(01-29-2020 01:47 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 01:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I get the contractual wrangling. What's on my mind is the motivation behind the timing and the motive behind Boise and B.Y.U. looking for a window for change?

It seems to me that the likeliest motive would be a potential offer elsewhere. I sincerely doubt it would be the PAC. I'm just wondering if Texas might be willing to expand the Big 12 in an effort to stave off realignment enticements.

I don't believe Boise was vetted in their last public search which was an attempt at leverage to use against the network, or to use against those in the Big 12 who wanted to expand.

I may be wrong but the timing and nature of this with regard to those two schools seems a bit odd to me.

Even if Texas was suspicious that Oklahoma and Kansas might bolt these could be two of four that could be added to prop up the conference.

While I don't believe UT would benefit long term from this it just seems that something is afoot besides arguing over the TV contract.

My thought has been similar regarding Boise St. Boise knows independence is not viable. Boise knows a lawsuit, regardless of outcome, damages the relationship with the Mt West. Boise knows there are no regional locations for football outside of the Mt West, PAC, and kinda sorta XII.

The AAC for football-only is a possibility and I guess a similar deal with the XII but you don't make waves without a destination in place. Or you do - but that would be incredibly foolish.

I've worked with Thompson. He's not one to go off the reservation and more notably, decent odds he will retire either just prior or just after the next MWC TV deal. Would have been very easy to say not my clowns, not my circus and stay out the impending conflict.

(01-29-2020 12:50 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 10:54 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 10:10 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  For all you haggling over the Rule Against Perpetuities, the common law required that a trust or estate vest in SOMEONE sooner or later.

Contracts can be perpetual under the common law. If you search the web you can find examples where the mayor of some place will present to the Queen's representative a coin and like seven horseshoe nails as rent on land worth billions.

That is a situation like the St. Louis Spirits. There was a purchase agreement, in that case a right to use the land.

Boise joining the MWC isn't a purchase agreement. Its more like a partnership. Partnerships can be ended. Forget the legal term, something like "specific performance" is rare in contract cases. They get monetary damages rather than compelling someone to complete the contract as written. And the monetary damages for Boise are minor or nonexistent at the end of each TV deal.

Boise's choices (assuming everyone keeps to their same position) are accept the deal in 6 years or leave. MWC's choices are to accept the Boise bonuses and separate TV negotiations or have Boise leave without penalty and with their share of conference assets. Both have choices, not just Boise.

You misstate the choices. I don't think the Mountain West can vote to end Boise's special status, short of voting to expel Boise State.

To be particular, they can vote to do so, but Boise STate will go to court and win. I'm pretty sure Boise State;s next move is to void the TV contracts the MWC just signed.

Or Boise will go to court and lose. 50/50 chance actually.

(01-29-2020 01:23 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 01:05 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 12:50 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  To be particular, they can vote to do so, but Boise STate will go to court and win. I'm pretty sure Boise State;s next move is to void the TV contracts the MWC just signed.

I'm not sure how Boise can void the contract that involves the rest of the MW schools. They only have refusal power over their own separate contract.

This is true, the CBS deal is in good shape.

Depends. The CBS deal would almost certainly have a conference composition clause. I guarantee it is going to be triggered if Boise leaves.

(01-29-2020 03:37 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 12:50 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 10:54 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 10:10 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  For all you haggling over the Rule Against Perpetuities, the common law required that a trust or estate vest in SOMEONE sooner or later.

Contracts can be perpetual under the common law. If you search the web you can find examples where the mayor of some place will present to the Queen's representative a coin and like seven horseshoe nails as rent on land worth billions.

That is a situation like the St. Louis Spirits. There was a purchase agreement, in that case a right to use the land.

Boise joining the MWC isn't a purchase agreement. Its more like a partnership. Partnerships can be ended. Forget the legal term, something like "specific performance" is rare in contract cases. They get monetary damages rather than compelling someone to complete the contract as written. And the monetary damages for Boise are minor or nonexistent at the end of each TV deal.

Boise's choices (assuming everyone keeps to their same position) are accept the deal in 6 years or leave. MWC's choices are to accept the Boise bonuses and separate TV negotiations or have Boise leave without penalty and with their share of conference assets. Both have choices, not just Boise.

You misstate the choices. I don't think the Mountain West can vote to end Boise's special status, short of voting to expel Boise State.

To be particular, they can vote to do so, but Boise STate will go to court and win. I'm pretty sure Boise State;s next move is to void the TV contracts the MWC just signed.

Or Boise will go to court and lose. 50/50 chance actually.

Assuming the facts are what Boise claims—zero chance they flat out lose. They may not get all they want—but zero chance they flat out lose. I suspect the MW knows this and doesnt care. They have done the math and have determined the worst case scenario is preferable to continuing to operate under the terms of the special Boise deal.

(01-29-2020 12:50 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  You misstate the choices. I don't think the Mountain West can vote to end Boise's special status, short of voting to expel Boise State.

To be particular, they can vote to do so, but Boise STate will go to court and win. I'm pretty sure Boise State;s next move is to void the TV contracts the MWC just signed.

