(01-18-2020 12:29 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 12:18 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 10:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 07:39 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 06:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  If Boise took the time to make a public statement conflicting with what the MWC publicly said, which they did, than to me that means it is "something".

SEE UCONN

Yes, but there's a likely critical difference - UConn grumbled about money they were not going to be getting starting next year. Boise is grumbling about money the MW says they aren't going to be getting seven years from now.

So the pressure to act was greater with UConn.

Still, if I was the MW commissioner, I would quickly issue a new statement withdrawing the earlier claim that Boise would not be negotiating separately in 2026, reiterating that Boise is getting more in this agreement, and that what happens in 2026 and beyond will be discussed and determined at that time.

I would do what I could to simmer Boise down, as a Boise defection right now, either to the AAC or to go independent, would be disastrous for the MW.

Boise is enough of a pain in the ass, I think most of the MWC schools don’t care. I doubt Thompson’s comment was an idle threat.

Boise’s options are:
1) Renegotiate the terms into a true performance bonus available to all
2) See their rights sold to stadium as a streaming only option
3) Leave and become independent for football and X for all sports

I stopped by to get a sense of option 4
4) Leave and join the AAC for football and X for all sports.

Or have Boise sue their ass for reneging on the contract... You can't just change the terms of the deal because you don't like it.

This is true.

Bottom line: For the next round of Mountain West TV deals, Boise STate is a lot more likely to be around than Craig Thompson is. 6 years is kind of a long time.

(01-18-2020 03:37 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-17-2020 10:14 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-17-2020 10:01 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Boise:

"Our decision to rejoin the MWC in 2013 was based on certain promises. These promises are written down, and cannot be changed without our consent. The MWC now says they will no longer honor those promises. Therefore, we are in the process of weighing our options to move forward."

What are their options?

1. Stay and fight to enforce the promises.
2. Go independent.
3. Join another conference.

As for #1, BSU has made a few concessions already from the term sheet so not how much they can enforce the “promises”.

Its a contract. It can be modified if BOTH parties agree to do so, but given the language of the agreement, I suspect the MW would have a problem in court if it tried to unilaterally change the terms. The MW has 3 options.

1) They can deal with it.

2) They end the agreement by kicking Boise out of the conference.

3) They can negotiate further incremental changes in the deal that Boise will accept.

The way I see it, if the rest of the members see the issue as big enough to use options #2---then they actually have some leverage in getting meaningful changes via option #3. That said, your playing with fire. Boise may get a better offer in the process.

Right but as a contract the devil is in the details. Boise did not negotiate control over the broadly defined “media rights”. In section 3 of the term sheet, the have stated joint control over their broadcast television rights. In section 5, the MWC explicitly has sole control over web video streaming rights.

So the MWC’s options are:

1) negotiate a true performance incentive model equally available to all schools.

2) use their contractual rights and sell Boise football as a web streaming package only.

3) allow Boise to leave under the stated terms of the MWC bylaws should another conference want them or should they want to go Indy.

(01-18-2020 11:57 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 03:37 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-17-2020 10:14 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-17-2020 10:01 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Boise:

"Our decision to rejoin the MWC in 2013 was based on certain promises. These promises are written down, and cannot be changed without our consent. The MWC now says they will no longer honor those promises. Therefore, we are in the process of weighing our options to move forward."

What are their options?

1. Stay and fight to enforce the promises.
2. Go independent.
3. Join another conference.

As for #1, BSU has made a few concessions already from the term sheet so not how much they can enforce the “promises”.

Its a contract. It can be modified if BOTH parties agree to do so, but given the language of the agreement, I suspect the MW would have a problem in court if it tried to unilaterally change the terms. The MW has 3 options.

1) They can deal with it.

2) They end the agreement by kicking Boise out of the conference.

3) They can negotiate further incremental changes in the deal that Boise will accept.

The way I see it, if the rest of the members see the issue as big enough to use options #2---then they actually have some leverage in getting meaningful changes via option #3. That said, your playing with fire. Boise may get a better offer in the process.

Boise will not get a better offer unless the Pac 12 or Big 12 blow up. And then they would leave regardless of what the MWC does. Joining the AAC is really not better. They would have a tougher time winning the conference, no natural rivals and would be in a much lesser league for sports other than football.

That's right, Boise State's other options are not better.

