(01-22-2020 07:18 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 07:10 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 06:53 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 06:51 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 05:34 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  Negotiations sure can turn messy when one side is advised that they have to bring a lawsuit to keep hold of some of the cards they are holding.

Seems likely Boise State wants "proportionate" to mean pro-rata with their current share, while the balance of the membership likely want it to mean proportionate to something else. With the possibility of an AAC spot looming, it also seems likely that Boise State will end up getting a larger bonus than would be the first preference of some of their conference mates.

I personally did not see this coming. The lawsuit changes everything. Now I can see a divorce coming soon. In the short run, it will hurt the MWC. In the long run, I think the MWC will win this battle. I think Boise State is going to lose a lot of California recruits. They would have to make up for it in improved Texas recruiting. Plus, the AAC will be a challenge for them.

If this happens, MWC basketball will not be affected and they will probably stay at 11 for football until they find an acceptable alternative to Boise State. It is not something that they would need to rush into.
Financially, the big question is the TV contract. Does Fox and CBS want the MWC without Boise State football? How much TV revenue per school?

I think the real X factor is San Diego St. The AAC was very friendly with SDSU and they left on really good terms. It would be really easy to see the AAC getting both of those. And that then totally impacts the basketball- both takes them down to only 9 teams(so only 16 games round robin) and also takes away by far their best team(only team in top 75 in the NET right now).

If the CBS/FOX deal is worth $45M, I could easily see ESPN justify $21M+ for just Boise State, SDSU, and Air Force as part of an AAC expansion.

ESPN and the AAC (and Boise, SDSU, & Air Force) could all come out ahead compared to what might have been had ESPN matched the full CBS/FOX offer to the MWC.

Yep. And with those 3 you can even think about adding Boise/SDSU for everything- eastern teams can easily do a Thursday/Saturday type of thing doubling up the road games. Air Force wouldn't- but they wouldn't have a problem finding somewhere to play.

That's where you could also envision Gonzaga and BYU holding some interest in this potential development. The AAC western expansion would provide regional road games and rivalry-esque home games (among Gonzaga, BYU, Boise, and SDSU) and some 2-game road trips to Texas/Midwest and East Coast against High Major opponents. Hmmmmm.

(01-22-2020 07:34 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 07:18 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 07:10 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 06:53 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 06:51 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  I personally did not see this coming. The lawsuit changes everything. Now I can see a divorce coming soon. In the short run, it will hurt the MWC. In the long run, I think the MWC will win this battle. I think Boise State is going to lose a lot of California recruits. They would have to make up for it in improved Texas recruiting. Plus, the AAC will be a challenge for them.

If this happens, MWC basketball will not be affected and they will probably stay at 11 for football until they find an acceptable alternative to Boise State. It is not something that they would need to rush into.
Financially, the big question is the TV contract. Does Fox and CBS want the MWC without Boise State football? How much TV revenue per school?

I think the real X factor is San Diego St. The AAC was very friendly with SDSU and they left on really good terms. It would be really easy to see the AAC getting both of those. And that then totally impacts the basketball- both takes them down to only 9 teams(so only 16 games round robin) and also takes away by far their best team(only team in top 75 in the NET right now).

If the CBS/FOX deal is worth $45M, I could easily see ESPN justify $21M+ for just Boise State, SDSU, and Air Force as part of an AAC expansion.

ESPN and the AAC (and Boise, SDSU, & Air Force) could all come out ahead compared to what might have been had ESPN matched the full CBS/FOX offer to the MWC.

Yep. And with those 3 you can even think about adding Boise/SDSU for everything- eastern teams can easily do a Thursday/Saturday type of thing doubling up the road games. Air Force wouldn't- but they wouldn't have a problem finding somewhere to play.

That's where you could also envision Gonzaga and BYU holding some interest in this potential development. The AAC western expansion would provide regional road games and rivalry-esque home games (among Gonzaga, BYU, Boise, and SDSU) and some 2-game road trips to Texas/Midwest and East Coast against High Major opponents. Hmmmmm.