And then what? Voiding that contract does not put money in Boise State's pocket. Indeed, no media deal, no bonus. Boise State may be able to spoil a deal it doesn't like, but it can't force a deal it prefers.

(01-29-2020 01:35 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 11:26 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  The critical thing here is that there are 12 equity members in MWC and they don't like the terms of the agreement that raised membership from 10 to 12 because of the most favored status for Boise or at least don't like it as Boise interprets it. Seems to be some confusion over how Boise's bonus is to be determined.

The intention seems clear that the MWC is more than willing to sever the relationship rather than continue it on those terms or at least the way Boise State reads those terms and has given Boise State pretty long-term warning of that intention.

And that warning would mitigate any monetary damages in 6 years as Boise has plenty of time to evaluate options.

I don't think the intention is nearly as clear as some posters think. The MWC schools are clearly willing to challenge Boise State over Boise's special status, but it's not at all clear that they would go so far as to vote Boise State out of the conference, which is probably what it would take to break the MWC-Boise agreement over Boise's objections.

And Boise has served public notice that they are not going to allow the MWC to unilaterally rewrite the contract.

So the game of chicken goes on.

(01-29-2020 03:37 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 12:50 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 10:54 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 10:10 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  For all you haggling over the Rule Against Perpetuities, the common law required that a trust or estate vest in SOMEONE sooner or later.

Contracts can be perpetual under the common law. If you search the web you can find examples where the mayor of some place will present to the Queen's representative a coin and like seven horseshoe nails as rent on land worth billions.

That is a situation like the St. Louis Spirits. There was a purchase agreement, in that case a right to use the land.

Boise joining the MWC isn't a purchase agreement. Its more like a partnership. Partnerships can be ended. Forget the legal term, something like "specific performance" is rare in contract cases. They get monetary damages rather than compelling someone to complete the contract as written. And the monetary damages for Boise are minor or nonexistent at the end of each TV deal.

Boise's choices (assuming everyone keeps to their same position) are accept the deal in 6 years or leave. MWC's choices are to accept the Boise bonuses and separate TV negotiations or have Boise leave without penalty and with their share of conference assets. Both have choices, not just Boise.

You misstate the choices. I don't think the Mountain West can vote to end Boise's special status, short of voting to expel Boise State.

To be particular, they can vote to do so, but Boise STate will go to court and win. I'm pretty sure Boise State;s next move is to void the TV contracts the MWC just signed.

Or Boise will go to court and lose. 50/50 chance actually.

Boise STate and the Mountain West entered into a contract. If the Mountain West chooses to renege on that contract, they will lose in court.

(01-29-2020 04:51 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 01:23 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 01:05 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 12:50 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  To be particular, they can vote to do so, but Boise STate will go to court and win. I'm pretty sure Boise State;s next move is to void the TV contracts the MWC just signed.

I'm not sure how Boise can void the contract that involves the rest of the MW schools. They only have refusal power over their own separate contract.

This is true, the CBS deal is in good shape.

Depends. The CBS deal would almost certainly have a conference composition clause. I guarantee it is going to be triggered if Boise leaves.

I'm not talking about Boise leaving. I'm talking about Boise--in the rosiest of rosy scenarios--getting a court to rapidly declare:
1. The Mountain West did NOT get Boise's signature on the new media deals
2. This is a breach of the BSU-MWC re-entry agreement
3. The most obvious remedy for the breach is that the rights to BSU's home football games revert to BSU.

That eviscerates the Fox part of the MWC media package, justifying Fox backing out of the deal. Boise then shops their 6 home games a year directly to Fox (or ESPN)

(01-29-2020 04:56 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 12:50 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  You misstate the choices. I don't think the Mountain West can vote to end Boise's special status, short of voting to expel Boise State.

To be particular, they can vote to do so, but Boise STate will go to court and win. I'm pretty sure Boise State;s next move is to void the TV contracts the MWC just signed.

And then what? Voiding that contract does not put money in Boise State's pocket. Indeed, no media deal, no bonus. Boise State may be able to spoil a deal it doesn't like, but it can't force a deal it prefers.

That is true. But being able to spoil a deal gives Boise STate leverage against the rest of the MWC, leverage that Boise tried to use to get their bonus increased in proportion to the new media contract.

(01-29-2020 05:05 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 01:35 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 11:26 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  The critical thing here is that there are 12 equity members in MWC and they don't like the terms of the agreement that raised membership from 10 to 12 because of the most favored status for Boise or at least don't like it as Boise interprets it. Seems to be some confusion over how Boise's bonus is to be determined.

The intention seems clear that the MWC is more than willing to sever the relationship rather than continue it on those terms or at least the way Boise State reads those terms and has given Boise State pretty long-term warning of that intention.

And that warning would mitigate any monetary damages in 6 years as Boise has plenty of time to evaluate options.

I don't think the intention is nearly as clear as some posters think. The MWC schools are clearly willing to challenge Boise State over Boise's special status, but it's not at all clear that they would go so far as to vote Boise State out of the conference, which is probably what it would take to break the MWC-Boise agreement over Boise's objections.

And Boise has served public notice that they are not going to allow the MWC to unilaterally rewrite the contract.

