coerce? Really? Like Hawaii, BSU covering SUBSTANTIALLY increased travel costs was a given from the git go. The book of negotiations referred to needs to be sent to BSU business college, not AAC.

(05-22-2014 06:16 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 04:43 PM)BoiseStateOfMind Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 04:25 PM)CoogNellie Wrote:  I think the AAC dodged a bullet. Boise was a product of their coach and are clearly trending down.

I seem to recall the same things being said after Hawk left. Haters do realize that Petersen is not the only successful coach we've ever had, right?

Pray tell: what advantage does Boise have over its conference-mates such as Nevada, Fresno, Utah State, or even Idaho? Seriously, I'm not trolling, I'd really like to know.

Because from the outside, I see a relatively small college with a 6% 4-year graduation rate in a region with no media market and practically no FBS-quality high school players. I also see a college with few alumni who financially support it (Boise's endowment of $83 million is 8th lowest in FBS).

You've had a great run. But Syracuse and Colorado had better runs in the 90s, and so did Houston in the 70s. Hell, Kentucky and Duke had similar runs in the 50s. None of those teams are currently among the elite in CFB, and to an outsider like me they all appear to have better systematic advantages than Boise. I'm not trying to rip on your school, it's just that I don't see where Boise's long-term advantage comes from. Perhaps you could enlighten me.

Ask a Boise State fan, and they'll tell you that they're catching up to U of I. I don't know what their rate of growth has been over the last decade, but they still need 400 million more dollars in their endowment to match us (per pupil). They have twice as many students as us and still have a smaller operating budget. What's going on there?

(05-23-2014 03:02 PM)Tallgrass Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 01:38 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  Not only did the BW successfully coerce Boise into annual travel subs when they joined, but also received a $1.5 million exit fee without any issue whatsoever. Our dealings with Boise leaving was quick and relatively painless. Maybe the AAC ought to take a page out of the BW book of negotiations.

Coerce? Really? Like Hawaii, BSU covering SUBSTANTIALLY increased travel costs was a given from the git go. The book of negotiations referred to needs to be sent to BSU business college, not AAC.

Boise would have avoided those costs altogether had they followed through on their original agreement to rejoin the WAC, but then they withdrew and lost most of their leverage when they turned to the BW. Even so, they (and San Diego State) still could have told the BW to get lost after that conference "asked" Boise to fork over some annual travel subs; $750k a year adds up over time and yet they agreed on it.

While "coerced" may be a bit dramatic, no one can dispute that the BW did well in negotiating with Boise State at the beginning and in securing the exit fee quickly and painlessly. The AAC, on the other hand, has dragged their dispute with Boise out way too long. The AAC lost their BCS/power conference status and should have brought this to a close months ago.

I agree Boise should take some lessons to heart from that book of negotiations, but the AAC could use a page or two also.

(05-23-2014 06:37 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 03:02 PM)Tallgrass Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 01:38 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  Not only did the BW successfully coerce Boise into annual travel subs when they joined, but also received a $1.5 million exit fee without any issue whatsoever. Our dealings with Boise leaving was quick and relatively painless. Maybe the AAC ought to take a page out of the BW book of negotiations.

Coerce? Really? Like Hawaii, BSU covering SUBSTANTIALLY increased travel costs was a given from the git go. The book of negotiations referred to needs to be sent to BSU business college, not AAC.

Boise would have avoided those costs altogether had they followed through on their original agreement to rejoin the WAC, but then they withdrew and lost most of their leverage when they turned to the BW. Even so, they (and San Diego State) still could have told the BW to get lost after that conference "asked" Boise to fork over some annual travel subs; $750k a year adds up over time and yet they agreed on it.

While "coerced" may be a bit dramatic, no one can dispute that the BW did well in negotiating with Boise State at the beginning and in securing the exit fee quickly and painlessly. The AAC, on the other hand, has dragged their dispute with Boise out way too long. The AAC lost their BCS/power conference status and should have brought this to a close months ago.

