(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.
Unless the MWC is allowed to negotiate their rights for them, just like most conferences/employers do. And I do feel that judges will agree on this.
Just leave the conference if you don't need it.
(01-22-2020 03:12 PM)f1do Wrote: Craig Thompson and the MWCs shadiness is going to bite them in the butt on this one. Allegedly he met with BSU and gave the impression that BSU would not only get to keep their bonus, but would get a proportional increase with the new deal. Then does a complete 180...
Boise State alleges that:
- The Re-Entry Agreement as amended...is a valid and enforceable contract that does not contain a set term limit.
- The Re-Entry Agreement expressly requires that the television rights to Boise State's home football games are to be sold as a separate package and, more importantly, that "Boise State and [the] MWC must mutually agree to whom such Boise State home football game rights are licensed and to the material terms of such license. . . ." (Ex. I, fl 3 .)
- The MWC materially breached the Re-Entry Agreement when it entered into the CBS/Fox agreement, which encompassed the television rights to Boise State's home football games, without Boise State's fully informed consent to its material terms.
- Although the MWC is still paying the $1.8 million bonus explicitly required by this contract, it inexplicably and improperly elected to cease such payments in six years. By electing to do so, again without Boise State's consent, and despite the fact the Re-Entry Agreement as amended by the Re-Entry Agreement Amendment does not have a termination date, the MWC anticipatorily repudiated one of the material obligations it owes to Boise State under that contract.
BYU knows these kind of dealings all too well (rebroadcast and 3rd tier TV rights for BYU games which were not picked up by TV partners)...which contributed to their departure from the conference.
Lets be real, BYU left because Utah went to the Pac-12.
Of course but they'll never admit that.
I get reprimanded from Wikipedia every time I edit their realignment story. LOL.
(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.
Unless the MWC is allowed to negotiate their rights for them, just like most conferences/employers do. And I do feel that judges will agree on this.
Just leave the conference if you don't need it.
Boise absolutely has to agree to their portion though....
(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.
More accurately - BYU is content with being an afterthought.
(01-23-2020 02:12 PM)bullet Wrote: 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.
Here is quote from BSU rep about the new TV deal.
”ESPN has been a great partner of Boise State – and the Mountain West – for a long time, and we had some hesitation about moving away from that relationship. However, the terms and value offered to the Mountain West by FOX were better. We feel that our new partner is committed to helping Boise State continue to grow our brand and raise our institutional profile across the nation.”
That statement, describing FOX as their "new partner" seems to imply that Boise did agree to the TV deal that was negotiated on their behalf by the MWC.
If so, they really don't have any grounds for their complaint, as the MWC vote to end paying them the bonus in 2025 seems irrelevant until the MWC actually misses a payment.
For all we know that quote was created by a low level athletic department communications official when the expectation was that the MW would forward over the relevant info on the deal and, if it contained what they were being told, Boise would then sign off. They never sent the info—or they did—-and the deal didn’t match the promises.
Here is what I think is really going on. Boise never accepted the deal. The law suit spells out the particulars and you can see the Boise strategy if you read between the lines. The Boise strategy was to delay acceptance, using their contract veto power as a lever to force the MW to bump up their bonus to reflect the proportional increase in the new deal. When the MW accepted the deal without Boise consent, they took away Boise’s leverage—but in doing so—violated the Boise term sheet agreement.
Unless the MW can produce a signature showing that Boise signed off on the deal, then the MW clearly violated the agreement and will lose in court. Thus, this will be settled with the MW issuing a statement that the Boise bonus is increasing to “X” (that’s negotiable and will likely be less than the proportional increase Boise wants) and that the “Boise bonus” is a permanent fixture in the leagues media structure which can only be altered or eliminated by mutual agreement of both parties. Boise will probably make moving noises right up to the time that the bluff turns real—-which is the exact moment the MW will fold and give Boise most all of what they want. That’s been the pattern in the past.
