CSNbbs
Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - Printable Version

+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: College Sports and Conference Realignment (/forum-637.html)
+---- Thread: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC (/thread-892957.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - stever20 - 01-27-2020 11:10 AM

One point, Boise will get their conditions upheld in court. The only way the MWC can remedy it is to kick them out, which would then negate any exit fees for Boise.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - johnbragg - 01-27-2020 11:33 AM

(01-27-2020 11:10 AM)stever20 Wrote:  One point, Boise will get their conditions upheld in court. The only way the MWC can remedy it is to kick them out, which would then negate any exit fees for Boise.

And trash the Fox contract, and possibly the CBS contract.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - quo vadis - 01-27-2020 11:59 AM

(01-27-2020 11:02 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(01-27-2020 12:39 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  This is where the question of "proportional to what" comes in. If the Boise State bonus was bumped up 33% to 2.4m, that would mean somewhere around $3.75m per school, so around $6.15m for Boise ... 64% more than everyone else rather than 240% more.

And something like that would be the bargaining range for the negotiations, but the most likely sticking point is the permanent aristocratic status for Boise.

That was settled in 2012. The Mountain West signed the deal.

Quote:They can, if they are wise, negotiate a transition into a strong performance bonus system which would be likely to serve Boise State well ... eg a 4:3:2:1 top four performance pool, and a OTA / Major Network media appearance pool ...

They had that, the MWC couldn't afford the bonuses, so they renegotiated it to a flat fee for Boise State.

About the bolded .... first, one could say the same thing about Boise's demand for a proportional bonus in this new deal, that this was settled in 2016 when they agreed to the flat $1.8m. Bottom line is, despite the existence of agreements, both sides can always ask for a change. Doesn't mean the other side has to accommodate them, but they can ask.

Second, IIRC, the decision to make the bonus a flat rate was mutual, not something the MW pushed for moreso than Boise. The nature of the 2012 deal meant that the bonus varied, and one thing administrators of all stripes hate is revenue uncertainty. The MW didn't like not knowing exactly how much they had to pay each year, and Boise didn't like not knowing how much they would get. So they agreed to nail it down at $1.8m as that was the average it had been fluctuating around since 2012.

Also, the 2012 deal didn't really give Boise aristocratic status. It was a bonus that anyone could have earned, it wasn't just for Boise. It just offered bonuses to teams that played a 'nationally televised' game, specified as a game on ESPN, ESPN2, FOX, NBC, CBS, or ABC. A team got $300k for any such game not on a Saturday, and $500k if the game happened on a Saturday. But it didn't apply just to Boise, if Boise had played Michigan on a Friday night on ESPN they would get $300k, and if Fresno had played Notre Dame on Saturday on NBC, Fresno would have gotten $500k. It didn't single out Boise at all.

In contrast, the 2016 amendment did elevate Boise, as it specifies that Boise and only Boise gets the $1.8m, even if Boise never plays in a nationally televised game and other schools do. Boise alone gets the bonus, and it is a guaranteed $1.8m.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - Attackcoog - 01-27-2020 12:06 PM

(01-27-2020 11:59 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-27-2020 11:02 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(01-27-2020 12:39 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  This is where the question of "proportional to what" comes in. If the Boise State bonus was bumped up 33% to 2.4m, that would mean somewhere around $3.75m per school, so around $6.15m for Boise ... 64% more than everyone else rather than 240% more.

And something like that would be the bargaining range for the negotiations, but the most likely sticking point is the permanent aristocratic status for Boise.

That was settled in 2012. The Mountain West signed the deal.

Quote:They can, if they are wise, negotiate a transition into a strong performance bonus system which would be likely to serve Boise State well ... eg a 4:3:2:1 top four performance pool, and a OTA / Major Network media appearance pool ...

They had that, the MWC couldn't afford the bonuses, so they renegotiated it to a flat fee for Boise State.

About the bolded .... first, one could say the same thing about Boise's demand for a proportional bonus in this new deal, that this was settled in 2016 when they agreed to the flat $1.8m. Bottom line is, despite the existence of agreements, both sides can always ask for a change. Doesn't mean the other side has to accommodate them, but they can ask.

Second, IIRC, the decision to make the bonus a flat rate was mutual, not something the MW pushed for moreso than Boise. The nature of the 2012 deal meant that the bonus varied, and one thing administrators of all stripes hate is revenue uncertainty. So they agreed to nail it down at $1.8m as that was the average it had been fluctuating around since 2012.