I agree Boise should take some lessons to heart from that book of negotiations, but the AAC could use a page or two also.

Of course, BSU wasn't going to offer up front to foot the substantially increased travel costs. That's business. But, on the other hand, everyone, BSU Nation and BW Nation, realized from the git go that BSU had to subsidize travel costs; that was definitely a given.

Whether BSU is at fault or AAC is a fault, I really don't care. But the agreement was signed by BSU for $5M....so, that appears to be the magic number for BSU and AAC is not asking for anything more than what BSU signed on for. It is not so much that I am impressed with AAC's steadfastness; It is more that BSU was so dumb not to put in some kind of escape clause to avoid the $5M.

I compliment BW for making a few bucks off BSU's gyrations of chasing the BCS rainbow pot of gold.

(05-23-2014 10:17 PM)Tallgrass Wrote:  Of course, BSU wasn't going to offer up front to foot the substantially increased travel costs. That's business. But, on the other hand, everyone, BSU Nation and BW Nation, realized from the git go that BSU had to subsidize travel costs; that was definitely a given.

Whether BSU is at fault or AAC is a fault, I really don't care. But the agreement was signed by BSU for $5M....so, that appears to be the magic number for BSU and AAC is not asking for anything more than what BSU signed on for. It is not so much that I am impressed with AAC's steadfastness; It is more that BSU was so dumb not to put in some kind of escape clause to avoid the $5M.

I compliment BW for making a few bucks off BSU's gyrations of chasing the BCS rainbow pot of gold.

I think San Diego State was able to leave the AAC without penalty because they put in such an escape clause and when Boise withdrew, their decision became that much easier. It's interesting that the tag-along negotiated one and the main target did not. Maybe BSU thought the move was going to be worth it regardless of what happened and didn't bother putting in an exit strategy?

I also believe there are no hard feelings between Boise and the BW. Both sides benefited from their temporary arrangement and if Boise were to receive a football-only invite to a P5 conference they may look the BW's way again.

(05-22-2014 06:16 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 04:43 PM)BoiseStateOfMind Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 04:25 PM)CoogNellie Wrote:  I think the AAC dodged a bullet. Boise was a product of their coach and are clearly trending down.

I seem to recall the same things being said after Hawk left. Haters do realize that Petersen is not the only successful coach we've ever had, right?

Pray tell: what advantage does Boise have over its conference-mates such as Nevada, Fresno, Utah State, or even Idaho? Seriously, I'm not trolling, I'd really like to know.

Because from the outside, I see a relatively small college with a 6% 4-year graduation rate in a region with no media market and practically no FBS-quality high school players. I also see a college with few alumni who financially support it (Boise's endowment of $83 million is 8th lowest in FBS).

You've had a great run. But Syracuse and Colorado had better runs in the 90s, and so did Houston in the 70s. Hell, Kentucky and Duke had similar runs in the 50s. None of those teams are currently among the elite in CFB, and to an outsider like me they all appear to have better systematic advantages than Boise. I'm not trying to rip on your school, it's just that I don't see where Boise's long-term advantage comes from. Perhaps you could enlighten me.

Enrollment size just isn't a major factor. This isn't high school where you pull your team from the student body, instead you recruit players to come join the student body.

TV market isn't a big factor either. That's old model thinking. We are no longer building TV around syndicated deals with limited viewership data and relying on market data to guess at value. Boise drawing one million TV viewers has the same TV value as a similarly situated school (affiliation-wise) that is in a market 10X larger and drawing one million viewers.

Endowment is yet another red herring. Few if any of those dollars can be deployed to athletics and endowment is not an accurate measure of donor willingness to support athletics. The endowment era is if not over, is on pause. Federal income tax rates are remarkably low, we've not had a top rate of even 40% since 1986. There is less tax pressure to seek the benefits of large donations to endowments. The lowering of capital gains tax rates has removed much of the incentive of disposing of highly appreciate securities by donating them. During the higher tax era if you had bought a thousand shares at $100 and they were now worth $250 you had a big tax bill waiting if you cashed out, you could donate half to alma mater get a nice tax break and still make a profit. You've also had major changes to inheritance taxes that prompted people to make large donations for tax reasons.

Boise's success has mostly come in an era when donating to an endowment was a less significant financial planning strategy.

What Boise offers is a community where the team is THE SHOW.

They are also accessible by direct flight throughout much of their prime recruiting area and that is a region (Mountain and Pacific time zones) where there are only 27 FBS schools, Texas/Oklahoma/Arkanas/Louisiana has 22 schools and players in the Eastern and Central time zone because of the proximity of teams are much less likely to choose a school they have to fly to.

(05-23-2014 06:37 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 03:02 PM)Tallgrass Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 01:38 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  Not only did the BW successfully coerce Boise into annual travel subs when they joined, but also received a $1.5 million exit fee without any issue whatsoever. Our dealings with Boise leaving was quick and relatively painless. Maybe the AAC ought to take a page out of the BW book of negotiations.

Coerce? Really? Like Hawaii, BSU covering SUBSTANTIALLY increased travel costs was a given from the git go. The book of negotiations referred to needs to be sent to BSU business college, not AAC.

Boise would have avoided those costs altogether had they followed through on their original agreement to rejoin the WAC, but then they withdrew and lost most of their leverage when they turned to the BW. Even so, they (and San Diego State) still could have told the BW to get lost after that conference "asked" Boise to fork over some annual travel subs; $750k a year adds up over time and yet they agreed on it.

While "coerced" may be a bit dramatic, no one can dispute that the BW did well in negotiating with Boise State at the beginning and in securing the exit fee quickly and painlessly. The AAC, on the other hand, has dragged their dispute with Boise out way too long. The AAC lost their BCS/power conference status and should have brought this to a close months ago.

I agree Boise should take some lessons to heart from that book of negotiations, but the AAC could use a page or two also.

The Big West negotiations went smoothly because Boise paid every dollar it owed. The AAC negations would be over as well if Boise had done the same--instead, Boise filed the law suit against the AAC. Yes, that's right--this is Boise's law suit. It's not up to the AAC to drop the suit. The AAC didn't file it.

So let me understand this: Bosie owes a exit fee based on them leaving after they signed a deal where the conditions got changed after thet signed said agreement? If I am Bosie, I go to court based on that.

Sent from my SPH-M840 using Tapatalk

(05-22-2014 04:43 PM)BoiseStateOfMind Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 04:25 PM)CoogNellie Wrote:  I think the AAC dodged a bullet. Boise was a product of their coach and are clearly trending down.

I seem to recall the same things being said after Hawk left. Haters do realize that Petersen is not the only successful coach we've ever had, right?

It all boils down to the coach's connections in California...

(05-24-2014 01:49 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 06:16 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 04:43 PM)BoiseStateOfMind Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 04:25 PM)CoogNellie Wrote:  I think the AAC dodged a bullet. Boise was a product of their coach and are clearly trending down.

I seem to recall the same things being said after Hawk left. Haters do realize that Petersen is not the only successful coach we've ever had, right?

Pray tell: what advantage does Boise have over its conference-mates such as Nevada, Fresno, Utah State, or even Idaho? Seriously, I'm not trolling, I'd really like to know.

Because from the outside, I see a relatively small college with a 6% 4-year graduation rate in a region with no media market and practically no FBS-quality high school players. I also see a college with few alumni who financially support it (Boise's endowment of $83 million is 8th lowest in FBS).

You've had a great run. But Syracuse and Colorado had better runs in the 90s, and so did Houston in the 70s. Hell, Kentucky and Duke had similar runs in the 50s. None of those teams are currently among the elite in CFB, and to an outsider like me they all appear to have better systematic advantages than Boise. I'm not trying to rip on your school, it's just that I don't see where Boise's long-term advantage comes from. Perhaps you could enlighten me.