I think the end result is Boise doesn’t move, but sets up a landscape in which it’s possible for the AAC to pick off an unhappy eastern member of the MW as an all sports addition (or possibly AF as a football only)l. I don’t think the math works for Boise. It does for certain other members.
Yes, as I said far back in the post, the onus is on the MW to produce evidence that Boise signed off on their segment of the deal.
But I suspect they have that evidence. The MW commissioner doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who wouldn't know something basic like Boise having to agree to their portion of the deal, and wouldn't make a statement announcing the deal unless the deal really was done in all respects. I suspect Boise screwed up and agreed to the deal without having made sure they were getting a bigger bonus. The complaint is about trying to undo that mistake and get the bigger bonus. IMO that's why there is fuzzy language in the complaint about Boise not being given all the specifics and MW officials not following through on alleged pledges to get the Board to agree to a bonus increase. That strikes me as Boise trying to say there was bad faith on the part of the MW and therefore the deal is invalid.
One thing that makes me think that is that Boise's ire wasn't triggered until the MW commissioner made that statement about ending the $1.8m bonus in 2026. IIRC Boise publicly objected to that, not the real issue, the enhanced bonus. I bet they were stewing over not getting a bigger bonus to begin with, but they were going to eat that, but this public announcement about ending it entirely was too much for their ego. That's when they replied. All the public talk was about ending the $1.8m in 2026 - and that is purely ego related, as it has zero to do with dollars now or even the next five years. The real issue that is in play now is the Boise desire for a boost to their bonus.
That said, like you, I think what is most likely to happen is that a deal is being hammered out, probably as we speak, and that deal will come to fruition, with Boise remaining in the MW but also getting a boost on that $1.8m bonus.
But I am not sure that will happen. It's possible that an impasse could be reached, there does seem to be some evidence that the other MW members are fed up with escalating Boise demands, and the public nature of the spat has now created a "loss of face" situation for both sides, which tends to harden everyone's position. Kind of like how AAC officials bristled at the notion of UConn keeping their football in the AAC after announcing they were leaving for the Big East.
If that happens then it could get very messy and who knows what the result will be and where Boise will end up.
We shall see.
I dont think Thompson was the problem. Again, the law suit tells us what we need to know. I suspect the MW presidents drove this decision. Two MW presidents voted to end the Boise special deal IMMEDIATELY (an obvious violation of the agreement). All the presidents (other than Boise) voted to end it when the new CBS/FOX deal expires (again, a violation of the term sheet).
Seems obvious to me the presidents are sick of the deal, believe it should end, and apparently were not willing to allow the term sheet from interfering with the new FOX/CBS deal. Ignoring Boise's lack of consent is perfectly congruent with the other two votes that we know occurred (as Thompson's comments about ending the Boise special deal basically confirm that these conference votes alleged by Boise actually occurred). I have little doubt that Boise never gave the MW its consent. The law suit is calling the MW presidents bluff. Here is the thing---the lawsuit has no value as a negotiating tool unless Boise never gave its consent---which is why I suspect they, in fact, did not give their consent. If you notice--the MW has not denied any claim in the suit.
The way I see it---the purpose of the MW presidents accepting the deal without Boise's consent was to remove the Boise ability to hold the leagues tv deal hostage until the Boise "bonus" increase demands were satisfied by the league. The purpose of the law suit is to reinstate Boise's leverage.
(This post was last modified: 01-24-2020 03:15 PM by Attackcoog.)
Amazing how this worked out. The MWC deal is under 30 days old, and it is falling apart. Never ever cross the mouse. It was said facetiously that ESPN will destroy MWC after they ditched them...... and look at where we are now. Full circle. Just like what they did to the old Big East. Good thing AAC is locked in long term with ESPN. They are a good friend to have in your corner.
