(01-23-2020 08:54 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  going to be fun to watch... grab your coffee and popcorn.

Nasty combo.

(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.

FWIW, I am not making that assumption. When I asked "did Boise agree", I was referring to the sale of the Boise home games, as that is what Boise has control over.

And IIRC, Boise does not 'do their own deal'. The negotiation of their home games is done by the MWC concurrently with the negotiation of the overall deal. It's just that Boise has the 'veto power' over that portion of the deal. If I understand the re-entry agreements correctly, Boise has to explicitly agree to the terms of the deal that cover their home games.

So that's why I say the onus is on the MW to show that Boise did affirmatively agree to the "Boise" aspect of the deal.

(01-23-2020 09:06 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(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.

I'd be fine with that. Just need a solid #12.

(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.

The WAC pods were:

1- Fresno, SJSU, SDSU, Hawaii
2- Air Force, CSU, Wyoming, UNLV
3- BYU, Utah, New Mexico, UTEP
4- Rice, SMU, TCU, Tulsa

Air Force was in Pod 2 with CSU and Wyoming. They played each other all 3 years of the 16-team WAC.

The MWC happened because Air Force, CSU, and Wyoming did not get to be in a division with or have as frequent games with BYU, Utah, and New Mexico. Air Force and Pod 2 were first placed in the Pacific Division with Pod 1 - Fresno, SJSU, SDSU, and Hawaii ('96 and '97) and then the Mountain Division with Pod 4 - Rice, SMU, TCU, and Tulsa (in '98, and would have been in '99 had the MWC not formed).

The original MWC was formed with the teams from Pods 2 and 3, minus UTEP plus SDSU.

Air Force would have motivation to join the AAC because Air Force gets into Texas each year and gets better national TV coverage. That is huge for recruiting *students*. Its annual game with Navy becomes a conference game and Air Force could still continue to frequently play CSU and Wyoming in the non-conference schedule.

(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.

Why did SDSU make the original move to the Big East in 2012? Why did they try to make it work out, even after Boise State back-tracked to the MWC? If the money, exposure, and prestige are better in the AAC, SDSU will absolutely consider it again.

The MWC is a 1-2 bid basketball conference and struggling to compete for the NY6 bid and decent bowl options. SDSU has several 10+ win seasons recently. The best bowl invitations for double-digit-win SDSU have been against AAC teams and Army. This year, 9-win SDSU was invited to play a MAC team in Albuquerque.

The SDSU home games that sell tickets are against PAC opponents, Boise and BYU.

(01-22-2020 08:01 PM)esayem Wrote:  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.

For better or worse, the BYU administration is content with independence and the WCC. I believe it would take both Boise State and Gonzaga for BYU to seriously consider a new conference.

Man the WAC 16 was fun - too bad Pod 4 sucked so bad at the time.

(01-23-2020 09:42 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(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 fact of the matter is there is still an opportunity out west to possibly create some anti-trust problems if states without representation band together like the Mountain West did until Utah was pacified. Plus, it looks better for BYU as there are no little brothers affiliated like the entire make-up of the AAC.

The states of Idaho, Wyoming, Nevada, New Mexico, and Hawaii all field FBS programs, but are not treated equally. Why they elected not to pursue what the Mountain West started with the BCS is beyond me.

(01-23-2020 10:46 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I'd be fine with that. Just need a solid #12.

The more I think about it, I wouldn't be. Boise is just way too far afield to be in the AAC. It would be different if they were bringing more money with them but I really don't think they would.

Boise would just contribute to the disjointed, hodge-podge nature of the AAC. The AAC has proven it doesn't need Boise to be the top G5 conference and consistently get the NY6 spot.

FWIW, I wasn't in favor of them joining the Big East, unless it could save our AQ status, and obviously it didn't.

Boise thinks very highly of themselves. Just read their complaint/lawsuit brief, it is filled with verbiage about how coveted and valuable Boise is, you'd think they are Alabama. They are the top G5 brand, but they overrate themselves much like BYU does. It wouldn't surprise me if the AAC contacted Boise about football joining and Boise replies with "what kind of bonus will we get over the other AAC schools"? They are a litigious headache, they already have sued the AAC once over exit fees.

