Basically, mutual agreement is a P5 says they are going to cancel the game and the G5 school says OK.

(07-07-2021 07:19 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Basically, mutual agreement is a P5 says they are going to cancel the game and the G5 school says OK.

There's normally a buyout in the contract if it's not by mutual agreement, but it seems like part of the deal was somebody sending UND to Boise without it costing Boise anything. Now, I don't see it spelled out anywhere who in this deal is sending UND to Boise on their dime, but as noted in this thread:

(07-06-2021 11:51 PM)nodak651 Wrote:  So is UND essentially playing Boise State for free? Kinda stupid of UND if they didn't negotiate at all for more money, no? Why not just have Washington pay their buyout and then make Boise or a different team pay a guarantee? Is our AD a pushover?

... but in reality, UND ain't paying their own fare for a one-off away game in Boise. If Washington was on the hook for a buyout, it would make sense if it was Washington.

Actually, if someone is paying for UND to come to Boise in 2023, that is effectively a profit of around $2.6m on the deal ... two P5 away buy games for $3.1m total, hosting two FCS buy games for $450m.

The tweet calling it a profit of $3.1m would just be misled by the subheader in article that I read, which said "set to make $3.1 million" ... the article says "The Broncos are set to receive about $3.1 million", which is more clearly the change in revenue.

The article also specifies that Boise is moving to an annual OOC schedule of one P5, one Go5, BYU and one FCS, where looking at fbschedules (which has updated), that starts in 2022. So it might actually be good business sense for the UND AD to allow their guarantee to just be shifted to a contract at Boise State (that is, rather than holding out for the buyout penalty and hoping a new game could be scheduled) ... if Boise State is going to be in the FCS buy game market for the foreseeable future.

(07-07-2021 07:44 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(07-07-2021 07:19 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Basically, mutual agreement is a P5 says they are going to cancel the game and the G5 school says OK.

There's normally a buyout in the contract if it's not by mutual agreement, but it seems like part of the deal was somebody sending UND to Boise without it costing Boise anything. Now, I don't see it spelled out anywhere who in this deal is sending UND to Boise on their dime, but as noted in this thread:

(07-06-2021 11:51 PM)nodak651 Wrote:  So is UND essentially playing Boise State for free? Kinda stupid of UND if they didn't negotiate at all for more money, no? Why not just have Washington pay their buyout and then make Boise or a different team pay a guarantee? Is our AD a pushover?

... but in reality, UND ain't paying their own fare for a one-off away game in Boise. If Washington was on the hook for a buyout, it would make sense if it was Washington.

Actually, if someone is paying for UND to come to Boise in 2023, that is effectively a profit of around $2.6m on the deal ... two P5 away buy games for $3.1m total, hosting two FCS buy games for $450m.

The tweet calling it a profit of $3.1m would just be misled by the subheader in article that I read, which said "set to make $3.1 million" ... the article says "The Broncos are set to receive about $3.1 million", which is more clearly the change in revenue.

The article also specifies that Boise is moving to an annual OOC schedule of one P5, one Go5, BYU and one FCS, where looking at fbschedules (which has updated), that starts in 2022. So it might actually be good business sense for the UND AD to allow their guarantee to just be shifted to a contract at Boise State (that is, rather than holding out for the buyout penalty and hoping a new game could be scheduled) ... if Boise State is going to be in the FCS buy game market for the foreseeable future.

I'm sure I'm missing something, but I'm not sure I follow with the last part about Boise joining the buy game market.

From UND's release: "Contract details and guarantees remain the same between North Dakota and its new Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) foe. This will be the first all-time meeting between North Dakota and Boise State." Also, according to the local paper, the check was for $637k.

What I'm saying is UND could have just said no and negotiated for more money, because Washington obviously saw some value in swapping these games, as did Boise. Worst case scenario is either UND maintains the original agreed on schedule or they have a game in-hand. Hopefully there was some benefit that just wasn't reported.

Michigan State is supposed to be bad this year. Surprising they're trading two gimmies for one gimmie.

(07-07-2021 08:37 AM)nodak651 Wrote:  Worst case scenario is either UND maintains the original agreed on schedule or they have a game in-hand. Hopefully there was some benefit that just wasn't reported.

You seem to be a bit of an optimist ... the worst case is they get whatever the penalty clause is for breaking the contract and can't find a buy game to replace it, and are out multiple $100k's.

Even if they took the penalty instead of accepting the swap of opponents, and went back onto the market, and found an opponent -- which would seem unlikely to be Boise State -- and the penalty plus the guarantee was above $637k, that's an approach that is not going to put them near the head of the line in the future games when Boise State is looking to buy an FCS game.

Indeed, if they had put out feelers and found out that the market for a new FCS buy game was not very strong, before they decided to take the swap, that kind of informal taking the temperature of the market is not the kind of thing that is likely to be passed on to reporters.