So the game of chicken goes on.

Airport meeting 2.0

(01-29-2020 05:05 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 01:35 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 11:26 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  The critical thing here is that there are 12 equity members in MWC and they don't like the terms of the agreement that raised membership from 10 to 12 because of the most favored status for Boise or at least don't like it as Boise interprets it. Seems to be some confusion over how Boise's bonus is to be determined.

The intention seems clear that the MWC is more than willing to sever the relationship rather than continue it on those terms or at least the way Boise State reads those terms and has given Boise State pretty long-term warning of that intention.

And that warning would mitigate any monetary damages in 6 years as Boise has plenty of time to evaluate options.

I don't think the intention is nearly as clear as some posters think. The MWC schools are clearly willing to challenge Boise State over Boise's special status, but it's not at all clear that they would go so far as to vote Boise State out of the conference, which is probably what it would take to break the MWC-Boise agreement over Boise's objections.

And Boise has served public notice that they are not going to allow the MWC to unilaterally rewrite the contract.

So the game of chicken goes on.

I think the MW is clear about one thing. They will not continue under the special deal after the CBS/FOX deal expires unless forced to by a court. I dont know if they would kick Boise out, but I think their current stance indicates the MW members would rather let Boise walk than extend the terms more than 6 years.

(01-29-2020 05:20 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 03:37 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 12:50 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 10:54 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 10:10 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  For all you haggling over the Rule Against Perpetuities, the common law required that a trust or estate vest in SOMEONE sooner or later.

Contracts can be perpetual under the common law. If you search the web you can find examples where the mayor of some place will present to the Queen's representative a coin and like seven horseshoe nails as rent on land worth billions.

That is a situation like the St. Louis Spirits. There was a purchase agreement, in that case a right to use the land.

Boise joining the MWC isn't a purchase agreement. Its more like a partnership. Partnerships can be ended. Forget the legal term, something like "specific performance" is rare in contract cases. They get monetary damages rather than compelling someone to complete the contract as written. And the monetary damages for Boise are minor or nonexistent at the end of each TV deal.

Boise's choices (assuming everyone keeps to their same position) are accept the deal in 6 years or leave. MWC's choices are to accept the Boise bonuses and separate TV negotiations or have Boise leave without penalty and with their share of conference assets. Both have choices, not just Boise.

You misstate the choices. I don't think the Mountain West can vote to end Boise's special status, short of voting to expel Boise State.

To be particular, they can vote to do so, but Boise STate will go to court and win. I'm pretty sure Boise State;s next move is to void the TV contracts the MWC just signed.

Or Boise will go to court and lose. 50/50 chance actually.

Boise STate and the Mountain West entered into a contract. If the Mountain West chooses to renege on that contract, they will lose in court.

(01-29-2020 04:51 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 01:23 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 01:05 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 12:50 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  To be particular, they can vote to do so, but Boise STate will go to court and win. I'm pretty sure Boise State;s next move is to void the TV contracts the MWC just signed.

I'm not sure how Boise can void the contract that involves the rest of the MW schools. They only have refusal power over their own separate contract.

This is true, the CBS deal is in good shape.

Depends. The CBS deal would almost certainly have a conference composition clause. I guarantee it is going to be triggered if Boise leaves.

I'm not talking about Boise leaving. I'm talking about Boise--in the rosiest of rosy scenarios--getting a court to rapidly declare:
1. The Mountain West did NOT get Boise's signature on the new media deals
2. This is a breach of the BSU-MWC re-entry agreement
3. The most obvious remedy for the breach is that the rights to BSU's home football games revert to BSU.

That eviscerates the Fox part of the MWC media package, justifying Fox backing out of the deal. Boise then shops their 6 home games a year directly to Fox (or ESPN)

(01-29-2020 04:56 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 12:50 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  You misstate the choices. I don't think the Mountain West can vote to end Boise's special status, short of voting to expel Boise State.

To be particular, they can vote to do so, but Boise STate will go to court and win. I'm pretty sure Boise State;s next move is to void the TV contracts the MWC just signed.

And then what? Voiding that contract does not put money in Boise State's pocket. Indeed, no media deal, no bonus. Boise State may be able to spoil a deal it doesn't like, but it can't force a deal it prefers.

That is true. But being able to spoil a deal gives Boise STate leverage against the rest of the MWC, leverage that Boise tried to use to get their bonus increased in proportion to the new media contract.

MWC isn't reneging on the bonus. They just don't think it's proportional based as Boise does. And they don't think the contract is in perpetuity. You think a rational judge is going to believe that a Conference signed away their rights forever?

(01-29-2020 07:05 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 05:20 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 03:37 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 12:50 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 10:54 AM)bullet Wrote:  That is a situation like the St. Louis Spirits. There was a purchase agreement, in that case a right to use the land.

Boise joining the MWC isn't a purchase agreement. Its more like a partnership. Partnerships can be ended. Forget the legal term, something like "specific performance" is rare in contract cases. They get monetary damages rather than compelling someone to complete the contract as written. And the monetary damages for Boise are minor or nonexistent at the end of each TV deal.

Boise's choices (assuming everyone keeps to their same position) are accept the deal in 6 years or leave. MWC's choices are to accept the Boise bonuses and separate TV negotiations or have Boise leave without penalty and with their share of conference assets. Both have choices, not just Boise.

You misstate the choices. I don't think the Mountain West can vote to end Boise's special status, short of voting to expel Boise State.

To be particular, they can vote to do so, but Boise STate will go to court and win. I'm pretty sure Boise State;s next move is to void the TV contracts the MWC just signed.

Or Boise will go to court and lose. 50/50 chance actually.

Boise STate and the Mountain West entered into a contract. If the Mountain West chooses to renege on that contract, they will lose in court.

(01-29-2020 04:51 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 01:23 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 01:05 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I'm not sure how Boise can void the contract that involves the rest of the MW schools. They only have refusal power over their own separate contract.

This is true, the CBS deal is in good shape.

Depends. The CBS deal would almost certainly have a conference composition clause. I guarantee it is going to be triggered if Boise leaves.

I'm not talking about Boise leaving. I'm talking about Boise--in the rosiest of rosy scenarios--getting a court to rapidly declare:
1. The Mountain West did NOT get Boise's signature on the new media deals
2. This is a breach of the BSU-MWC re-entry agreement
3. The most obvious remedy for the breach is that the rights to BSU's home football games revert to BSU.

That eviscerates the Fox part of the MWC media package, justifying Fox backing out of the deal. Boise then shops their 6 home games a year directly to Fox (or ESPN)

(01-29-2020 04:56 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 12:50 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  You misstate the choices. I don't think the Mountain West can vote to end Boise's special status, short of voting to expel Boise State.

To be particular, they can vote to do so, but Boise STate will go to court and win. I'm pretty sure Boise State;s next move is to void the TV contracts the MWC just signed.

And then what? Voiding that contract does not put money in Boise State's pocket. Indeed, no media deal, no bonus. Boise State may be able to spoil a deal it doesn't like, but it can't force a deal it prefers.

That is true. But being able to spoil a deal gives Boise STate leverage against the rest of the MWC, leverage that Boise tried to use to get their bonus increased in proportion to the new media contract.

MWC isn't reneging on the bonus.

Boise's complaint says that they are.

Article from Boise TV or radio station

Quote:"Instead, at the Board of Directors meeting, Mr. Jordan and Mr. Thompson presented eight alternatives, none of which addressed an increase in the bonus to be paid to Boise State," the complaint claims. "Instead, all eight alternatives addressed different methods for phasing out and ultimately ending the already agreed to $1.8 million bonus to Boise State and entering into uniform agreements with all member institutions under which every member institution, regardless of their contribution to the television revenue, received equal distributions."

Quote:They just don't think it's proportional based as Boise does.

Boise wanted to make it proportional. The rest of the MWC wants to end it. But the contract says $1.8M per year.

Quote:And they don't think the contract is in perpetuity.

The contract is not for a limited term, so it's perpetual until something happens to end it. Google Spirits of St Louis.

Quote:You think a rational judge is going to believe that a Conference signed away their rights forever?

The conference didn't own the rights, Boise State did. Boise State conveyed their TV rights to the MWC in the contract. If the contract ends, the rights revert to Boise State and they can negotiate with ESPN and Fox themselves.

(01-29-2020 07:05 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 05:20 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 03:37 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 12:50 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 10:54 AM)bullet Wrote:  That is a situation like the St. Louis Spirits. There was a purchase agreement, in that case a right to use the land.

Boise joining the MWC isn't a purchase agreement. Its more like a partnership. Partnerships can be ended. Forget the legal term, something like "specific performance" is rare in contract cases. They get monetary damages rather than compelling someone to complete the contract as written. And the monetary damages for Boise are minor or nonexistent at the end of each TV deal.

Boise's choices (assuming everyone keeps to their same position) are accept the deal in 6 years or leave. MWC's choices are to accept the Boise bonuses and separate TV negotiations or have Boise leave without penalty and with their share of conference assets. Both have choices, not just Boise.

You misstate the choices. I don't think the Mountain West can vote to end Boise's special status, short of voting to expel Boise State.

To be particular, they can vote to do so, but Boise STate will go to court and win. I'm pretty sure Boise State;s next move is to void the TV contracts the MWC just signed.

Or Boise will go to court and lose. 50/50 chance actually.

Boise STate and the Mountain West entered into a contract. If the Mountain West chooses to renege on that contract, they will lose in court.

(01-29-2020 04:51 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 01:23 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 01:05 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I'm not sure how Boise can void the contract that involves the rest of the MW schools. They only have refusal power over their own separate contract.

This is true, the CBS deal is in good shape.

Depends. The CBS deal would almost certainly have a conference composition clause. I guarantee it is going to be triggered if Boise leaves.

I'm not talking about Boise leaving. I'm talking about Boise--in the rosiest of rosy scenarios--getting a court to rapidly declare:
1. The Mountain West did NOT get Boise's signature on the new media deals
2. This is a breach of the BSU-MWC re-entry agreement
3. The most obvious remedy for the breach is that the rights to BSU's home football games revert to BSU.

That eviscerates the Fox part of the MWC media package, justifying Fox backing out of the deal. Boise then shops their 6 home games a year directly to Fox (or ESPN)

(01-29-2020 04:56 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 12:50 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  You misstate the choices. I don't think the Mountain West can vote to end Boise's special status, short of voting to expel Boise State.

To be particular, they can vote to do so, but Boise STate will go to court and win. I'm pretty sure Boise State;s next move is to void the TV contracts the MWC just signed.

And then what? Voiding that contract does not put money in Boise State's pocket. Indeed, no media deal, no bonus. Boise State may be able to spoil a deal it doesn't like, but it can't force a deal it prefers.

That is true. But being able to spoil a deal gives Boise STate leverage against the rest of the MWC, leverage that Boise tried to use to get their bonus increased in proportion to the new media contract.

MWC isn't reneging on the bonus. They just don't think it's proportional based as Boise does. And they don't think the contract is in perpetuity. You think a rational judge is going to believe that a Conference signed away their rights forever?

Courts have ruled against groups like MWC who broke the terms of agreements. Boise State have the strongest case against MWC. Boise State is the ratings darling of the conference. Once they leave? MWC would struggle with viewership.

(01-29-2020 07:05 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 05:20 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 03:37 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 12:50 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 10:54 AM)bullet Wrote:  That is a situation like the St. Louis Spirits. There was a purchase agreement, in that case a right to use the land.

Boise joining the MWC isn't a purchase agreement. Its more like a partnership. Partnerships can be ended. Forget the legal term, something like "specific performance" is rare in contract cases. They get monetary damages rather than compelling someone to complete the contract as written. And the monetary damages for Boise are minor or nonexistent at the end of each TV deal.

Boise's choices (assuming everyone keeps to their same position) are accept the deal in 6 years or leave. MWC's choices are to accept the Boise bonuses and separate TV negotiations or have Boise leave without penalty and with their share of conference assets. Both have choices, not just Boise.

You misstate the choices. I don't think the Mountain West can vote to end Boise's special status, short of voting to expel Boise State.

To be particular, they can vote to do so, but Boise STate will go to court and win. I'm pretty sure Boise State;s next move is to void the TV contracts the MWC just signed.

Or Boise will go to court and lose. 50/50 chance actually.

Boise STate and the Mountain West entered into a contract. If the Mountain West chooses to renege on that contract, they will lose in court.

(01-29-2020 04:51 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 01:23 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 01:05 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I'm not sure how Boise can void the contract that involves the rest of the MW schools. They only have refusal power over their own separate contract.

This is true, the CBS deal is in good shape.

Depends. The CBS deal would almost certainly have a conference composition clause. I guarantee it is going to be triggered if Boise leaves.

I'm not talking about Boise leaving. I'm talking about Boise--in the rosiest of rosy scenarios--getting a court to rapidly declare:
1. The Mountain West did NOT get Boise's signature on the new media deals
2. This is a breach of the BSU-MWC re-entry agreement
3. The most obvious remedy for the breach is that the rights to BSU's home football games revert to BSU.

That eviscerates the Fox part of the MWC media package, justifying Fox backing out of the deal. Boise then shops their 6 home games a year directly to Fox (or ESPN)

(01-29-2020 04:56 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 12:50 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  You misstate the choices. I don't think the Mountain West can vote to end Boise's special status, short of voting to expel Boise State.

To be particular, they can vote to do so, but Boise STate will go to court and win. I'm pretty sure Boise State;s next move is to void the TV contracts the MWC just signed.

And then what? Voiding that contract does not put money in Boise State's pocket. Indeed, no media deal, no bonus. Boise State may be able to spoil a deal it doesn't like, but it can't force a deal it prefers.

That is true. But being able to spoil a deal gives Boise STate leverage against the rest of the MWC, leverage that Boise tried to use to get their bonus increased in proportion to the new media contract.

MWC isn't reneging on the bonus. They just don't think it's proportional based as Boise does. And they don't think the contract is in perpetuity. You think a rational judge is going to believe that a Conference signed away their rights forever?

Courts have ruled against groups like MWC who broke the terms of agreements. Boise State have the strongest case against MWC. Boise State is the ratings darling of the conference. Once they leave? MWC would struggle with viewership.

(01-29-2020 01:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I get the contractual wrangling. What's on my mind is the motivation behind the timing and the motive behind Boise and B.Y.U. looking for a window for change?

It seems to me that the likeliest motive would be a potential offer elsewhere. I sincerely doubt it would be the PAC. I'm just wondering if Texas might be willing to expand the Big 12 in an effort to stave off realignment enticements.

I don't believe Boise was vetted in their last public search which was an attempt at leverage to use against the network, or to use against those in the Big 12 who wanted to expand.

I may be wrong but the timing and nature of this with regard to those two schools seems a bit odd to me.

Even if Texas was suspicious that Oklahoma and Kansas might bolt these could be two of four that could be added to prop up the conference.

While I don't believe UT would benefit long term from this it just seems that something is afoot besides arguing over the TV contract.