Enrollment size just isn't a major factor. This isn't high school where you pull your team from the student body, instead you recruit players to come join the student body.

TV market isn't a big factor either. That's old model thinking. We are no longer building TV around syndicated deals with limited viewership data and relying on market data to guess at value. Boise drawing one million TV viewers has the same TV value as a similarly situated school (affiliation-wise) that is in a market 10X larger and drawing one million viewers.

Endowment is yet another red herring. Few if any of those dollars can be deployed to athletics and endowment is not an accurate measure of donor willingness to support athletics. The endowment era is if not over, is on pause. Federal income tax rates are remarkably low, we've not had a top rate of even 40% since 1986. There is less tax pressure to seek the benefits of large donations to endowments. The lowering of capital gains tax rates has removed much of the incentive of disposing of highly appreciate securities by donating them. During the higher tax era if you had bought a thousand shares at $100 and they were now worth $250 you had a big tax bill waiting if you cashed out, you could donate half to alma mater get a nice tax break and still make a profit. You've also had major changes to inheritance taxes that prompted people to make large donations for tax reasons.

Boise's success has mostly come in an era when donating to an endowment was a less significant financial planning strategy.

What Boise offers is a community where the team is THE SHOW.

They are also accessible by direct flight throughout much of their prime recruiting area and that is a region (Mountain and Pacific time zones) where there are only 27 FBS schools, Texas/Oklahoma/Arkanas/Louisiana has 22 schools and players in the Eastern and Central time zone because of the proximity of teams are much less likely to choose a school they have to fly to.

Being the only show in a mid-sized city can only help. But it's not unique to Boise. Most of their conference is in a similar position (Hawai'i, Colorado State, Fresno, UNLV, Nevada, New Mexico, and Air Force). For that matter, so are UTEP, Oregon, Colorado, BYU, WSU, and NMSU. Most of those have direct flights anywhere in the West, too.

And being one of 27 FBS schools is actually a negative. That's 22% of FBS, and the Mountain/Pacific time zones are only 19% of the population. This is especially bad when you consider that there are fewer P5-caliber players per capita in the West than the Central/East.

Factors like market size, school size, endowment etc are indicative of the size of the potential fanbase and how much they care. A small school in a small market can overcome these factors, but only if they offer *something* that reaches out to a broader fanbase. For example, Wisconsin, Syracuse, and Baylor use their excellent academics to attract influential support in giant cities (Chicago, NYC, and Dallas/Houston) that gets them on ESPN in those cities. Oregon offers the Nike connection. Notre Dame and BYU have successfully marketed themselves to their religious congregations nationwide. You can tell that those schools have been successful because they get substantial contributions to their endowments.

My point is Boise is so small that they have to *draw* players in, but they don't offer anything that is a *draw* over its competitors. A school like Cincinnati doesn't have this problem because we're the biggest school in a metro of 2.1 million that produced 48 FBS players last year (to be sure, we have other problems, but Boise has many of those same problems like playoff access and a small stadium). What draws good players to Boise as opposed to, say, Utah and Washington State, or even CSU and Fresno?

(05-24-2014 04:06 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(05-24-2014 01:49 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 06:16 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 04:43 PM)BoiseStateOfMind Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 04:25 PM)CoogNellie Wrote:  I think the AAC dodged a bullet. Boise was a product of their coach and are clearly trending down.

I seem to recall the same things being said after Hawk left. Haters do realize that Petersen is not the only successful coach we've ever had, right?

Pray tell: what advantage does Boise have over its conference-mates such as Nevada, Fresno, Utah State, or even Idaho? Seriously, I'm not trolling, I'd really like to know.

Because from the outside, I see a relatively small college with a 6% 4-year graduation rate in a region with no media market and practically no FBS-quality high school players. I also see a college with few alumni who financially support it (Boise's endowment of $83 million is 8th lowest in FBS).