And BYU has had several football series with AAC schools thru the years so they have a fairly decent relationship with the AAC you would think.

Air Force broke up the WAC because they weren’t playing Colorado State and Wyoming. Why would they move to an eastern conference with Boise State and San Diego State? They already play Navy.

Why would San Diego State make a move to an eastern conference? Boise State is not a travel partner. They will lose all western exposure; nobody in the MWC would play them if they dipped out.

Boise State I understand. They are unhappy in their current conference and have no real ties there.


BYU could hand select 7 schools they want to be associated with and create a more sensible league for them. One without Utah State most likely.

(01-22-2020 08:01 PM)esayem Wrote:  Air Force broke up the WAC because they weren’t playing Colorado State and Wyoming. Why would they move to an eastern conference with Boise State and San Diego State? They already play Navy.

Why would San Diego State make a move to an eastern conference? Boise State is not a travel partner. They will lose all western exposure; nobody in the MWC would play them if they dipped out.

Boise State I understand. They are unhappy in their current conference and have no real ties there.


BYU could hand select 7 schools they want to be associated with and create a more sensible league for them. One without Utah State most likely.

Utah St. worked with them in the WAC/MWC machinations and almost got left behind. BYU would most likely remember that. Plus USU has a pretty good basketball program and has been pretty decent in football lately.

(01-22-2020 08:01 PM)esayem Wrote:  Air Force broke up the WAC because they weren’t playing Colorado State and Wyoming. Why would they move to an eastern conference with Boise State and San Diego State? They already play Navy.

Why would San Diego State make a move to an eastern conference? Boise State is not a travel partner. They will lose all western exposure; nobody in the MWC would play them if they dipped out.

Boise State I understand. They are unhappy in their current conference and have no real ties there.


BYU could hand select 7 schools they want to be associated with and create a more sensible league for them. One without Utah State most likely.

Now, the truth is that SDSU would have stayed in the Big East/AAC if they had any other western teams at all in the league with them. If you had 3 MW teams moving to the AAC and given that the AAC will pay almost twice what the MW pays---pretty sure SDSU would be open to that option.

Here is the problem I see now for the MW. If Boise wins this dispute it means that Boise will be able to renegotiate their "bonus" every time a new deal is signed---and will be able to hold every future deal hostage until their demands are met. Thats going to make it MUCH easier for the AAC to pick off MW schools. If Boise loses, then Boise will feel they have been screwed and they will be looking to hit the exits. Either way, the AAC might be the only one that truly wins in this dispute.

(01-22-2020 08:20 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 08:01 PM)esayem Wrote:  Air Force broke up the WAC because they weren’t playing Colorado State and Wyoming. Why would they move to an eastern conference with Boise State and San Diego State? They already play Navy.

Why would San Diego State make a move to an eastern conference? Boise State is not a travel partner. They will lose all western exposure; nobody in the MWC would play them if they dipped out.

Boise State I understand. They are unhappy in their current conference and have no real ties there.


BYU could hand select 7 schools they want to be associated with and create a more sensible league for them. One without Utah State most likely.

Now, the truth is that SDSU would have stayed in the Big East/AAC if they had any other western teams at all in the league with them. If you had 3 MW teams moving to the AAC and given that the AAC will pay almost twice what the MW pays---pretty sure SDSU would be open to that option.

Here is the problem I see now for the MW. If Boise wins this dispute it means that Boise will be able to renegotiate their "bonus" every time a new deal is signed---and will be able to hold every future deal hostage until their demands are met. Thats going to make it MUCH easier for the AAC to pick off MW schools. If Boise loses, then Boise will feel they have been screwed and they will be looking to hit the exits. Either way, the AAC might be the only one that truly wins in this dispute.

San Diego State thought they were joining a BCS league, so no, I don’t think that would have worked then no matter what.

The only way it seems worth it for all sports is by inviting 5 western teams. I could see that working with Tulsa, Memphis, and Tulane moving East and Navy staying west with SMU, Air Force, and San Diego State.

What are the five western teams? Boise, Air Force, BYU, San Diego State, and Colorado State. If BYU says no, I’d call UNLV.

Logistically, I think it’s a long shot, but it’s possible if the money goes up as much as people are thinking.

Good thing they picked the “American” as their name.

(01-22-2020 08:20 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Here is the problem I see now for the MW. If Boise wins this dispute it means that Boise will be able to renegotiate their "bonus" every time a new deal is signed---and will be able to hold every future deal hostage until their demands are met. Thats going to make it MUCH easier for the AAC to pick off MW schools.

I don't think Boise needs to win the lawsuit in order to renegotiate the $1.8m as a condition of this or future contracts. There is no evidence that the $1.8m is a set in stone figure that Boise agreed to in perpetuity.

And even if it was, Boise apparently does have the right to agree or not agree with whatever new media contract is negotiated, and they could refuse to agree unless the bonus was increased. They can refuse to agree for any reason they want.

Really, what this dispute seems to boil down to is "did Boise agree"? IIRC, Boise claims in the lawsuit that they never voted to accept the new CBS/FOX deal, which implies they never signed it, and so the onus would be on the MW to produce a contract with their signature on it.

(01-22-2020 08:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 08:20 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Here is the problem I see now for the MW. If Boise wins this dispute it means that Boise will be able to renegotiate their "bonus" every time a new deal is signed---and will be able to hold every future deal hostage until their demands are met. Thats going to make it MUCH easier for the AAC to pick off MW schools.

I don't think Boise needs to win the lawsuit in order to renegotiate the $1.8m as a condition of this or future contracts. There is no evidence that the $1.8m is a set in stone figure that Boise agreed to in perpetuity.

And even if it was, Boise apparently does have the right to agree or not agree with whatever new media contract is negotiated, and they could refuse to agree unless the bonus was increased. They can refuse to agree for any reason they want.

Really, what this dispute seems to boil down to is "did Boise agree"? IIRC, Boise claims in the lawsuit that they never voted to accept the new CBS/FOX deal, which implies they never signed it, and so the onus would be on the MW to produce a contract with their signature on it.

You are assuming they have veto rights over the MWC contract, not just their own. Maybe they do, but I haven't seen anything confirming that. The fact that they did their own Fox/CBS deal makes the whole claim doubtful--Unless Fox/CBS were wrong about having a deal.

And once again the moral of the story is BAD THINGS happen when you dont sign with ESPN

(01-22-2020 05:13 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  What exactly do you think Navy has in the AAC?

I think the more clear statement should have been that they would want to retain what they have, similar to Navy having their own additional piece. Only, yeah, like you suggested, whereas Navy shares, Boise wouldn't.

And I don't think the AAC would be okay with that. AAC football is an upgrade from MWC, and Boise would benefit from that affiliation. Boise isn't doing the AAC a solid on this one. This time around, AAC has definitely got the leverage.

(01-22-2020 06:51 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 05:34 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  Negotiations sure can turn messy when one side is advised that they have to bring a lawsuit to keep hold of some of the cards they are holding.

Seems likely Boise State wants "proportionate" to mean pro-rata with their current share, while the balance of the membership likely want it to mean proportionate to something else. With the possibility of an AAC spot looming, it also seems likely that Boise State will end up getting a larger bonus than would be the first preference of some of their conference mates.

I personally did not see this coming. The lawsuit changes everything. Now I can see a divorce coming soon.

Not saying that it was predictable, just that it happens sometimes in rights negotiations ... and yes, when a negotiation gets messy like this, it really increases the risk of the negotiation breaking down completely.

Quote: Does Fox and CBS want the MWC without Boise State football? How much TV revenue per school?

I wouldn't know. Because of the time zones, it wouldn't be surprising if Fox and CBS would still want the inventory but it would not be at anywhere near the same price.

(01-22-2020 08:01 PM)esayem Wrote:  Why would San Diego State make a move to an eastern conference? Boise State is not a travel partner. They will lose all western exposure; nobody in the MWC would play them if they dipped out.

Note that the two not being "travel partners" is for the teams that are visiting to worry about ... it's not an issue for the two "travel partners" unless it just so happens that there is a rivalry in place. As FB-only members, it's a non issue, because travel partners is a thing for sports that play multiple games in the same week.

The big question is whether the AAC side that Boise is using as bargaining leverage really exists as a viable option, and whether there is any interest in the AAC in the Big Bang expansion with three MWC schools as all-sports members to form an AAC West of Houston, SMU, Tulsa, Navy plus the three new MWC schools. There would have to be a strong temptation among schools getting feelers about a "Big Bang" to just say "goodbye and good riddance" to Boise State, since a division with Boise State on an island like that doesn't seem likely to be the most stable of long run homes.

(01-22-2020 02:47 PM)Wedge Wrote:  They have a contract. Boise State says the contract is important to them. The MWC commissioner said, "We are going to ignore this contract from now on." Presumably, lawyers told Boise State that if they just let those comments go, the MWC would take the position that Boise State agreed with Thompson's comments. And like pretty much all of these lawsuits, they filed it where they think the judges will be on their side.

So, this is not surprising at all.

Either the MWC wanted this to be fought out in court and they're getting their wish, or Thompson stepped in a big pile of doo-doo when he made those comments.

This^. Thompson never makes idle threats. This comes from the 11 Presidents.

(01-22-2020 08:38 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 08:20 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 08:01 PM)esayem Wrote:  Air Force broke up the WAC because they weren’t playing Colorado State and Wyoming. Why would they move to an eastern conference with Boise State and San Diego State? They already play Navy.

Why would San Diego State make a move to an eastern conference? Boise State is not a travel partner. They will lose all western exposure; nobody in the MWC would play them if they dipped out.

Boise State I understand. They are unhappy in their current conference and have no real ties there.


BYU could hand select 7 schools they want to be associated with and create a more sensible league for them. One without Utah State most likely.

Now, the truth is that SDSU would have stayed in the Big East/AAC if they had any other western teams at all in the league with them. If you had 3 MW teams moving to the AAC and given that the AAC will pay almost twice what the MW pays---pretty sure SDSU would be open to that option.

Here is the problem I see now for the MW. If Boise wins this dispute it means that Boise will be able to renegotiate their "bonus" every time a new deal is signed---and will be able to hold every future deal hostage until their demands are met. Thats going to make it MUCH easier for the AAC to pick off MW schools. If Boise loses, then Boise will feel they have been screwed and they will be looking to hit the exits. Either way, the AAC might be the only one that truly wins in this dispute.

San Diego State thought they were joining a BCS league, so no, I don’t think that would have worked then no matter what.

The only way it seems worth it for all sports is by inviting 5 western teams. I could see that working with Tulsa, Memphis, and Tulane moving East and Navy staying west with SMU, Air Force, and San Diego State.

What are the five western teams? Boise, Air Force, BYU, San Diego State, and Colorado State. If BYU says no, I’d call UNLV.

Logistically, I think it’s a long shot, but it’s possible if the money goes up as much as people are thinking.

Good thing they picked the “American” as their name.

In late 2012 to early 2013 (when these events transpired), it was already known that the AAC was not going to be a BCS/contract bowl conference.

5 MW teams wont fly---mainly because five teams is completely unnecessary. There arent 5 MW teams that carry that much value. Boise, SDSU, and SF are where the MW value lies. BYU would replace one of those if they were interested. Three is plenty. Frankly, if the AAC can get one (say Air Force), that would really be enough. Add AF as a football only and add VCU as a non-football school and the AAC is in pretty good shape.

(01-23-2020 01:31 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  There arent 5 MW teams that carry that much value. Boise, SDSU, and SF are where the MW value lies.

Oh, these western schools ... so, who is SF again?

Not only would SDSU have no compelling reason to leave with JUST Boise State, but that would leave the AAC looking for a 14th school anyway. 11 could probably be workable long term if TPTB allow it, but if you get past 12 you want to have two equal sized divisions.

So highest probability, the hardball negotiation is settled somewhere between the MWC ambit claim and the Boise State ambit claim, and things settle down with just a bit more bad blood in the MWC between "Boise State and everyone else", and we wait to see if a mid-20s realignment shakes things up.

Next highest probability, just Boise State bolts FB-only for the AAC, finding somewhere to park its Olympic Sports, because after all Boise State is a football-first school, so if its basketball has to find a less-than-ideal home, "oh well".

Lowest probability, a big shake up, which is Boise State, SDSU plus a 3rd join AAC all-sports. I'm a bit skeptical that is workable, but at least it fits in with the whole tweener schtick.

5 MWC schools taking the AAC to 16? I'm not seeing it. I'm not seeing the AAC media partner paying for it, and I'm not seeing a majority of current AAC schools interested in having things set up that way.

Dan Wolken's take - https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nc...d1OeIuwUXk

Quote:The question then becomes, would the AAC really want Boise State? On one hand, their presidents and athletics directors could make the argument that they don’t really need the Broncos and all the potential drama that seems to follow in their wake. Even without Boise State, the AAC is generally perceived as the best Group of Five league and its champion has gotten the lucrative New Year’s Six bowl game bid in four of the last five years.

At the same time, there are complications. Shortly after the AAC negotiated a new television deal with ESPN last year that would have boosted the per-school distribution to around $7 million a year, UConn bolted, opening up a provision that would allow the network to renegotiate terms. That bit of uncertainty, according to multiple people with knowledge of the matter, still hasn’t been resolved. It’s possible that adding a football brand like Boise State would not only make up for the value lost by UConn basketball but potentially increase it.

...

There are probably more reasons for Boise State to continue dominating its regional rivals in the Mountain West than playing a bunch of teams two time zones away. On the other hand, the Broncos haven’t been as nationally relevant the last few years, and the AAC’s strength with programs like UCF, Memphis and Houston has been hard to overcome. If Boise State was in the same league, it could try to beat them head-to-head instead of in the computer rankings and narrative wars.

Either way, for the first time in awhile, it appears Boise State has some options and is going to use them to their fullest extent. And instead of trying to get the Mountain West’s attention behind the scenes, it lit a Roman candle of acrimony that could have major realignment consequences in the coming weeks.

(01-22-2020 09:11 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 08:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 08:20 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Here is the problem I see now for the MW. If Boise wins this dispute it means that Boise will be able to renegotiate their "bonus" every time a new deal is signed---and will be able to hold every future deal hostage until their demands are met. Thats going to make it MUCH easier for the AAC to pick off MW schools.

I don't think Boise needs to win the lawsuit in order to renegotiate the $1.8m as a condition of this or future contracts. There is no evidence that the $1.8m is a set in stone figure that Boise agreed to in perpetuity.

And even if it was, Boise apparently does have the right to agree or not agree with whatever new media contract is negotiated, and they could refuse to agree unless the bonus was increased. They can refuse to agree for any reason they want.

Really, what this dispute seems to boil down to is "did Boise agree"? IIRC, Boise claims in the lawsuit that they never voted to accept the new CBS/FOX deal, which implies they never signed it, and so the onus would be on the MW to produce a contract with their signature on it.

You are assuming they have veto rights over the MWC contract, not just their own. Maybe they do, but I haven't seen anything confirming that. The fact that they did their own Fox/CBS deal makes the whole claim doubtful--Unless Fox/CBS were wrong about having a deal.

They have veto rights over any deal that includes Boise home football games. That IS specifically written into their special deal, which also has a clause which indicates it supersedes all previous deals, bylaws, articles of incorporation, or any future votes by the MW (and that it applies to all current and future media contracts).

going to be fun to watch... grab your coffee and popcorn.

(01-23-2020 01:31 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 08:38 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 08:20 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 08:01 PM)esayem Wrote:  Air Force broke up the WAC because they weren’t playing Colorado State and Wyoming. Why would they move to an eastern conference with Boise State and San Diego State? They already play Navy.