Boise and BYU should form a league together and then argue over who deserves the biggest bonus.

(01-23-2020 12:49 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(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.

Or in this case 10 of the 11 presidents...

(01-23-2020 10:46 AM)YNot 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.

The WAC pods were:

1- Fresno, SJSU, SDSU, Hawaii
2- Air Force, CSU, Wyoming, UNLV
3- BYU, Utah, New Mexico, UTEP
4- Rice, SMU, TCU, Tulsa

Air Force was in Pod 2 with CSU and Wyoming. They played each other all 3 years of the 16-team WAC.

The MWC happened because Air Force, CSU, and Wyoming did not get to be in a division with or have as frequent games with BYU, Utah, and New Mexico. Air Force and Pod 2 were first placed in the Pacific Division with Pod 1 - Fresno, SJSU, SDSU, and Hawaii ('96 and '97) and then the Mountain Division with Pod 4 - Rice, SMU, TCU, and Tulsa (in '98, and would have been in '99 had the MWC not formed).

The original MWC was formed with the teams from Pods 2 and 3, minus UTEP plus SDSU.

Air Force would have motivation to join the AAC because Air Force gets into Texas each year and gets better national TV coverage. That is huge for recruiting *students*. Its annual game with Navy becomes a conference game and Air Force could still continue to frequently play CSU and Wyoming in the non-conference schedule.

You’re right about the pods. It was BYU, Utah, and New Mexico they wanted to play annually.

Air Force can schedule two Texas teams a year if they want. Why do they need to be in a conference that increases travel to do that?

(01-23-2020 11:10 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-23-2020 10:46 AM)YNot 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.

The WAC pods were:

1- Fresno, SJSU, SDSU, Hawaii
2- Air Force, CSU, Wyoming, UNLV
3- BYU, Utah, New Mexico, UTEP
4- Rice, SMU, TCU, Tulsa

Air Force was in Pod 2 with CSU and Wyoming. They played each other all 3 years of the 16-team WAC.

The MWC happened because Air Force, CSU, and Wyoming did not get to be in a division with or have as frequent games with BYU, Utah, and New Mexico. Air Force and Pod 2 were first placed in the Pacific Division with Pod 1 - Fresno, SJSU, SDSU, and Hawaii ('96 and '97) and then the Mountain Division with Pod 4 - Rice, SMU, TCU, and Tulsa (in '98, and would have been in '99 had the MWC not formed).

The original MWC was formed with the teams from Pods 2 and 3, minus UTEP plus SDSU.

Air Force would have motivation to join the AAC because Air Force gets into Texas each year and gets better national TV coverage. That is huge for recruiting *students*. Its annual game with Navy becomes a conference game and Air Force could still continue to frequently play CSU and Wyoming in the non-conference schedule.

You’re right about the pods. It was BYU, Utah, and New Mexico they wanted to play annually.

Air Force can schedule two Texas teams a year if they want. Why do they need to be in a conference that increases travel to do that?

Not much room in the non-conference schedule with Navy and Army, FCS home game and P5 payday road trip.

Air Force and New Mexico moved their *conference* game to Dallas in 2016.

Just 3 months ago, referring to the MWC, Air Force's coach stated "I just don't know if its really a match," and "I don't know if it's the route may be we should go."

https://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.co...tain-west/

Without looking into the details it appears that this suit lacks ripeness to even be heard by the court since there is no damage to compensate for at this time.

In United States law, ripeness refers to the readiness of a case for litigation; "a claim is not ripe for adjudication if it rests upon contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripeness

(01-23-2020 12:57 PM)B easy Wrote:  Without looking into the details it appears that this suit lacks ripeness to even be heard by the court since there is no damage to compensate for at this time.

In United States law, ripeness refers to the readiness of a case for litigation; "a claim is not ripe for adjudication if it rests upon contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripeness

I think it would depend on if Boise had the choice to agree to their home game contract.... If they didn't- that absolutely violates their agreement with the MWC.

(01-23-2020 09:06 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(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.

I feel like most of the "x non-Boise MWC team has no incentive to go play East Coast teams" might assume that the money related to the new media deal will still be a thing.

Have to remember that money talks and none of this happens in a vacuum. Let's say, for the sake of argument, Boise joins the AAC and the AAC money stays the same ($7m-ish per team, disregarding all of the football only cut stuff. Just assume the AAC comes up with a split that works for them).

In that scenario, the MWC media deal is very likely re-bid. Let's say that SDSU's previous $1m doubles to $2m. I personally believe that the AAC would be fine calling it quits after a Boise football-only add, but I find it hard to believe that SDSU wouldn't entertain the AAC option in that scenario if it were available.

(01-23-2020 09:53 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  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.

Excellent post.

(01-23-2020 08:26 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(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).

But their complaint is asserting they have veto right over the rest of the contract as well.

(01-23-2020 01:22 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(01-23-2020 09:53 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  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.

Excellent post.

Seconded.

Boise St leaving the Mt West is a bad idea - though fun for realignment enthusiasts as it would likely cause a domino effect down the line.

Boise St does need to keep their best interests in mind but lets consider the options. The best possible option would be a full member of the PAC which won't happen in the foreseeable future. The next best option would be a full member of the XII. More possible than the PAC but still incredibly unlikely. The third best option is remaining a full member of the Mt West with a similar or better deal than exists today. That is under negotiation.

After those options, it gets murky. Being a full member or even a football-only member of the SEC, B1G, or ACC will never, ever happen. Joining as a full member or football-only member of the Sun Belt, CUSA, or MAC would be a downgrade from the Mt West - even with losing their current bonus structure - and a major geographic burden. Being a full member of the AAC is maybe possible but highly unlikely without at least 2 more Western members which seems improbable.

It gets interesting with the final 2 options: football-only member with AAC or independent football. Independence has been great for Notre Dame and Army and not too shabby for BYU. The other independents struggle and we'll see how it plays out for Connecticut. Liberty seems to be doing okay. Boise St doesn't have the brand name, national following, or money to be independent that it takes for success today. The AAC as a football-only makes the most sense if the first 3 options (2 paragraphs above) aren't possible. The issues that come into play are the following: 1) What if the best available AAC schools get added to power conferences?; 2) What if the bridge is burned forever with the Mt West?; 3) Which conference (Big Sky, Big West, WCC, WAC, or even Summit) would be best for the non-football sports?

Issue #1 - Let's say, hypothetically, Texas and Oklahoma leave. The XII would likely backfill to 12 or 14 with BYU, Houston, Memphis, Cincinnati, Central Florida, and South Florida. The AAC has now become a shell of what Boise St joined. Maybe the XII brings in Boise St as a football-only member but that still leaves issue #3 on the table. Or perhaps some other form of realignment occurs with a similar fate for the AAC. Which leads to #2...

Issue #2 - If Boise St leaves in the way it seems it may unfold, there is a great chance they will never be allowed back into the Mt West. Then what? It seems the options are very, very bleak.

Finally, issue #3 - The Big Sky seems to be the best option but would they take Boise St? Maybe? The WCC won't. The Big West might but they're likely "full" now. The WAC is significantly weaker than any other option. And the heart of the Summit, well, is a little too far away.

If I were the Boise St President or AD, I would do whatever I could to get the Mt West contract to work. I don't see any other option as being a long-term possibility.

(01-23-2020 12:57 PM)B easy Wrote:  Without looking into the details it appears that this suit lacks ripeness to even be heard by the court since there is no damage to compensate for at this time.

In United States law, ripeness refers to the readiness of a case for litigation; "a claim is not ripe for adjudication if it rests upon contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripeness

Would not apply here. The suit says that the MW denied Boise's right to refuse the FOX deal when they accepted the deal without Boise consent (that's a past event) and there is a clock running as this deal begins in just a few months. That acceptance without Boise's consent is a past event for which they are requesting relief. Additionally, the suite alleges that the MW membership also took a vote (past tense) which passed, compelling an end date to the Boise special deal in 2026 (a vote to unilaterally end the Boise special deal is expressly prohibited in the Boise term sheet).