(01-24-2020 03:06 PM)otown Wrote: Amazing how this worked out. The MWC deal is under 30 days old, and it is falling apart. Never ever cross the mouse. It was said facetiously that ESPN will destroy MWC after they ditched them...... and look at where we are now. Full circle. Just like what they did to the old Big East. Good thing AAC is locked in long term with ESPN. They are a good friend to have in your corner.
Nah... we are good without Espn just that Boise isn’t.
The MW grew into a BCS buster and on the verge of AQ without ESPN.
(01-24-2020 03:06 PM)otown Wrote: Amazing how this worked out. The MWC deal is under 30 days old, and it is falling apart. Never ever cross the mouse. It was said facetiously that ESPN will destroy MWC after they ditched them...... and look at where we are now. Full circle. Just like what they did to the old Big East. Good thing AAC is locked in long term with ESPN. They are a good friend to have in your corner.
Nah... we are good without Espn just that Boise isn’t.
The MW grew into a BCS buster and on the verge of AQ without ESPN.
Going to be a whole hell of a lot tougher w/o Utah, BYU, TCU, and Boise. Also, the fact that computers aren't used won't help either...
And Boise has the right to still go with ESPN in their portion of the deal.... MWC has no right to tell Boise they can't go with ESPN...
Strategically, the AAC has an opening. They would be wise to take it. Take Boise, SDSU, and Air Force. The conference is more spread out, which means more travel money, but the leverage they gain from being the only mid-level conference for the foreseeable future is huge.
Potential Divisions, teams play 6+3 for a 9 game conference slate. You could even ratchet that down to 8 conference games to reduce travel costs.
West:
Boise-SDSU
AF-Navy (works for Navy, as they are also get to go to San Diego)
SMU-Tulsa
Memphis (could also be Houston)
East:
Temple-ECU
UCF-USF
Houston-Tulane
Cincy (Could also match them with Memphis, and put Tulane here)
If you want to survive as a G-5 conference, you have to add good teams while you are strong, and not when you lose them and have no leverage. The increased size also gives much more leverage in TV and Bowl contracts, as well as locking up the play-in game for the foreseeable future.
Also, going to 14 now allows you to pick off 2 more good teams later. There are a number of rising programs - Liberty, Appalachian State, Fresno State, or one of the Louisiana schools. If they keep it up, grab a couple more down the line. Basically, make the football side of the AAC a "G5 All-stars" and keep the olympic sports in more local conferences.
Of course, since this makes sense, I doubt it will happen.
(01-24-2020 03:06 PM)otown Wrote: Amazing how this worked out. The MWC deal is under 30 days old, and it is falling apart. Never ever cross the mouse. It was said facetiously that ESPN will destroy MWC after they ditched them...... and look at where we are now. Full circle. Just like what they did to the old Big East. Good thing AAC is locked in long term with ESPN. They are a good friend to have in your corner.
Nah... we are good without Espn just that Boise isn’t.
The MW grew into a BCS buster and on the verge of AQ without ESPN.
I beg to differ. When Boise leaves, your conference is CUSA the Ocho. You can bet your butt that CBS and Fox renegotiate or void the new deal just signed. You may be able to get a MAC type deal.
(This post was last modified: 01-24-2020 03:54 PM by otown.)
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.
...
If the Big XII were to scoop up the best AAC teams, then the AAC would just scoop up the best MWC teams, or other G5 teams. Boise would be in a better place in a raided AAC than in the MWC, as there would still be stronger teams and a better TV deal. The lesson of realignment is to get with the very best football teams you can, and the money will be there.
The MWC not only welcomed BSU back once before, but gave them more money and control over TV to come back. They would do it again.
Both BYU and Utah have played multiple MWC teams since the breakup. The teams would also play BSU due to the local interest and supportive fan base.
(01-24-2020 03:06 PM)otown Wrote: Amazing how this worked out. The MWC deal is under 30 days old, and it is falling apart. Never ever cross the mouse. It was said facetiously that ESPN will destroy MWC after they ditched them...... and look at where we are now. Full circle. Just like what they did to the old Big East. Good thing AAC is locked in long term with ESPN. They are a good friend to have in your corner.