Why would San Diego State make a move to an eastern conference? Boise State is not a travel partner. They will lose all western exposure; nobody in the MWC would play them if they dipped out.

Boise State I understand. They are unhappy in their current conference and have no real ties there.


BYU could hand select 7 schools they want to be associated with and create a more sensible league for them. One without Utah State most likely.

Now, the truth is that SDSU would have stayed in the Big East/AAC if they had any other western teams at all in the league with them. If you had 3 MW teams moving to the AAC and given that the AAC will pay almost twice what the MW pays---pretty sure SDSU would be open to that option.

Here is the problem I see now for the MW. If Boise wins this dispute it means that Boise will be able to renegotiate their "bonus" every time a new deal is signed---and will be able to hold every future deal hostage until their demands are met. Thats going to make it MUCH easier for the AAC to pick off MW schools. If Boise loses, then Boise will feel they have been screwed and they will be looking to hit the exits. Either way, the AAC might be the only one that truly wins in this dispute.

San Diego State thought they were joining a BCS league, so no, I don’t think that would have worked then no matter what.

The only way it seems worth it for all sports is by inviting 5 western teams. I could see that working with Tulsa, Memphis, and Tulane moving East and Navy staying west with SMU, Air Force, and San Diego State.

What are the five western teams? Boise, Air Force, BYU, San Diego State, and Colorado State. If BYU says no, I’d call UNLV.

Logistically, I think it’s a long shot, but it’s possible if the money goes up as much as people are thinking.

Good thing they picked the “American” as their name.

In late 2012 to early 2013 (when these events transpired), it was already known that the AAC was not going to be a BCS/contract bowl conference.

5 MW teams wont fly---mainly because five teams is completely unnecessary. There arent 5 MW teams that carry that much value. Boise, SDSU, and SF are where the MW value lies. BYU would replace one of those if they were interested. Three is plenty. Frankly, if the AAC can get one (say Air Force), that would really be enough. Add AF as a football only and add VCU as a non-football school and the AAC is in pretty good shape.

If I’m wrong, I’ll admit it.

No way SDSU joins with two teams in the Mountain Time Zone. Absolutely no. They would be burning all their local bridges to join an unstable conference. As soon as the Big XII decides they want two teams, the AAC is crippled.

The AAC might get the mercenaries in Boise, but I don’t see two other programs giving up their regional games for potential chaos.

(01-22-2020 08:01 PM)esayem Wrote:  BYU could hand select 7 schools they want to be associated with and create a more sensible league for them. One without Utah State most likely.

Doesn't matter: Utah is in a P5 conference. BYU is not joining a conference that is not a P5 conference unless it has no other alternative ... and for now, Football Independent offers that other alternative.

The dynamic here is pretty clear.

For long as BSU remains in the MWC and unless BSU agrees otherwise, the MWC has a firm contractual obligation to pay BSU an extra $1.8 million bonus annually and to obtain BSU’s approval of any new media deal that includes BSU home games.

The MWC presidents have voted to pull the plug on the bonus beginning six years from now. So BSU has responded by saying okay, in that case we don’t approve the new MWC media deal and we’re going to court to invalidate it. Oh and by the way we want a bigger bonus too.

That’s not a declaration that BSU wants out of the MWC. It’s just a little hardball to make the rest of the MWC fulfill its contractual promises. I predict the MWC presidents will back off on terminating BSU’s $1.8 million annual bonus, and maybe eat a little crow, but refuse to consider increasing the bonus amount. And not wanting to kill what is actually a pretty new good media deal, BSU will thereupon grant its approval of the MWC’s new agreement with CBS and Fox. And on we’ll go.

It’s a marital spat but I don’t see a divorce coming. BSU is still important enough to the MWC to warrant receiving a disproportionate revenue share and the MWC is still a better conference home for BSU than the other available options. They may not like it much but I think both parties understand they’re better off together than apart.