But maybe the rest of the MWC decides to be stupid. Maybe they decide that they'd be just as strong without Boise, and then they burn all their bridges with Boise. Then, the MWC might become a worse option than Boise's other options.

(01-18-2020 11:57 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 03:37 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-17-2020 10:14 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-17-2020 10:01 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Boise:

"Our decision to rejoin the MWC in 2013 was based on certain promises. These promises are written down, and cannot be changed without our consent. The MWC now says they will no longer honor those promises. Therefore, we are in the process of weighing our options to move forward."

What are their options?

1. Stay and fight to enforce the promises.
2. Go independent.
3. Join another conference.

As for #1, BSU has made a few concessions already from the term sheet so not how much they can enforce the “promises”.

Its a contract. It can be modified if BOTH parties agree to do so, but given the language of the agreement, I suspect the MW would have a problem in court if it tried to unilaterally change the terms. The MW has 3 options.

1) They can deal with it.

2) They end the agreement by kicking Boise out of the conference.

3) They can negotiate further incremental changes in the deal that Boise will accept.

The way I see it, if the rest of the members see the issue as big enough to use options #2---then they actually have some leverage in getting meaningful changes via option #3. That said, your playing with fire. Boise may get a better offer in the process.

Boise will not get a better offer unless the Pac 12 or Big 12 blow up. And then they would leave regardless of what the MWC does. Joining the AAC is really not better. They would have a tougher time winning the conference, no natural rivals and would be in a much lesser league for sports other than football.

much lesser league for sports other than football?

You do understand that the AAC is way ahead of the MWC in Men's basketball. Even w/o UConn.

(01-18-2020 12:29 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 12:18 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 10:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 07:39 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 06:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  If Boise took the time to make a public statement conflicting with what the MWC publicly said, which they did, than to me that means it is "something".

SEE UCONN

Yes, but there's a likely critical difference - UConn grumbled about money they were not going to be getting starting next year. Boise is grumbling about money the MW says they aren't going to be getting seven years from now.

So the pressure to act was greater with UConn.

Still, if I was the MW commissioner, I would quickly issue a new statement withdrawing the earlier claim that Boise would not be negotiating separately in 2026, reiterating that Boise is getting more in this agreement, and that what happens in 2026 and beyond will be discussed and determined at that time.

I would do what I could to simmer Boise down, as a Boise defection right now, either to the AAC or to go independent, would be disastrous for the MW.

Boise is enough of a pain in the ass, I think most of the MWC schools don’t care. I doubt Thompson’s comment was an idle threat.

Boise’s options are:
1) Renegotiate the terms into a true performance bonus available to all
2) See their rights sold to stadium as a streaming only option
3) Leave and become independent for football and X for all sports

I stopped by to get a sense of option 4
4) Leave and join the AAC for football and X for all sports.

Or have Boise sue their ass for reneging on the contract... You can't just change the terms of the deal because you don't like it.

Before you talk about reneging you might want to read the terms of the deal. Notice nowhere does it say “media rights”.


Just so it is available again for this thread, here is the 2012 term sheet.

http://www.usufans.com/Forums/download/file.php?id=1724

(01-18-2020 12:55 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 11:57 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 03:37 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-17-2020 10:14 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-17-2020 10:01 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Boise:

"Our decision to rejoin the MWC in 2013 was based on certain promises. These promises are written down, and cannot be changed without our consent. The MWC now says they will no longer honor those promises. Therefore, we are in the process of weighing our options to move forward."

What are their options?

1. Stay and fight to enforce the promises.
2. Go independent.
3. Join another conference.

As for #1, BSU has made a few concessions already from the term sheet so not how much they can enforce the “promises”.

Its a contract. It can be modified if BOTH parties agree to do so, but given the language of the agreement, I suspect the MW would have a problem in court if it tried to unilaterally change the terms. The MW has 3 options.

1) They can deal with it.

2) They end the agreement by kicking Boise out of the conference.

3) They can negotiate further incremental changes in the deal that Boise will accept.

The way I see it, if the rest of the members see the issue as big enough to use options #2---then they actually have some leverage in getting meaningful changes via option #3. That said, your playing with fire. Boise may get a better offer in the process.

Boise will not get a better offer unless the Pac 12 or Big 12 blow up. And then they would leave regardless of what the MWC does. Joining the AAC is really not better. They would have a tougher time winning the conference, no natural rivals and would be in a much lesser league for sports other than football.

much lesser league for sports other than football?