Nah... we are good without Espn just that Boise isn’t.
The MW grew into a BCS buster and on the verge of AQ without ESPN.
I beg to differ. When Boise leaves, your conference is CUSA the Ocho. You can bet your butt that CBS and Fox renegotiate or void the new deal just signed. You may be able to get a MAC type deal.
Yeah, right we have had multiple teams ranked not worried about that. Yeah the TV deal go down some, but not the amount people are thinking. BSU isn’t worth $10 million a year.
(This post was last modified: 01-24-2020 04:12 PM by MWC Tex.)
(01-24-2020 03:06 PM)otown Wrote: Amazing how this worked out. The MWC deal is under 30 days old, and it is falling apart. Never ever cross the mouse. It was said facetiously that ESPN will destroy MWC after they ditched them...... and look at where we are now. Full circle. Just like what they did to the old Big East. Good thing AAC is locked in long term with ESPN. They are a good friend to have in your corner.
Nah... we are good without Espn just that Boise isn’t.
The MW grew into a BCS buster and on the verge of AQ without ESPN.
I beg to differ. When Boise leaves, your conference is CUSA the Ocho. You can bet your butt that CBS and Fox renegotiate or void the new deal just signed. You may be able to get a MAC type deal.
This is what happens when you cross the Mouse
*NSFW*
(This post was last modified: 01-24-2020 04:08 PM by solohawks.)
(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.
Unless the MWC is allowed to negotiate their rights for them, just like most conferences/employers do. And I do feel that judges will agree on this.
Just leave the conference if you don't need it.
So it's a convoluted process but in the end, while the MW negotiates the deal, it is not binding on Boise until they affirmatively agree to the finished product. That's why I say the MW has to produce some kind of proof of Boise's assent to this new deal.
(This post was last modified: 01-24-2020 04:29 PM by quo vadis.)
(01-24-2020 03:06 PM)otown Wrote: Amazing how this worked out. The MWC deal is under 30 days old, and it is falling apart. Never ever cross the mouse. It was said facetiously that ESPN will destroy MWC after they ditched them...... and look at where we are now. Full circle. Just like what they did to the old Big East. Good thing AAC is locked in long term with ESPN. They are a good friend to have in your corner.
Nah... we are good without Espn just that Boise isn’t.
The MW grew into a BCS buster and on the verge of AQ without ESPN.
I beg to differ. When Boise leaves, your conference is CUSA the Ocho. You can bet your butt that CBS and Fox renegotiate or void the new deal just signed. You may be able to get a MAC type deal.
Yeah, right we have had multiple teams ranked not worried about that. Yeah the TV deal go down some, but not the amount people are thinking. BSU isn’t worth $10 million a year.
lol, ok. Who exactly are the ranked teams? What 25th for a week? yawn...
Also just as big is while the money might be ok- maybe, I'd venture a guess the exposure would be down big time. And if the AAC went for Boise, SDSU, and Air Force, it's utterly game over for the MWC.
(01-24-2020 04:44 PM)stever20 Wrote: Also just as big is while the money might be ok- maybe, I'd venture a guess the exposure would be down big time. And if the AAC went for Boise, SDSU, and Air Force, it's utterly game over for the MWC.
Agree that if Boise leaves the MW, the MW is greatly diminished, and if it lost all three of those it would probably be the weakest of the G5 conferences on the field and in brand value. Gutted.
But I have doubts about whether the AAC can lure any of Boise, Air Force, or SDSU away.
(This post was last modified: 01-24-2020 04:47 PM by quo vadis.)
(01-24-2020 04:44 PM)stever20 Wrote: Also just as big is while the money might be ok- maybe, I'd venture a guess the exposure would be down big time. And if the AAC went for Boise, SDSU, and Air Force, it's utterly game over for the MWC.
Agree that if Boise leaves the MW, the MW is greatly diminished, and if it lost all three of those it would probably be the weakest of the G5 conferences on the field and in brand value. Gutted.