(01-23-2020 11:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-23-2020 10:46 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I'd be fine with that. Just need a solid #12.

The more I think about it, I wouldn't be. Boise is just way too far afield to be in the AAC. It would be different if they were bringing more money with them but I really don't think they would.

Boise would just contribute to the disjointed, hodge-podge nature of the AAC. The AAC has proven it doesn't need Boise to be the top G5 conference and consistently get the NY6 spot.

FWIW, I wasn't in favor of them joining the Big East, unless it could save our AQ status, and obviously it didn't.

Boise thinks very highly of themselves. Just read their complaint/lawsuit brief, it is filled with verbiage about how coveted and valuable Boise is, you'd think they are Alabama. They are the top G5 brand, but they overrate themselves much like BYU does. It wouldn't surprise me if the AAC contacted Boise about football joining and Boise replies with "what kind of bonus will we get over the other AAC schools"? They are a litigious headache, they already have sued the AAC once over exit fees.

Boise and BYU should form a league together and then argue over who deserves the biggest bonus.

The first overture to Boise and SDSU was to retain AQ. I don't see the AAC doing it again unless it also included BYU. Then it might be worth it.

(01-23-2020 02:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-23-2020 12:57 PM)B easy Wrote:  Without looking into the details it appears that this suit lacks ripeness to even be heard by the court since there is no damage to compensate for at this time.

In United States law, ripeness refers to the readiness of a case for litigation; "a claim is not ripe for adjudication if it rests upon contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripeness

False. The suit also says that the MW denied Boise's right to refuse the FOX deal in December of 2019. That would be a past event that they are requesting relief. Additionally, the suite alleges that the MW membership also took a vote (past tense) which passed, compelling an end date to the for the Boise special deal in 2026 (a vote to unilaterally end the Boise special deal is expressly prohibited in the Boise term sheet).

He's absolutely correct on your last part. No real action has happened yet so they have no grounds for a suit on what may or may not happen in 6 years.

Boise seems to be claiming they can veto, not only their home game deal, but also their road game deal and that they never approved either or that they did approve them but didn't know material facts. From the press releases, it appears they did approve both. And common sense says they don't have veto power on the road game part. So probably the only issue is whether "material" facts were withheld from them.

Seems like they are blowing a lot of hot air and made this unneccesarily public. Basically threatening the other MWC presidents was a really bad move when you have to "live" with them.

(01-23-2020 02:12 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-23-2020 02:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-23-2020 12:57 PM)B easy Wrote:  Without looking into the details it appears that this suit lacks ripeness to even be heard by the court since there is no damage to compensate for at this time.

In United States law, ripeness refers to the readiness of a case for litigation; "a claim is not ripe for adjudication if it rests upon contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripeness

False. The suit also says that the MW denied Boise's right to refuse the FOX deal in December of 2019. That would be a past event that they are requesting relief. Additionally, the suite alleges that the MW membership also took a vote (past tense) which passed, compelling an end date to the for the Boise special deal in 2026 (a vote to unilaterally end the Boise special deal is expressly prohibited in the Boise term sheet).

He's absolutely correct on your last part. No real action has happened yet so they have no grounds for a suit on what may or may not happen in 6 years.

Boise seems to be claiming they can veto, not only their home game deal, but also their road game deal and that they never approved either or that they did approve them but didn't know material facts. From the press releases, it appears they did approve both. And common sense says they don't have veto power on the road game part. So probably the only issue is whether "material" facts were withheld from them.

Seems like they are blowing a lot of hot air and made this unneccesarily public. Basically threatening the other MWC presidents was a really bad move when you have to "live" with them.

The suit alleges that Boise voted against the (December 2019) TV deal, and their re-entry agreement says that they have to bless the separate marketing of their football games. Seems simple enough. The MWC will either have to start shopping media all over again (because the agreement could technically be voided), kick Boise some extra love, or let Boise walk...and still have to shop their media rights all over again.

My gut says the conference kicks them a little more on their guaranteed payment to shut this down. Just a guess.