(01-22-2020 03:20 PM)Coog Engineer Wrote:  So let's say BSU successfully sues the MWC, what is the likely injury to the MWC? And does it really make sense for BSU to "injured" the conference and then continue forward with business as usual?

If it doesn't make sense to continue forward with the MWC, then BSU must be thinking they have options, are they feeling the PAC is an option? I doubt the AAC conference leaders will seriously want to entertain these notions of grandeur (or notions of wrecking ball?) by BSU.

How realistic is the idea of the PAC then? It would certainly justify the actions they are taking against the MWC.

The AAC would probably take them for football in an even revenue sharing arrangement. Whether Boise would go for that remains to be seen.

I also think that, unlike some teams , they would probably land on their feet going independent, at least for a few years. They'd be closer to BYU/Army than UConn/UMass in that regard imo.

I'd be happy to have them in football if they can accept an equal share. We'd pretty much lock down the NY6 bid, and have a decent shot at an expanded playoff spot. Get it done Aresco.

(01-22-2020 03:22 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 03:20 PM)vick mike Wrote:  Didn’t want Boise then.
Don’t want Boise now.
Won’t want Boise ever.

Bearcats#1 wants you to rewrite that in a Haiku format

Thought it already was?

(01-22-2020 03:20 PM)vick mike Wrote:  Didn’t want Boise then.
Don’t want Boise now.
Won’t want Boise ever.

I want them and any other MWC school under a deal offering a net financial and performance benefit to current AAC members (sans UConn).

(01-22-2020 03:23 PM)vick mike Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 03:22 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 03:20 PM)vick mike Wrote:  Didn’t want Boise then.
Don’t want Boise now.
Won’t want Boise ever.

Bearcats#1 wants you to rewrite that in a Haiku format

Thought it already was?

Swing and a miss

(01-22-2020 03:22 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  Developing story from Idaho Statesman:

https://www.idahostatesman.com/sports/co...33543.html

In sum:
The MWC is in breach of contract with Boise St by signing the contract without approval of Boise St.

The MWC broke a deal made in 2013 by ending two benefits - including an $1.8 million bonus per year.

Except for the fact that the term sheet includes a clause that the 90m threshold must be reached. The bonus pay outs are obviously negotiable because BSU already did renegotiate them.

At best Boise has two arguements:

1. They didn't approve the deal. That's a big one, but the MWC could simply release them and then Boise can try to find a landing spot. Of course not a lot of P5 teams will be lining up to fill a Boise schedule and they will have a hard time ever getting a ny6 bowl again (which will be a rare opportunity anyway, the AAC has a lock for the next 5-6 years).

2. They deserve the 1.8 bonus. They can't reasonably argue for a higher bonus legally, but they could argue they get the extra pay.

MWC will likely return Boise's rights and give them the boot. Boise will rot in independence. Contracts are made to be ended, broken, or dissolved. Boise has made its bed, it will get a minor pay out and then slowly die trying to make an Army, NMST, BYU, and Liberty Nov schedule look appealing, while doing four or five buy games to the PAC in Septemeber and playing an FCS team and UTEP or someone similar in Oct with a buy week.

Tip of hat to "BraveKnight" who posted the below at another thread. I think it belongs here, also.

https://www.mwcconnection.com/2020/1/22/...ision-deal

(01-22-2020 03:23 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 03:20 PM)vick mike Wrote:  Didn’t want Boise then.
Don’t want Boise now.
Won’t want Boise ever.

I want them and any other MWC school under a deal offering a net financial and performance benefit to current AAC members (sans UConn).

Oh the **** show has only begun. My guess is we snag Air Force for FB, then try entice BYU with CSU for 14 and a more compact and Texas focused west. Slide Memphis, Tulane to the east. Colorado, Oklahoma, Texas isn't a bad little footprint even with Maryland as the outlier.

(01-22-2020 03:38 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 03:23 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 03:20 PM)vick mike Wrote:  Didn’t want Boise then.
Don’t want Boise now.
Won’t want Boise ever.

I want them and any other MWC school under a deal offering a net financial and performance benefit to current AAC members (sans UConn).

Oh the **** show has only begun. My guess is we snag Air Force for FB, then try entice BYU with CSU for 14 and a more compact and Texas focused west. Slide Memphis, Tulane to the east. Colorado, Oklahoma, Texas isn't a bad little footprint even with Maryland as the outlier.

No to two triple option teams in the west.

(01-22-2020 03:34 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 03:22 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  Developing story from Idaho Statesman:

https://www.idahostatesman.com/sports/co...33543.html

In sum:
The MWC is in breach of contract with Boise St by signing the contract without approval of Boise St.