But I have doubts about whether the AAC can lure any of Boise, Air Force, or SDSU away.
When MWC ditched ESPN the last time, ESPN responded by giving WAC a pretty nice raise that lifted the league notably above MAC and Sun Belt money.
Time zones matter and ESPN didn't treat western non-AQ football as strictly a commodity, it wasn't far removed from that.
MWC sans Boise is likely still going to be priced as the second most valuable G5 league. They can offer a useful time zone that Pac-12 is growing less inclined to fill and they offer proximity that makes scheduling useful. A quick count, 6 MWC schools that are not Boise State and are not Hawaii host a P5 in 2020.
I've dealt with Thompson, he's no dummy. Throwing down the gauntlet so quickly with Boise State makes me think he and the presidents have a pretty good idea that they are no worse off economically sans Boise State than they are if Boise State remains and gets an extra helping from the serving tray.
I don't think they want Boise to walk because Boise State does have a great brand but if they force the Broncos to stare into the abyss and conclude that they are worse off if they leave, then the other 10 equity members get more money.
The real questions are
Can Boise leave and do better financially?
The league obviously believes the answer is No. If they thought it were Yes they would be in Iowa State and Baylor mode dealing with OU and UT.
Can Boise leave and be in a roughly equal situation?
Maybe MWC believes the answer is No which makes the play logical or they are hoping the calculation is such that Boise's new leadership wouldn't roll the dice where Kustra might have.
Timing is interesting as well. There has to be a reason to pull the pin on that grenade right now rather than closer to the next contract.
(01-24-2020 04:44 PM)stever20 Wrote: Also just as big is while the money might be ok- maybe, I'd venture a guess the exposure would be down big time. And if the AAC went for Boise, SDSU, and Air Force, it's utterly game over for the MWC.
Agree that if Boise leaves the MW, the MW is greatly diminished, and if it lost all three of those it would probably be the weakest of the G5 conferences on the field and in brand value. Gutted.
But I have doubts about whether the AAC can lure any of Boise, Air Force, or SDSU away.
When MWC ditched ESPN the last time, ESPN responded by giving WAC a pretty nice raise that lifted the league notably above MAC and Sun Belt money.
Time zones matter and ESPN didn't treat western non-AQ football as strictly a commodity, it wasn't far removed from that.
MWC sans Boise is likely still going to be priced as the second most valuable G5 league. They can offer a useful time zone that Pac-12 is growing less inclined to fill and they offer proximity that makes scheduling useful. A quick count, 6 MWC schools that are not Boise State and are not Hawaii host a P5 in 2020.
I've dealt with Thompson, he's no dummy. Throwing down the gauntlet so quickly with Boise State makes me think he and the presidents have a pretty good idea that they are no worse off economically sans Boise State than they are if Boise State remains and gets an extra helping from the serving tray.
I don't think they want Boise to walk because Boise State does have a great brand but if they force the Broncos to stare into the abyss and conclude that they are worse off if they leave, then the other 10 equity members get more money.
The real questions are
Can Boise leave and do better financially?
The league obviously believes the answer is No. If they thought it were Yes they would be in Iowa State and Baylor mode dealing with OU and UT.
Can Boise leave and be in a roughly equal situation?
Maybe MWC believes the answer is No which makes the play logical or they are hoping the calculation is such that Boise's new leadership wouldn't roll the dice where Kustra might have.
Timing is interesting as well. There has to be a reason to pull the pin on that grenade right now rather than closer to the next contract.
The Fox/CBS deal is with Boise State. Boise State goes independent? MWC gets weaken, and they can not fulfill the agreement as the deal is void, and MWC will wind up with a new deal which would be far less.
(01-24-2020 04:44 PM)stever20 Wrote: Also just as big is while the money might be ok- maybe, I'd venture a guess the exposure would be down big time. And if the AAC went for Boise, SDSU, and Air Force, it's utterly game over for the MWC.