You do understand that the AAC is way ahead of the MWC in Men's basketball. Even w/o UConn.

I think the assumption is the AAC would take football only and Boise would put their other sports in the WAC.

(01-18-2020 12:56 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 12:29 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 12:18 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 10:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 07:39 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  SEE UCONN

Yes, but there's a likely critical difference - UConn grumbled about money they were not going to be getting starting next year. Boise is grumbling about money the MW says they aren't going to be getting seven years from now.

So the pressure to act was greater with UConn.

Still, if I was the MW commissioner, I would quickly issue a new statement withdrawing the earlier claim that Boise would not be negotiating separately in 2026, reiterating that Boise is getting more in this agreement, and that what happens in 2026 and beyond will be discussed and determined at that time.

I would do what I could to simmer Boise down, as a Boise defection right now, either to the AAC or to go independent, would be disastrous for the MW.

Boise is enough of a pain in the ass, I think most of the MWC schools don’t care. I doubt Thompson’s comment was an idle threat.

Boise’s options are:
1) Renegotiate the terms into a true performance bonus available to all
2) See their rights sold to stadium as a streaming only option
3) Leave and become independent for football and X for all sports

I stopped by to get a sense of option 4
4) Leave and join the AAC for football and X for all sports.

Or have Boise sue their ass for reneging on the contract... You can't just change the terms of the deal because you don't like it.

Before you talk about reneging you might want to read the terms of the deal. Notice nowhere does it say “media rights”.


Just so it is available again for this thread, here is the 2012 term sheet.

http://www.usufans.com/Forums/download/file.php?id=1724

So for them to get by that, the MWC would have to get totally off of TV. ******* genius. Something tells me 6 years from now there's still going to be TV and college sports are still going to be on there.

That's called cutting off the nose to spite the face.

(01-18-2020 12:45 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 12:29 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 12:18 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 10:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 07:39 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  SEE UCONN

Yes, but there's a likely critical difference - UConn grumbled about money they were not going to be getting starting next year. Boise is grumbling about money the MW says they aren't going to be getting seven years from now.

So the pressure to act was greater with UConn.

Still, if I was the MW commissioner, I would quickly issue a new statement withdrawing the earlier claim that Boise would not be negotiating separately in 2026, reiterating that Boise is getting more in this agreement, and that what happens in 2026 and beyond will be discussed and determined at that time.

I would do what I could to simmer Boise down, as a Boise defection right now, either to the AAC or to go independent, would be disastrous for the MW.

Boise is enough of a pain in the ass, I think most of the MWC schools don’t care. I doubt Thompson’s comment was an idle threat.

Boise’s options are:
1) Renegotiate the terms into a true performance bonus available to all
2) See their rights sold to stadium as a streaming only option
3) Leave and become independent for football and X for all sports

I stopped by to get a sense of option 4
4) Leave and join the AAC for football and X for all sports.

Or have Boise sue their ass for reneging on the contract... You can't just change the terms of the deal because you don't like it.

This is true.

Bottom line: For the next round of Mountain West TV deals, Boise STate is a lot more likely to be around than Craig Thompson is. 6 years is kind of a long time.

Trust me... the MWC Presidents are behind this move not Boise. The original calculation was Boise would make the Access Bowl and bring in more dollars than they cost. That assumption has been proven false. Losing Boise under the current Television deal would a financial benefit for the other schools.

(01-18-2020 12:55 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 11:57 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 03:37 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-17-2020 10:14 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-17-2020 10:01 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Boise:

"Our decision to rejoin the MWC in 2013 was based on certain promises. These promises are written down, and cannot be changed without our consent. The MWC now says they will no longer honor those promises. Therefore, we are in the process of weighing our options to move forward."

What are their options?

1. Stay and fight to enforce the promises.
2. Go independent.
3. Join another conference.

As for #1, BSU has made a few concessions already from the term sheet so not how much they can enforce the “promises”.

Its a contract. It can be modified if BOTH parties agree to do so, but given the language of the agreement, I suspect the MW would have a problem in court if it tried to unilaterally change the terms. The MW has 3 options.

1) They can deal with it.

2) They end the agreement by kicking Boise out of the conference.

3) They can negotiate further incremental changes in the deal that Boise will accept.

The way I see it, if the rest of the members see the issue as big enough to use options #2---then they actually have some leverage in getting meaningful changes via option #3. That said, your playing with fire. Boise may get a better offer in the process.

Boise will not get a better offer unless the Pac 12 or Big 12 blow up. And then they would leave regardless of what the MWC does. Joining the AAC is really not better. They would have a tougher time winning the conference, no natural rivals and would be in a much lesser league for sports other than football.

much lesser league for sports other than football?

You do understand that the AAC is way ahead of the MWC in Men's basketball. Even w/o UConn.

I think he's assuming that Boise State would be in the Big Sky or WAC for sports other than football. If the AAC offered Boise an all-sports membership, that would obviously be a different calculation.

The AAC might have to take one member eventually for CCG.
Even taking a Utah St or CSU would then force the MWC to add.
Basically a U Conn for USU, SDSU , UNLV or CSU trade.
Then the MWC kicks Hawaii out or adds one of NMSU, UTEP, Rice type of program.

Where the AAC adds a top half of conference performer from the MWC. and the MWC adds a new bottom dweller increasing the gap.

(01-18-2020 01:03 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 12:45 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 12:29 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 12:18 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 10:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yes, but there's a likely critical difference - UConn grumbled about money they were not going to be getting starting next year. Boise is grumbling about money the MW says they aren't going to be getting seven years from now.

So the pressure to act was greater with UConn.

Still, if I was the MW commissioner, I would quickly issue a new statement withdrawing the earlier claim that Boise would not be negotiating separately in 2026, reiterating that Boise is getting more in this agreement, and that what happens in 2026 and beyond will be discussed and determined at that time.

I would do what I could to simmer Boise down, as a Boise defection right now, either to the AAC or to go independent, would be disastrous for the MW.

Boise is enough of a pain in the ass, I think most of the MWC schools don’t care. I doubt Thompson’s comment was an idle threat.

Boise’s options are:
1) Renegotiate the terms into a true performance bonus available to all
2) See their rights sold to stadium as a streaming only option
3) Leave and become independent for football and X for all sports

I stopped by to get a sense of option 4
4) Leave and join the AAC for football and X for all sports.

Or have Boise sue their ass for reneging on the contract... You can't just change the terms of the deal because you don't like it.

This is true.

Bottom line: For the next round of Mountain West TV deals, Boise STate is a lot more likely to be around than Craig Thompson is. 6 years is kind of a long time.

Trust me... the MWC Presidents are behind this move not Boise. The original calculation was Boise would make the Access Bowl and bring in more dollars than they cost. That assumption has been proven false. Losing Boise under the current Television deal would a financial benefit for the other schools.

Well ******* duh, obviously Boise wouldn't be behind the move.

And LOL at you really thinking that losing Boise would help everyone else.... There would be a SEVERE haircut for the TV deal.

(01-18-2020 01:04 PM)CoastalVANDAL Wrote:  The AAC might have to take one member eventually for CCG.
Even taking a Utah St or CSU would then force the MWC to add.
Basically a U Conn for USU, SDSU , UNLV or CSU trade.
Then the MWC kicks Hawaii out or adds one of NMSU, UTEP, Rice type of program.

Where the AAC adds a top half of conference performer from the MWC. and the MWC adds a new bottom dweller increasing the gap.

great point. I mean folks UConn was #180 in Sagarin this year. CSU finished #103. NMSU was #166.

(01-18-2020 01:01 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 12:56 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 12:29 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 12:18 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 10:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yes, but there's a likely critical difference - UConn grumbled about money they were not going to be getting starting next year. Boise is grumbling about money the MW says they aren't going to be getting seven years from now.

So the pressure to act was greater with UConn.

Still, if I was the MW commissioner, I would quickly issue a new statement withdrawing the earlier claim that Boise would not be negotiating separately in 2026, reiterating that Boise is getting more in this agreement, and that what happens in 2026 and beyond will be discussed and determined at that time.

I would do what I could to simmer Boise down, as a Boise defection right now, either to the AAC or to go independent, would be disastrous for the MW.

Boise is enough of a pain in the ass, I think most of the MWC schools don’t care. I doubt Thompson’s comment was an idle threat.

Boise’s options are:
1) Renegotiate the terms into a true performance bonus available to all
2) See their rights sold to stadium as a streaming only option
3) Leave and become independent for football and X for all sports

I stopped by to get a sense of option 4
4) Leave and join the AAC for football and X for all sports.

Or have Boise sue their ass for reneging on the contract... You can't just change the terms of the deal because you don't like it.

Before you talk about reneging you might want to read the terms of the deal. Notice nowhere does it say “media rights”.


Just so it is available again for this thread, here is the 2012 term sheet.

http://www.usufans.com/Forums/download/file.php?id=1724

So for them to get by that, the MWC would have to get totally off of TV. ******* genius. Something tells me 6 years from now there's still going to be TV and college sports are still going to be on there.

That's called cutting off the nose to spite the face.

No, read again. Per the term sheet, Boise home games and MWC games are negotiated separately. MWC home games (including Boise away games) would be sold to CBSSports or whomever as they have currently done. Boise home games would be sold to stadium instead of Fox.

(01-18-2020 11:15 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 11:04 AM)esayem Wrote:  The MWC was never at the SBC, MAC level so how could they “fall back”?

If the Independent teams could be considered the “G6”, then it makes more sense for Boise to go that route. They could build a tougher schedule and broker their own TV package. They already have the garbage bowl on the blue turf formally known as the MPC Computers Bowl and Humanitarian Bowl...

It's a saying...

Why they wouldn't go independent? Because maybe they care about being in a NY6 bowl.

Reading comprehension is not your strongest quality.

(01-18-2020 12:22 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 05:07 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  This is much ado about nothing. Craig Thompson should have kept his mouth shut. This is an issue they don’t need to deal with for another five years. There was no reason to bring this issue up. At the end of the day, the current deal costs the other ten teams each $180,000 annually. Boise State can make that up in college football playoff revenue, if they can continue to play at their current level. If they drop off or other schools emerge in the next five years, then they can have the discussion with Boise State about the current contract.

One thing I am certain of, Boise State is not sending their Olympic sports to an eastern or southern conference. If they did join the AAC at some point in the future, they would drop their Olympic sports in the WAC. Boise State is starting baseball in 2020 and since the Big Sky does not have baseball, the WAC is a better fit.

This past season, Boise State had 38 California players on their football roster. They would have to think hard about moving out of a western conference, especially when the revenue difference is minimal. They are not going to leave the MWC.

Boise State will not send their Olympics to the WAC. Even though I would love to see it, it's not happening. Back when they were joining the Big East, they planned on doing that, before the WAC was weakened. They're not going to play with Dixie St, Cal Baptist, Tarleton St, and Chicago St.

They would need an absolute homerun deal for their football team to leave the MWC. The Big West probably wouldn't take them now, the Big Sky is "too small time for them" and the WCC isn't taking them. Their only real option is the WAC, but like I said, not happening without a sweet deal

Why wouldn’t the Big West take Boise State? I don’t think that would be off the table at all if Boise State wanted to pursue football-only membership in the AAC or independence. The WCC isn’t necessarily off the table, either, although that isn’t the same type of fit on paper. Ultimately, the WCC will do whatever it will take to keep Gonzaga happy. If Gonzaga sees adding Boise State as a positive (where even if they aren’t necessarily a great basketball program as of now, it’s still a legit top-to-bottom athletic department like BYU), then that can’t be discounted.

I think the long-term playoff structure will surely matter. If there’s an 8-team playoff with a guaranteed spot for the G5 champ, then that’s a huge incentive for Boise State to stay in the MWC. However, if we still have the current system or there isn’t any guaranteed spot for the G5 champ, then that’s where independence might become more attractive. The one thing that we have seen with BYU is that it’s actually a little easier getting a P5-like schedule as a western team because the Pac-12 schools are much more willing to grant home-and-home series to non-P5 schools than the other P5 conferences. Boise State has garnered a certain amount of credibility as a brand name, as well - P5 fan bases don’t have the reflexive “that’s a G5 school” reaction to playing Boise State that they do with virtually everyone else.

So, I guess I’m a little more open to the possibility seeing schools like Boise State going independent than I was a few years ago. Independence by choice (meaning schools like BYU and UConn as opposed to UMass and New Mexico State) is going to be most attractive to the schools that have hit the glass ceiling on wrong side of the P5/G5 divide, which certainly would apply to Boise State.

Also, I really don’t know what the MWC leadership is doing with its statements, either. Craig Thompson should be much more scared of pissing off Boise State compared to any other school in the MWC. This is the G5 equivalent of the Big 12 worrying more about pissing off Iowa State and Kansas State instead of Texas and Oklahoma. If the Big 12 doesn’t have Texas and Oklahoma, then they don’t have a conference. Similarly, if the MWC doesn’t have Boise State, it doesn’t take too much movement for it to suddenly face a similar fate as the WAC. If I was running the MWC, I wouldn’t let the tail wag the dog... which means keeping Boise State happy should be priority #1 regardless of the complaints of much less valuable schools that don’t have any real realignment market power.

(01-18-2020 01:08 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 01:01 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 12:56 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 12:29 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 12:18 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  Boise is enough of a pain in the ass, I think most of the MWC schools don’t care. I doubt Thompson’s comment was an idle threat.

Boise’s options are:
1) Renegotiate the terms into a true performance bonus available to all
2) See their rights sold to stadium as a streaming only option
3) Leave and become independent for football and X for all sports

I stopped by to get a sense of option 4
4) Leave and join the AAC for football and X for all sports.

Or have Boise sue their ass for reneging on the contract... You can't just change the terms of the deal because you don't like it.

Before you talk about reneging you might want to read the terms of the deal. Notice nowhere does it say “media rights”.


Just so it is available again for this thread, here is the 2012 term sheet.

http://www.usufans.com/Forums/download/file.php?id=1724

So for them to get by that, the MWC would have to get totally off of TV. ******* genius. Something tells me 6 years from now there's still going to be TV and college sports are still going to be on there.

That's called cutting off the nose to spite the face.

No, read again. Per the term sheet, Boise home games and MWC games are negotiated separately. MWC home games (including Boise away games) would be sold to CBSSports or whomever as they have currently done. Boise home games would be sold to stadium instead of Fox.

Boise has to agree to it.

(01-18-2020 01:04 PM)CoastalVANDAL Wrote:  The AAC might have to take one member eventually for CCG.
Even taking a Utah St or CSU would then force the MWC to add.
Basically a U Conn for USU, SDSU , UNLV or CSU trade.
Then the MWC kicks Hawaii out or adds one of NMSU, UTEP, Rice type of program.

Where the AAC adds a top half of conference performer from the MWC. and the MWC adds a new bottom dweller increasing the gap.

See the Big 12. The MWC could kick out Hawaii and got to 10 as a round robin. Which is why Hawaii won’t allow Boise in the Big West. Many of the schools lived through this already in the WAC/MWC split. The conference won’t die and will be fine regardless.

(01-18-2020 01:10 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 01:08 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 01:01 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 12:56 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 12:29 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Or have Boise sue their ass for reneging on the contract... You can't just change the terms of the deal because you don't like it.

Before you talk about reneging you might want to read the terms of the deal. Notice nowhere does it say “media rights”.


Just so it is available again for this thread, here is the 2012 term sheet.

http://www.usufans.com/Forums/download/file.php?id=1724

So for them to get by that, the MWC would have to get totally off of TV. ******* genius. Something tells me 6 years from now there's still going to be TV and college sports are still going to be on there.

That's called cutting off the nose to spite the face.

No, read again. Per the term sheet, Boise home games and MWC games are negotiated separately. MWC home games (including Boise away games) would be sold to CBSSports or whomever as they have currently done. Boise home games would be sold to stadium instead of Fox.

Boise has to agree to it.

Read section 5. Boise has no control over how their web streaming rights are sold. Boise only controls has as joint agreement over their home broadcast television rights. Period end of story.

(01-18-2020 01:15 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 01:10 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 01:08 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 01:01 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 12:56 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  Before you talk about reneging you might want to read the terms of the deal. Notice nowhere does it say “media rights”.


Just so it is available again for this thread, here is the 2012 term sheet.

http://www.usufans.com/Forums/download/file.php?id=1724

So for them to get by that, the MWC would have to get totally off of TV. ******* genius. Something tells me 6 years from now there's still going to be TV and college sports are still going to be on there.

That's called cutting off the nose to spite the face.

No, read again. Per the term sheet, Boise home games and MWC games are negotiated separately. MWC home games (including Boise away games) would be sold to CBSSports or whomever as they have currently done. Boise home games would be sold to stadium instead of Fox.

Boise has to agree to it.

Read section 5. Boise has no control over how their web streaming rights are sold. Boise only controls has as joint agreement over their home broadcast television rights. Period end of story.

I'd venture a guess that Boise would win a suit if MWC tried to have the rest of the MWC on TV and them sold online only.

Or they would just get the **** out of that clown conference.

(01-18-2020 01:10 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 12:22 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 05:07 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  This is much ado about nothing. Craig Thompson should have kept his mouth shut. This is an issue they don’t need to deal with for another five years. There was no reason to bring this issue up. At the end of the day, the current deal costs the other ten teams each $180,000 annually. Boise State can make that up in college football playoff revenue, if they can continue to play at their current level. If they drop off or other schools emerge in the next five years, then they can have the discussion with Boise State about the current contract.

One thing I am certain of, Boise State is not sending their Olympic sports to an eastern or southern conference. If they did join the AAC at some point in the future, they would drop their Olympic sports in the WAC. Boise State is starting baseball in 2020 and since the Big Sky does not have baseball, the WAC is a better fit.

This past season, Boise State had 38 California players on their football roster. They would have to think hard about moving out of a western conference, especially when the revenue difference is minimal. They are not going to leave the MWC.

Boise State will not send their Olympics to the WAC. Even though I would love to see it, it's not happening. Back when they were joining the Big East, they planned on doing that, before the WAC was weakened. They're not going to play with Dixie St, Cal Baptist, Tarleton St, and Chicago St.

They would need an absolute homerun deal for their football team to leave the MWC. The Big West probably wouldn't take them now, the Big Sky is "too small time for them" and the WCC isn't taking them. Their only real option is the WAC, but like I said, not happening without a sweet deal

Why wouldn’t the Big West take Boise State? I don’t think that would be off the table at all if Boise State wanted to pursue football-only membership in the AAC or independence. The WCC isn’t necessarily off the table, either, although that isn’t the same type of fit on paper. Ultimately, the WCC will do whatever it will take to keep Gonzaga happy. If Gonzaga sees adding Boise State as a positive (where even if they aren’t necessarily a great basketball program as of now, it’s still a legit top-to-bottom athletic department like BYU), then that can’t be discounted.

I think the long-term playoff structure will surely matter. If there’s an 8-team playoff with a guaranteed spot for the G5 champ, then that’s a huge incentive for Boise State to stay in the MWC. However, if we still have the current system or there isn’t any guaranteed spot for the G5 champ, then that’s where independence might become more attractive. The one thing that we have seen with BYU is that it’s actually a little easier getting a P5-like schedule as a western team because the Pac-12 schools are much more willing to grant home-and-home series to non-P5 schools than the other P5 conferences. Boise State has garnered a certain amount of credibility as a brand name, as well - P5 fan bases don’t have the reflexive “that’s a G5 school” reaction to playing Boise State that they do with virtually everyone else.

So, I guess I’m a little more open to the possibility seeing schools like Boise State going independent than I was a few years ago. Independence by choice (meaning schools like BYU and UConn as opposed to UMass and New Mexico State) is going to be most attractive to the schools that have hit the glass ceiling on wrong side of the P5/G5 divide, which certainly would apply to Boise State.

Also, I really don’t know what the MWC leadership is doing with its statements, either. Craig Thompson should be much more scared of pissing off Boise State compared to any other school in the MWC. This is the G5 equivalent of the Big 12 worrying more about pissing off Iowa State and Kansas State instead of Texas and Oklahoma. If the Big 12 doesn’t have Texas and Oklahoma, then they don’t have a conference. Similarly, if the MWC doesn’t have Boise State, it doesn’t take too much movement for it to suddenly face a similar fate as the WAC. If I was running the MWC, I wouldn’t let the tail wag the dog... which means keeping Boise State happy should be priority #1 regardless of the complaints of much less valuable schools that don’t have any real realignment market power.

The Big West has 5 sister Cal State Schools and MWC football peer Hawaii in it. That is 6 immediate no votes.

The WCC is a possibility if BYU pushes for it but BYU needs the MWC for its Oct./Nov game scheduling. BYU will think twice about pissing off Thompson and the other MWC Presidents.

Losing Boise State would currently be a financial gain, under the existing structure, for the other schools not to mention soothe pissed off fanbases. Independence today means no access to the access bowl as BYU well knows. The prospect of your season being meaningless after one loss in October does not build your program. BSU will not go independent.

The real question is does the AAC want them. They bring a prima donna attitude worse than Texas so if you do have fun.