You've had a great run. But Syracuse and Colorado had better runs in the 90s, and so did Houston in the 70s. Hell, Kentucky and Duke had similar runs in the 50s. None of those teams are currently among the elite in CFB, and to an outsider like me they all appear to have better systematic advantages than Boise. I'm not trying to rip on your school, it's just that I don't see where Boise's long-term advantage comes from. Perhaps you could enlighten me.

Enrollment size just isn't a major factor. This isn't high school where you pull your team from the student body, instead you recruit players to come join the student body.

TV market isn't a big factor either. That's old model thinking. We are no longer building TV around syndicated deals with limited viewership data and relying on market data to guess at value. Boise drawing one million TV viewers has the same TV value as a similarly situated school (affiliation-wise) that is in a market 10X larger and drawing one million viewers.

Endowment is yet another red herring. Few if any of those dollars can be deployed to athletics and endowment is not an accurate measure of donor willingness to support athletics. The endowment era is if not over, is on pause. Federal income tax rates are remarkably low, we've not had a top rate of even 40% since 1986. There is less tax pressure to seek the benefits of large donations to endowments. The lowering of capital gains tax rates has removed much of the incentive of disposing of highly appreciate securities by donating them. During the higher tax era if you had bought a thousand shares at $100 and they were now worth $250 you had a big tax bill waiting if you cashed out, you could donate half to alma mater get a nice tax break and still make a profit. You've also had major changes to inheritance taxes that prompted people to make large donations for tax reasons.

Boise's success has mostly come in an era when donating to an endowment was a less significant financial planning strategy.

What Boise offers is a community where the team is THE SHOW.

They are also accessible by direct flight throughout much of their prime recruiting area and that is a region (Mountain and Pacific time zones) where there are only 27 FBS schools, Texas/Oklahoma/Arkanas/Louisiana has 22 schools and players in the Eastern and Central time zone because of the proximity of teams are much less likely to choose a school they have to fly to.

Being the only show in a mid-sized city can only help. But it's not unique to Boise. Most of their conference is in a similar position (Hawai'i, Colorado State, Fresno, UNLV, Nevada, New Mexico, and Air Force). For that matter, so are UTEP, Oregon, Colorado, BYU, WSU, and NMSU. Most of those have direct flights anywhere in the West, too.

And being one of 27 FBS schools is actually a negative. That's 22% of FBS, and the Mountain/Pacific time zones are only 19% of the population. This is especially bad when you consider that there are fewer P5-caliber players per capita in the West than the Central/East.

Factors like market size, school size, endowment etc are indicative of the size of the potential fanbase and how much they care. A small school in a small market can overcome these factors, but only if they offer *something* that reaches out to a broader fanbase. For example, Wisconsin, Syracuse, and Baylor use their excellent academics to attract influential support in giant cities (Chicago, NYC, and Dallas/Houston) that gets them on ESPN in those cities. Oregon offers the Nike connection. Notre Dame and BYU have successfully marketed themselves to their religious congregations nationwide. You can tell that those schools have been successful because they get substantial contributions to their endowments.

My point is Boise is so small that they have to *draw* players in, but they don't offer anything that is a *draw* over its competitors. A school like Cincinnati doesn't have this problem because we're the biggest school in a metro of 2.1 million that produced 48 FBS players last year (to be sure, we have other problems, but Boise has many of those same problems like playoff access and a small stadium). What draws good players to Boise as opposed to, say, Utah and Washington State, or even CSU and Fresno?

Washington State shares a very small metro area with U of I (~50,000). The nearest city is Spokane, which is over an hour away. Boise has nothing on Wazzu as an institution, but they do have a winning tradition and a city to their advantage. I guess it's a draw that both UI and Wazzu are major party schools. There are probably more bars and greek houses in this area than there are buildings at BSU's campus.