Agree that if Boise leaves the MW, the MW is greatly diminished, and if it lost all three of those it would probably be the weakest of the G5 conferences on the field and in brand value. Gutted.
But I have doubts about whether the AAC can lure any of Boise, Air Force, or SDSU away.
When MWC ditched ESPN the last time, ESPN responded by giving WAC a pretty nice raise that lifted the league notably above MAC and Sun Belt money.
Time zones matter and ESPN didn't treat western non-AQ football as strictly a commodity, it wasn't far removed from that.
MWC sans Boise is likely still going to be priced as the second most valuable G5 league. They can offer a useful time zone that Pac-12 is growing less inclined to fill and they offer proximity that makes scheduling useful. A quick count, 6 MWC schools that are not Boise State and are not Hawaii host a P5 in 2020.
I've dealt with Thompson, he's no dummy. Throwing down the gauntlet so quickly with Boise State makes me think he and the presidents have a pretty good idea that they are no worse off economically sans Boise State than they are if Boise State remains and gets an extra helping from the serving tray.
I don't think they want Boise to walk because Boise State does have a great brand but if they force the Broncos to stare into the abyss and conclude that they are worse off if they leave, then the other 10 equity members get more money.
The real questions are
Can Boise leave and do better financially?
The league obviously believes the answer is No. If they thought it were Yes they would be in Iowa State and Baylor mode dealing with OU and UT.
Can Boise leave and be in a roughly equal situation?
Maybe MWC believes the answer is No which makes the play logical or they are hoping the calculation is such that Boise's new leadership wouldn't roll the dice where Kustra might have.
Timing is interesting as well. There has to be a reason to pull the pin on that grenade right now rather than closer to the next contract.
The Fox/CBS deal is with Boise State. Boise State goes independent? MWC gets weaken, and they can not fulfill the agreement as the deal is void, and MWC will wind up with a new deal which would be far less.
No it won’t be far less because Boise isn’t worth $10-15 million on its own.
(This post was last modified: 01-24-2020 05:46 PM by MWC Tex.)
(01-24-2020 03:06 PM)otown Wrote: Amazing how this worked out. The MWC deal is under 30 days old, and it is falling apart. Never ever cross the mouse. It was said facetiously that ESPN will destroy MWC after they ditched them...... and look at where we are now. Full circle. Just like what they did to the old Big East. Good thing AAC is locked in long term with ESPN. They are a good friend to have in your corner.
Nah... we are good without Espn just that Boise isn’t.
The MW grew into a BCS buster and on the verge of AQ without ESPN.
I beg to differ. When Boise leaves, your conference is CUSA the Ocho. You can bet your butt that CBS and Fox renegotiate or void the new deal just signed. You may be able to get a MAC type deal.
Yeah, right we have had multiple teams ranked not worried about that. Yeah the TV deal go down some, but not the amount people are thinking. BSU isn’t worth $10 million a year.
lol, ok. Who exactly are the ranked teams? What 25th for a week? yawn...
Also just as big is while the money might be ok- maybe, I'd venture a guess the exposure would be down big time. And if the AAC went for Boise, SDSU, and Air Force, it's utterly game over for the MWC.
Fox is apparently obligated to air at least 7 games per year on either Fox OTA or FS1, including the MWC CCG, with the rest on FS2. Fox could take the position that without the Boise State home games, which Fox has all of, they'll air every MWC game they have (except the CCG) on FS2. Then the MWC would get a CCG on either Fox OTA or FS1, plus 3 games on CBS OTA, and everything else on either FS2 or CBSSN.
OTOH, if the only games currently set to be on Fox OTA or FS1 are Boise State games anyway, the rest of the MWC might not care much.
And if Fox reduces its share of annual payments by $7 million to account for Boise leaving, it's only a loss of about $700,000/team/year for the remaining members. If they really want Boise gone, they may not care much about that reduction, either.
/
Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC
