(05-09-2022 05:40 AM)NeighSayer Wrote: Neither Air Force nor Colorado State have the same level of national interest as Boise State.They lacked the leverage to pull their own “sweetheart” deals.
The reaction from the MWC when the rumors were floated that the Falcons and Rams were leaving for the AAC? “Glad we don’t have to deal with cut blocks from the triple option anymore.” The reaction when word got out that the Broncos were rethinking their move to the Big East when that conference fell apart? “Come back and save our TV deal…we’ll even separate your home games from the rest of the contract and give you a bigger cut.”
BTW, the notion that Boise State’s added payment will go away is flat-out wrong. Commissioner Thompson floated that idea, but President Tromp quickly shut that nonsense down. Our attorneys made it very clear to the MWC that the terms for our return to the league guaranteed our bigger cut in perpetuity; any breach of that contract will cost the MWC dearly. The league backed off of that position in a hurry. Pretty lousy way to treat your conference bell cow —Thompson should be fired for even suggesting it.
I agree that the $1.8m bonus to Boise isn't going anywhere. It will be there so long as Boise in the MW.
That said, a couple of things:
1) Boise may have made a small error themselves in that 2016 deal: the terms call for a bonus of a flat $1.8m, not something that is proportional with the value of the contract. So if the MW gets $15m a year from TV, Bouse gets $1.8m off the top. But if the deal rises to $100m a year from TV, Boise still gets $1.8m off the top. The amount stays the same, but the proportional value falls.
That's basically what happened in 2020, when the MW deal rose from about $15m a year to $45m a year, such that the TV payout tripled. In the old deal, Boise's bonus alone was close to double what other MW schools were getting in total TV payout, now it is less than 50% more. Still a lot more, but not nearly as much more.
IIRC, reports said that Boise tried to correct that by suggesting to the MW commissioner that their bonus rise proportionally as well, but the MW rejected that, and it may have been that request that prompted the MW to try and take away the bonus entirely.
In any event, as MW deals go up, the proportional value of that bonus will continue to fall.
2) Let's face it - the MW isn't actually as dependent on Boise as it was 10 years ago, because Boise isn't what it was 5-10 years ago. Since 2013, Boise has only won 3 of the 9 MW titles. Yes, more than anyone else but not dominant.
From 2002-2011, Boise finished in the AP top 20 eight times, with four of those in the top 10. Since 2012, Boise has finished in the AP top 20 twice, and never in the top 10. Boise hasn't had an AP top 20 finish since 2014. It has scraped in between 20-25 three times since then.
But bottom line is, while Boise has far from fallen off a cliff, they just aren't what they were in terms of national presence when the sweetheart deals were agreed to in 2012 and 2016.
So IMO, while Boise has every right to demand what is owed them by the legal terms of the deal, they really don't have much of a "moral" claim to that bonus anymore. Or at least not as large of one. Maybe it should be about $1m now?