Well, we know that FOX and CBS are willing to pay $45M/year for western content highlighted by 6 Boise State home games and 4 Boise State road games...mostly against MWC competition. How close is that $45M to two portions of the Big 12 media payout? Or reduced football-only portions?

What if you also throw in BYU's deal w/ESPN into the Big 12 pot?...

Are FOX and ESPN willing to pay enough to support Boise and BYU to the Big 12...and their 10pm ET Big 12 inventory? Would the Big 12 deem it worthwhile if Boise and BYU "take a haircut" for a few years so that the legacy schools can make more in the interim? Would getting back to 12 teams help the Big 12 to prop up more teams with nice-and-shiny win-loss records and better rankings and a better shot for the Big 12 champ at the CFP?

EDIT: BYU just extended its series with Stanford to 8 games, including 4 November games and post-2025 dates. This would ensure sufficient OOC games in California if BYU were to be part of a Central-focused conference....

(01-29-2020 07:05 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 05:20 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 03:37 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 12:50 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 10:54 AM)bullet Wrote:  That is a situation like the St. Louis Spirits. There was a purchase agreement, in that case a right to use the land.

Boise joining the MWC isn't a purchase agreement. Its more like a partnership. Partnerships can be ended. Forget the legal term, something like "specific performance" is rare in contract cases. They get monetary damages rather than compelling someone to complete the contract as written. And the monetary damages for Boise are minor or nonexistent at the end of each TV deal.

Boise's choices (assuming everyone keeps to their same position) are accept the deal in 6 years or leave. MWC's choices are to accept the Boise bonuses and separate TV negotiations or have Boise leave without penalty and with their share of conference assets. Both have choices, not just Boise.

You misstate the choices. I don't think the Mountain West can vote to end Boise's special status, short of voting to expel Boise State.

To be particular, they can vote to do so, but Boise STate will go to court and win. I'm pretty sure Boise State;s next move is to void the TV contracts the MWC just signed.

Or Boise will go to court and lose. 50/50 chance actually.

Boise STate and the Mountain West entered into a contract. If the Mountain West chooses to renege on that contract, they will lose in court.

(01-29-2020 04:51 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 01:23 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 01:05 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I'm not sure how Boise can void the contract that involves the rest of the MW schools. They only have refusal power over their own separate contract.

This is true, the CBS deal is in good shape.

Depends. The CBS deal would almost certainly have a conference composition clause. I guarantee it is going to be triggered if Boise leaves.

I'm not talking about Boise leaving. I'm talking about Boise--in the rosiest of rosy scenarios--getting a court to rapidly declare:
1. The Mountain West did NOT get Boise's signature on the new media deals
2. This is a breach of the BSU-MWC re-entry agreement
3. The most obvious remedy for the breach is that the rights to BSU's home football games revert to BSU.

That eviscerates the Fox part of the MWC media package, justifying Fox backing out of the deal. Boise then shops their 6 home games a year directly to Fox (or ESPN)

(01-29-2020 04:56 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 12:50 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  You misstate the choices. I don't think the Mountain West can vote to end Boise's special status, short of voting to expel Boise State.

To be particular, they can vote to do so, but Boise STate will go to court and win. I'm pretty sure Boise State;s next move is to void the TV contracts the MWC just signed.

And then what? Voiding that contract does not put money in Boise State's pocket. Indeed, no media deal, no bonus. Boise State may be able to spoil a deal it doesn't like, but it can't force a deal it prefers.

That is true. But being able to spoil a deal gives Boise STate leverage against the rest of the MWC, leverage that Boise tried to use to get their bonus increased in proportion to the new media contract.

MWC isn't reneging on the bonus. They just don't think it's proportional based as Boise does. And they don't think the contract is in perpetuity. You think a rational judge is going to believe that a Conference signed away their rights forever?

It’s no more perpetual than the typical membership agreement. Frankly, every school thats a member to a conference signs its TV rights away perpetually when it joins a conference. The only way they get them back is to leave. The length of the Boise TV deal with the MW is the EXACT same length as as the deal that governs the TV rights of every other school in the conference. The only difference is Boise's agreement has some additional clauses governing how the Boise's rights are handled. Essentially, the MW sweetened the normal equal revenue distribution TV deal for Boise in order to lure Boise back to the MW (and gain access to those TV right).

Therefor, the argument that the Boise “special deal” is perpetual is a poor excuse to for a breach since its no more (or less) perpetual than any other MW schools TV rights agreement.

Furthermore, the deal was just reopened and renegotiated less than 3 years ago. That’s hardly a lengthy period---and probably well short of time needed to consider any “perpetual deal" as having been "reasonably fulfilled".

Frankly, I dont think the MW has any illusions that they have a winning case in court. I think they just want the deal to end and have decided that any "worst case" scenarios presented by their lawyers represent an acceptable price to void the deal.

Here is what I think happens if Im right. "Anticipatory breach" requires that Boise, having been informed that the MW intends to breach the contract, are no longer bound by the contract terms, may avail themselves of the legal system, and must act to mitigate any damages. Moving to the AAC or going Indy likely are the two courses of action that mitigate the financial damage. The AAC currently has an opening---which may not be the case 6 years from now. Thus, time is a factor. I suspect that Boise will likely either

A) Reach a long term deal with the MW that increases their bonus (or gives Boise some other face saving concessions) and starts a clock on a defined end of the special deal/bonus.