The MWC broke a deal made in 2013 by ending two benefits - including an $1.8 million bonus per year.

Except for the fact that the term sheet includes a clause that the 90m threshold must be reached. The bonus pay outs are obviously negotiable because BSU already did renegotiate them.

At best Boise has two arguements:

1. They didn't approve the deal. That's a big one, but the MWC could simply release them and then Boise can try to find a landing spot. Of course not a lot of P5 teams will be lining up to fill a Boise schedule and they will have a hard time ever getting a ny6 bowl again (which will be a rare opportunity anyway, the AAC has a lock for the next 5-6 years).

2. They deserve the 1.8 bonus. They can't reasonably argue for a higher bonus legally, but they could argue they get the extra pay.

MWC will likely return Boise's rights and give them the boot. Boise will rot in independence. Contracts are made to be ended, broken, or dissolved. Boise has made its bed, it will get a minor pay out and then slowly die trying to make an Army, NMST, BYU, and Liberty Nov schedule look appealing, while doing four or five buy games to the PAC in Septemeber and playing an FCS team and UTEP or someone similar in Oct with a buy week.

the mwc is willing to give them the 1.8m...boise wants more than 1.8m...someone in the MWC did the math...they want about 6mil..

the deal wasnt just 1.8m extra.it was 1.8 mil plus a proportional growth to any future contracts...the mwc deal tripled in value

they also say they talked to the commish casual about this in their CCG, and he acknowledged Boise was the sole reason for the price increase ..and the commish acknowledged the deserve more, even double that of any other member

https://twitter.com/MattBrownEP/status/1...7496308737

(01-22-2020 03:41 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 03:34 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 03:22 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  Developing story from Idaho Statesman:

https://www.idahostatesman.com/sports/co...33543.html

In sum:
The MWC is in breach of contract with Boise St by signing the contract without approval of Boise St.

The MWC broke a deal made in 2013 by ending two benefits - including an $1.8 million bonus per year.

Except for the fact that the term sheet includes a clause that the 90m threshold must be reached. The bonus pay outs are obviously negotiable because BSU already did renegotiate them.

At best Boise has two arguements:

1. They didn't approve the deal. That's a big one, but the MWC could simply release them and then Boise can try to find a landing spot. Of course not a lot of P5 teams will be lining up to fill a Boise schedule and they will have a hard time ever getting a ny6 bowl again (which will be a rare opportunity anyway, the AAC has a lock for the next 5-6 years).

2. They deserve the 1.8 bonus. They can't reasonably argue for a higher bonus legally, but they could argue they get the extra pay.

MWC will likely return Boise's rights and give them the boot. Boise will rot in independence. Contracts are made to be ended, broken, or dissolved. Boise has made its bed, it will get a minor pay out and then slowly die trying to make an Army, NMST, BYU, and Liberty Nov schedule look appealing, while doing four or five buy games to the PAC in Septemeber and playing an FCS team and UTEP or someone similar in Oct with a buy week.

the mwc is willing to give them the 1.8m...boise wants more than 1.8m...someone in the MWC did the math...they want about 6mil..

the deal wasnt just 1.8m extra.it was 1.8 mil plus a proportional growth to any future contracts...the mwc deal tripled in value

they also say they talked to the commish casual about this in their CCG, and he acknowledged Boise was the sole reason for the price increase ..and the commish acknowledged the deserve more, even double that of any other member

https://twitter.com/MattBrownEP/status/1...7496308737

Those are talking points.

The bonus deal was switched from the original. All Boise has guarenteed was the 1.8m the way the deal is constructed now. Boise wants the sweetheart deal, but they have already renegotiated a good bit of that away.

I'm sure the commish said that, it's called kissing ass. The presidents will obviously be having none of this.

Boise will end up with 10.8(1.8 • 6) million and out on its kiester, with its television rights and no one to schedule. While Olympics get shoved into the WAC or maybe the Summit.

Boise is being run by some people who aren't very aware of their own precarious position.

I'm going to put on my tin foil hat here for a minute.

Could this be being encouraged by the AAC & ESPN to try and get Boise on as the 12th member of the AAC in football? I mean, it's not the craziest thing that's been said on here.

The fact that Boise has been so aggressive, it almost seems like they are trying to blow things up. The timing of the AAC needing a member makes sense.

(01-22-2020 04:00 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  I'm going to put on my tin foil hat here for a minute.

Could this be being encouraged by the AAC & ESPN to try and get Boise on as the 12th member of the AAC in football? I mean, it's not the craziest thing that's been said on here.

The fact that Boise has been so aggressive, it almost seems like they are trying to blow things up. The timing of the AAC needing a member makes sense.

I don't think they need us to make a scene. We are, however, enjoying it thoroughly.

(01-22-2020 03:10 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  Boise State probably has a valid legal point here, but I don't like the idea of uneven TV revenue sharing in conferences. The whole idea of a conference is that the schools in it benefit by working together to make the overall league as strong as possible. Every conference has certain teams that bring in more money than others, but if you start going down that slippery slope, you can end up in a world where there is no competitive balance within conferences. For instance, if the Big Ten paid their teams out by their actual value, OSU would probably make well over $100 million per year and schools like Illinois and Rutgers would be left scrapping for relative pennies in comparison.

that's how everyday society works. i don't get why it's so sacred for sports to be different when it's not even real life.

(01-22-2020 04:00 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  I'm going to put on my tin foil hat here for a minute.

Could this be being encouraged by the AAC & ESPN to try and get Boise on as the 12th member of the AAC in football? I mean, it's not the craziest thing that's been said on here.

The fact that Boise has been so aggressive, it almost seems like they are trying to blow things up. The timing of the AAC needing a member makes sense.

no, that new deal outside of money is gold for Boise...
the aac contract has top teams get the best tv slots...the mwc contract has boise getting the top tv slots no matter how good or bad they are

they are getting a minimum of 6 fs1/fox games a year (every home game)..and most likely 2 or 3 cbs games a year as away games

i dont think boise is being aggressive because they want out..i think they are being aggressive because the tv deal has embolden them to think they are worth gold, this deal made them kings in their own eyes

A few thoughts:
1) Did the MWC sell BSU home games in violation if their contract with BSU? If so, CBS/FOX deal may fall apart if BSU wins and CBS/FOX may sue MWC for damages.

2) if neither side is happy MWC/BSU then will MWC kick BSU out or will BSU opt for Independence? If so, MWC may implode and BSU may lose any opportunity to get to NY6 access bowls (independents don't qualify).

3) Would BSU leaving the MWC make AF, CSU, or SDSU ripe for picking off by AAC? MWC without BSU is severely weakened compared to AAC making a gulf between the AAC and G4.

No matter what this bickering seems good news for the AAC.

(01-22-2020 03:41 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 03:38 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 03:23 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 03:20 PM)vick mike Wrote:  Didn’t want Boise then.
Don’t want Boise now.
Won’t want Boise ever.

I want them and any other MWC school under a deal offering a net financial and performance benefit to current AAC members (sans UConn).

Oh the **** show has only begun. My guess is we snag Air Force for FB, then try entice BYU with CSU for 14 and a more compact and Texas focused west. Slide Memphis, Tulane to the east. Colorado, Oklahoma, Texas isn't a bad little footprint even with Maryland as the outlier.

No to two triple option teams in the west.

I was told in July of 2015 that the option was simple to defend, and all the other teams would figure it out.
After the 2018 season, I was assured that this had occurred.

(01-22-2020 02:24 PM)8BitPirate Wrote:  Do we really want to deal with this?

Just from the excerpts the MWC broke their deal. I have no problem with Boise State wanting what they agreed to.

(01-22-2020 03:10 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  Boise State probably has a valid legal point here, but I don't like the idea of uneven TV revenue sharing in conferences. The whole idea of a conference is that the schools in it benefit by working together to make the overall league as strong as possible. Every conference has certain teams that bring in more money than others, but if you start going down that slippery slope, you can end up in a world where there is no competitive balance within conferences. For instance, if the Big Ten paid their teams out by their actual value, OSU would probably make well over $100 million per year and schools like Illinois and Rutgers would be left scrapping for relative pennies in comparison.

They do have a point, but that is not what term sheet agreement they signed says. It describes a bonus system thats pretty clear cut. That bonus system was later amended by a agreement of both parties to create the 1.8 million dollar Boise bonus. They can whine, but there really is no requirement that the MW give them more money. That said---what Boise CAN do is refuse to sign the deal until they get more money (the right of refusal IS part of their agreement). It appears that Boise exercised that right and the MW ignored it.

If I were a MW member, the fact that Boise can hold every future TV negotiation hostage until their monetary demands are met would be scary as hell.

(01-22-2020 04:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  ...the fact that Boise can hold every future TV negotiation hostage until their monetary demands are met would be scary as hell.

Shows how desperate the MW was to keep Boise from going to the Big East/American. Aresco wouldn't match that deal then, and presumably won't match it now.

Didn’t want Boise then.
Don’t want Boise now.
Won’t want Boise ever.

Carpet no match drapes.
Weak chins fall of the giant.
Oregon State still laughs.