OR

B) Boise and the MW go their separate ways. Boise uses the courts to get the right to immediately leave the MW with no exit fee or loss of earned revenue during their tenure in the conference. The MW will also be responsible for any entry fee Boise may owe to another conference (or conferences).

Thats the only two ways I see this playing out. I don't think the status quo is a long term option.

(01-29-2020 05:20 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 03:37 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 12:50 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 10:54 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 10:10 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  For all you haggling over the Rule Against Perpetuities, the common law required that a trust or estate vest in SOMEONE sooner or later.

Contracts can be perpetual under the common law. If you search the web you can find examples where the mayor of some place will present to the Queen's representative a coin and like seven horseshoe nails as rent on land worth billions.

That is a situation like the St. Louis Spirits. There was a purchase agreement, in that case a right to use the land.

Boise joining the MWC isn't a purchase agreement. Its more like a partnership. Partnerships can be ended. Forget the legal term, something like "specific performance" is rare in contract cases. They get monetary damages rather than compelling someone to complete the contract as written. And the monetary damages for Boise are minor or nonexistent at the end of each TV deal.

Boise's choices (assuming everyone keeps to their same position) are accept the deal in 6 years or leave. MWC's choices are to accept the Boise bonuses and separate TV negotiations or have Boise leave without penalty and with their share of conference assets. Both have choices, not just Boise.

You misstate the choices. I don't think the Mountain West can vote to end Boise's special status, short of voting to expel Boise State.

To be particular, they can vote to do so, but Boise STate will go to court and win. I'm pretty sure Boise State;s next move is to void the TV contracts the MWC just signed.

Or Boise will go to court and lose. 50/50 chance actually.

Boise STate and the Mountain West entered into a contract. If the Mountain West chooses to renege on that contract, they will lose in court.

(01-29-2020 04:51 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 01:23 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 01:05 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 12:50 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  To be particular, they can vote to do so, but Boise STate will go to court and win. I'm pretty sure Boise State;s next move is to void the TV contracts the MWC just signed.

I'm not sure how Boise can void the contract that involves the rest of the MW schools. They only have refusal power over their own separate contract.

This is true, the CBS deal is in good shape.

Depends. The CBS deal would almost certainly have a conference composition clause. I guarantee it is going to be triggered if Boise leaves.

I'm not talking about Boise leaving. I'm talking about Boise--in the rosiest of rosy scenarios--getting a court to rapidly declare:
1. The Mountain West did NOT get Boise's signature on the new media deals
2. This is a breach of the BSU-MWC re-entry agreement
3. The most obvious remedy for the breach is that the rights to BSU's home football games revert to BSU.

That eviscerates the Fox part of the MWC media package, justifying Fox backing out of the deal. Boise then shops their 6 home games a year directly to Fox (or ESPN)

(01-29-2020 04:56 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 12:50 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  You misstate the choices. I don't think the Mountain West can vote to end Boise's special status, short of voting to expel Boise State.

To be particular, they can vote to do so, but Boise STate will go to court and win. I'm pretty sure Boise State;s next move is to void the TV contracts the MWC just signed.

And then what? Voiding that contract does not put money in Boise State's pocket. Indeed, no media deal, no bonus. Boise State may be able to spoil a deal it doesn't like, but it can't force a deal it prefers.

That is true. But being able to spoil a deal gives Boise STate leverage against the rest of the MWC, leverage that Boise tried to use to get their bonus increased in proportion to the new media contract.

But the assumption is they can prove they didn't approve the contract. We obviously don't have the facts, but Boise gave the impression they did with their own public statements.

(01-29-2020 07:44 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 01:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I get the contractual wrangling. What's on my mind is the motivation behind the timing and the motive behind Boise and B.Y.U. looking for a window for change?

It seems to me that the likeliest motive would be a potential offer elsewhere. I sincerely doubt it would be the PAC. I'm just wondering if Texas might be willing to expand the Big 12 in an effort to stave off realignment enticements.

I don't believe Boise was vetted in their last public search which was an attempt at leverage to use against the network, or to use against those in the Big 12 who wanted to expand.

I may be wrong but the timing and nature of this with regard to those two schools seems a bit odd to me.

Even if Texas was suspicious that Oklahoma and Kansas might bolt these could be two of four that could be added to prop up the conference.

While I don't believe UT would benefit long term from this it just seems that something is afoot besides arguing over the TV contract.

Well, we know that FOX and CBS are willing to pay $45M/year for western content highlighted by 6 Boise State home games and 4 Boise State road games...mostly against MWC competition. How close is that $45M to two portions of the Big 12 media payout? Or reduced football-only portions?

What if you also throw in BYU's deal w/ESPN into the Big 12 pot?...

Are FOX and ESPN willing to pay enough to support Boise and BYU to the Big 12...and their 10pm ET Big 12 inventory? Would the Big 12 deem it worthwhile if Boise and BYU "take a haircut" for a few years so that the legacy schools can make more in the interim? Would getting back to 12 teams help the Big 12 to prop up more teams with nice-and-shiny win-loss records and better rankings and a better shot for the Big 12 champ at the CFP?

EDIT: BYU just extended its series with Stanford to 8 games, including 4 November games and post-2025 dates. This would ensure sufficient OOC games in California if BYU were to be part of a Central-focused conference....

The Big 12 would not take Boise. BYU yes. Boise no, even if Boise has more value.

(01-29-2020 10:19 PM)bullet Wrote:  But the assumption is they can prove they didn't approve the contract. We obviously don't have the facts, but Boise gave the impression they did with their own public statements.

Yes, my impression from the Boise public statements is that Boise did agree to their portion of the deal. From a Boise press statement on January 17:

"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 implies to me that Boise agreed to a FOX deal for their rights. Could be wrong, but that's how I read that.

If so, then to get out of that Boise would presumably have to claim that they agreed under false pretenses by the MW or somesuch, but that would put the burden of proof on Boise to show that, not the MW.

(01-29-2020 10:20 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 07:44 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 01:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I get the contractual wrangling. What's on my mind is the motivation behind the timing and the motive behind Boise and B.Y.U. looking for a window for change?

It seems to me that the likeliest motive would be a potential offer elsewhere. I sincerely doubt it would be the PAC. I'm just wondering if Texas might be willing to expand the Big 12 in an effort to stave off realignment enticements.

I don't believe Boise was vetted in their last public search which was an attempt at leverage to use against the network, or to use against those in the Big 12 who wanted to expand.

I may be wrong but the timing and nature of this with regard to those two schools seems a bit odd to me.

Even if Texas was suspicious that Oklahoma and Kansas might bolt these could be two of four that could be added to prop up the conference.

While I don't believe UT would benefit long term from this it just seems that something is afoot besides arguing over the TV contract.

Well, we know that FOX and CBS are willing to pay $45M/year for western content highlighted by 6 Boise State home games and 4 Boise State road games...mostly against MWC competition. How close is that $45M to two portions of the Big 12 media payout? Or reduced football-only portions?

What if you also throw in BYU's deal w/ESPN into the Big 12 pot?...

Are FOX and ESPN willing to pay enough to support Boise and BYU to the Big 12...and their 10pm ET Big 12 inventory? Would the Big 12 deem it worthwhile if Boise and BYU "take a haircut" for a few years so that the legacy schools can make more in the interim? Would getting back to 12 teams help the Big 12 to prop up more teams with nice-and-shiny win-loss records and better rankings and a better shot for the Big 12 champ at the CFP?

EDIT: BYU just extended its series with Stanford to 8 games, including 4 November games and post-2025 dates. This would ensure sufficient OOC games in California if BYU were to be part of a Central-focused conference....

The Big 12 would not take Boise. BYU yes. Boise no, even if Boise has more value.

I don't think the Big12 would take BYU. It's too difficult between the scheduling conflicts and distance from WVU.

(01-30-2020 11:17 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 10:20 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 07:44 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 01:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I get the contractual wrangling. What's on my mind is the motivation behind the timing and the motive behind Boise and B.Y.U. looking for a window for change?

It seems to me that the likeliest motive would be a potential offer elsewhere. I sincerely doubt it would be the PAC. I'm just wondering if Texas might be willing to expand the Big 12 in an effort to stave off realignment enticements.

I don't believe Boise was vetted in their last public search which was an attempt at leverage to use against the network, or to use against those in the Big 12 who wanted to expand.

I may be wrong but the timing and nature of this with regard to those two schools seems a bit odd to me.

Even if Texas was suspicious that Oklahoma and Kansas might bolt these could be two of four that could be added to prop up the conference.

While I don't believe UT would benefit long term from this it just seems that something is afoot besides arguing over the TV contract.

Well, we know that FOX and CBS are willing to pay $45M/year for western content highlighted by 6 Boise State home games and 4 Boise State road games...mostly against MWC competition. How close is that $45M to two portions of the Big 12 media payout? Or reduced football-only portions?

What if you also throw in BYU's deal w/ESPN into the Big 12 pot?...

Are FOX and ESPN willing to pay enough to support Boise and BYU to the Big 12...and their 10pm ET Big 12 inventory? Would the Big 12 deem it worthwhile if Boise and BYU "take a haircut" for a few years so that the legacy schools can make more in the interim? Would getting back to 12 teams help the Big 12 to prop up more teams with nice-and-shiny win-loss records and better rankings and a better shot for the Big 12 champ at the CFP?

EDIT: BYU just extended its series with Stanford to 8 games, including 4 November games and post-2025 dates. This would ensure sufficient OOC games in California if BYU were to be part of a Central-focused conference....

The Big 12 would not take Boise. BYU yes. Boise no, even if Boise has more value.

I don't think the Big12 would take BYU. It's too difficult between the scheduling conflicts and distance from WVU.

West Virginia
Iowa State
Kansas
Kansas State
Oklahoma
OK State

BYU
Colorado State
Texas
Baylor
TCU
Texas Tech

Keep OU-Texas as the lone crossover like the Big Ten does with PU-IU.