Correct. The bonus made it hard to budget. Plus, becasue the Boise game pacakge was purchased by ESPN and ESPN networks mostly had 90+ million subscribers, most games against Boise qualified for the bonus. If you werent playing in Boise's division, then you automatically got fewer bonus checks because you played Boise less often. Basically, the membership ultimately decided that a nice steady consistent revenue stream was preferred.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - quo vadis - 01-27-2020 12:18 PM

(01-27-2020 12:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-27-2020 11:59 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-27-2020 11:02 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(01-27-2020 12:39 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  This is where the question of "proportional to what" comes in. If the Boise State bonus was bumped up 33% to 2.4m, that would mean somewhere around $3.75m per school, so around $6.15m for Boise ... 64% more than everyone else rather than 240% more.

And something like that would be the bargaining range for the negotiations, but the most likely sticking point is the permanent aristocratic status for Boise.

That was settled in 2012. The Mountain West signed the deal.

Quote:They can, if they are wise, negotiate a transition into a strong performance bonus system which would be likely to serve Boise State well ... eg a 4:3:2:1 top four performance pool, and a OTA / Major Network media appearance pool ...

They had that, the MWC couldn't afford the bonuses, so they renegotiated it to a flat fee for Boise State.

About the bolded .... first, one could say the same thing about Boise's demand for a proportional bonus in this new deal, that this was settled in 2016 when they agreed to the flat $1.8m. Bottom line is, despite the existence of agreements, both sides can always ask for a change. Doesn't mean the other side has to accommodate them, but they can ask.

Second, IIRC, the decision to make the bonus a flat rate was mutual, not something the MW pushed for moreso than Boise. The nature of the 2012 deal meant that the bonus varied, and one thing administrators of all stripes hate is revenue uncertainty. So they agreed to nail it down at $1.8m as that was the average it had been fluctuating around since 2012.

Correct. The bonus made it hard to budget. Plus, becasue the Boise game pacakge was purchased by ESPN and ESPN networks mostly had 90+ million subscribers, most games against Boise qualified for the bonus. If you werent playing in Boise's division, then you automatically got fewer bonus checks because you played Boise less often. Basically, the membership ultimately decided that a nice steady consistent revenue stream was preferred.

Yes, but also, a key thing about the 2016 amendment was that it elevated Boise. The 2012 scheme wasn't only for Boise, all MW schools were eligible for the bonus if they could get on 'nationally televised' broadcasts. It didn't specify anything special about Boise though in practice it was expected Boise would get the most bonus payments, and they did. But still, it was formally not a "Boise" bonus.

In contrast, the 2016 scheme only mentions Boise, they alone get the $1.8m and nobody else does. Boise could play in zero nationally televised games and Fresno could play in three, and Boise would still get the bonus whereas Fresno would get no bonus. Heck, the 2016 scheme removed any reference to nationally televised games or games on specific networks, as those were now irrelevant. It was at that point a flat $1.8m bonus for Boise unconnected to appearances on TV.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - Attackcoog - 01-27-2020 12:33 PM

(01-27-2020 12:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-27-2020 12:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-27-2020 11:59 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-27-2020 11:02 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(01-27-2020 12:39 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  This is where the question of "proportional to what" comes in. If the Boise State bonus was bumped up 33% to 2.4m, that would mean somewhere around $3.75m per school, so around $6.15m for Boise ... 64% more than everyone else rather than 240% more.

And something like that would be the bargaining range for the negotiations, but the most likely sticking point is the permanent aristocratic status for Boise.

That was settled in 2012. The Mountain West signed the deal.

Quote:They can, if they are wise, negotiate a transition into a strong performance bonus system which would be likely to serve Boise State well ... eg a 4:3:2:1 top four performance pool, and a OTA / Major Network media appearance pool ...

They had that, the MWC couldn't afford the bonuses, so they renegotiated it to a flat fee for Boise State.

About the bolded .... first, one could say the same thing about Boise's demand for a proportional bonus in this new deal, that this was settled in 2016 when they agreed to the flat $1.8m. Bottom line is, despite the existence of agreements, both sides can always ask for a change. Doesn't mean the other side has to accommodate them, but they can ask.

Second, IIRC, the decision to make the bonus a flat rate was mutual, not something the MW pushed for moreso than Boise. The nature of the 2012 deal meant that the bonus varied, and one thing administrators of all stripes hate is revenue uncertainty. So they agreed to nail it down at $1.8m as that was the average it had been fluctuating around since 2012.

Correct. The bonus made it hard to budget. Plus, becasue the Boise game pacakge was purchased by ESPN and ESPN networks mostly had 90+ million subscribers, most games against Boise qualified for the bonus. If you werent playing in Boise's division, then you automatically got fewer bonus checks because you played Boise less often. Basically, the membership ultimately decided that a nice steady consistent revenue stream was preferred.

Yes, but also, a key thing about the 2016 amendment was that it elevated Boise. The 2012 scheme wasn't only for Boise, all MW schools were eligible for the bonus if they could get on 'nationally televised' broadcasts. It didn't specify anything special about Boise though in practice it was expected Boise would get the most bonus payments, and they did. But still, it was formally not a "Boise" bonus.

In contrast, the 2016 scheme only mentions Boise, they alone get the $1.8m and nobody else does. Boise could play in zero nationally televised games and Fresno could play in three, and Boise would still get the bonus whereas Fresno would get no bonus. Heck, the 2016 scheme removed any reference to nationally televised games or games on specific networks, as those were now irrelevant. It was at that point a flat $1.8m bonus for Boise unconnected to appearances on TV.

True...but that was really just smoke and mirrors. Boise was always massively favored in the bonus structure. Why? Because only games on networks with 90 million+ subscribers qualified. The issue was that the primary MW rights were on CBS-Sports (50 million subscribers) and did not qualify for the bonus. On the other hand, Boise was on a separate TV deal with ESPN that specified at least 3 games on ABC/ESPN/ESPN2.

As the primary rights holder, CBS-Sports would select the most valuable games. Thus, what was left when ESPN selected, was mostly not top quality (beyond the Boise games). Thus, because the games ESPN was forced to select from were not top quality, most of the MW games ESPN selected ended up on ESPNU (75-80 million subscribers) and were not eligible for the bonus.

So, while it was true that the bonus structure theoretically applied to all the teams in the MW equally, the TV deal structure that the Boise deal required also made sure that Boise was by far the biggest beneficiary of the bonus clause--as well as being the only team GUARANTEED at least 3 bonus payments every year.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - johnbragg - 01-27-2020 12:57 PM

(01-27-2020 12:33 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-27-2020 12:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-27-2020 12:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-27-2020 11:59 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-27-2020 11:02 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  That was settled in 2012. The Mountain West signed the deal.


They had that, the MWC couldn't afford the bonuses, so they renegotiated it to a flat fee for Boise State.

About the bolded .... first, one could say the same thing about Boise's demand for a proportional bonus in this new deal, that this was settled in 2016 when they agreed to the flat $1.8m. Bottom line is, despite the existence of agreements, both sides can always ask for a change. Doesn't mean the other side has to accommodate them, but they can ask.

Second, IIRC, the decision to make the bonus a flat rate was mutual, not something the MW pushed for moreso than Boise. The nature of the 2012 deal meant that the bonus varied, and one thing administrators of all stripes hate is revenue uncertainty. So they agreed to nail it down at $1.8m as that was the average it had been fluctuating around since 2012.

Correct. The bonus made it hard to budget. Plus, becasue the Boise game pacakge was purchased by ESPN and ESPN networks mostly had 90+ million subscribers, most games against Boise qualified for the bonus. If you werent playing in Boise's division, then you automatically got fewer bonus checks because you played Boise less often. Basically, the membership ultimately decided that a nice steady consistent revenue stream was preferred.

Yes, but also, a key thing about the 2016 amendment was that it elevated Boise. The 2012 scheme wasn't only for Boise, all MW schools were eligible for the bonus if they could get on 'nationally televised' broadcasts. It didn't specify anything special about Boise though in practice it was expected Boise would get the most bonus payments, and they did. But still, it was formally not a "Boise" bonus.

In contrast, the 2016 scheme only mentions Boise, they alone get the $1.8m and nobody else does. Boise could play in zero nationally televised games and Fresno could play in three, and Boise would still get the bonus whereas Fresno would get no bonus. Heck, the 2016 scheme removed any reference to nationally televised games or games on specific networks, as those were now irrelevant. It was at that point a flat $1.8m bonus for Boise unconnected to appearances on TV.

True...but that was really just smoke and mirrors. Boise was always massively favored in the bonus structure. Why? Because only games on networks with 90 million+ subscribers qualified. The issue was that the primary MW rights were on CBS-Sports (50 million subscribers) and did not qualify for the bonus. On the other hand, Boise was on a separate TV deal with ESPN that specified at least 3 games on ABC/ESPN/ESPN2.

As the primary rights holder, CBS-Sports would select the most valuable games. Thus, what was left when ESPN selected, was mostly not top quality (beyond the Boise games). Thus, because the games ESPN was forced to select from were not top quality, most of the MW games ESPN selected ended up on ESPNU (75-80 million subscribers) and were not eligible for the bonus.

So, while it was true that the bonus structure theoretically applied to all the teams in the MW equally, the TV deal structure that the Boise deal required also made sure that Boise was by far the biggest beneficiary of the bonus clause--as well as being the only team GUARANTEED at least 3 bonus payments every year.

There is always some value though in nominal equality, even if it is "the equal right to sleep under bridges." That's what kept Boise State out of the AAC in the first place.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - quo vadis - 01-27-2020 01:03 PM

(01-27-2020 12:33 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-27-2020 12:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-27-2020 12:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-27-2020 11:59 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-27-2020 11:02 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  That was settled in 2012. The Mountain West signed the deal.


They had that, the MWC couldn't afford the bonuses, so they renegotiated it to a flat fee for Boise State.

About the bolded .... first, one could say the same thing about Boise's demand for a proportional bonus in this new deal, that this was settled in 2016 when they agreed to the flat $1.8m. Bottom line is, despite the existence of agreements, both sides can always ask for a change. Doesn't mean the other side has to accommodate them, but they can ask.

Second, IIRC, the decision to make the bonus a flat rate was mutual, not something the MW pushed for moreso than Boise. The nature of the 2012 deal meant that the bonus varied, and one thing administrators of all stripes hate is revenue uncertainty. So they agreed to nail it down at $1.8m as that was the average it had been fluctuating around since 2012.

Correct. The bonus made it hard to budget. Plus, becasue the Boise game pacakge was purchased by ESPN and ESPN networks mostly had 90+ million subscribers, most games against Boise qualified for the bonus. If you werent playing in Boise's division, then you automatically got fewer bonus checks because you played Boise less often. Basically, the membership ultimately decided that a nice steady consistent revenue stream was preferred.

Yes, but also, a key thing about the 2016 amendment was that it elevated Boise. The 2012 scheme wasn't only for Boise, all MW schools were eligible for the bonus if they could get on 'nationally televised' broadcasts. It didn't specify anything special about Boise though in practice it was expected Boise would get the most bonus payments, and they did. But still, it was formally not a "Boise" bonus.

In contrast, the 2016 scheme only mentions Boise, they alone get the $1.8m and nobody else does. Boise could play in zero nationally televised games and Fresno could play in three, and Boise would still get the bonus whereas Fresno would get no bonus. Heck, the 2016 scheme removed any reference to nationally televised games or games on specific networks, as those were now irrelevant. It was at that point a flat $1.8m bonus for Boise unconnected to appearances on TV.

True...but that was really just smoke and mirrors. Boise was always massively favored in the bonus structure. Why? Because only games on networks with 90 million+ subscribers qualified. The issue was that the primary MW rights were on CBS-Sports (50 million subscribers) and did not qualify for the bonus. On the other hand, Boise was on a separate TV deal with ESPN that specified at least 3 games on ABC/ESPN/ESPN2.

As the primary rights holder, CBS-Sports would select the most valuable games. Thus, what was left when ESPN selected, was mostly not top quality (beyond the Boise games). Thus, because the games ESPN was forced to select from were not top quality, most of the MW games ESPN selected ended up on ESPNU (75-80 million subscribers) and were not eligible for the bonus.

So, while it was true that the bonus structure theoretically applied to all the teams in the MW equally, the TV deal structure that the Boise deal required also made sure that Boise was by far the biggest beneficiary of the bonus clause--as well as being the only team GUARANTEED at least 3 bonus payments every year.

Yes, as I said, in practice the 2012 scheme favored Boise. However, I think it matters a lot that in theory others could get the bonus. That isn't just smoke and mirrors, it lends an element of 'merit' that was missing from the 2016 scheme. Other schools could say to themselves "well, we can get the bonus too, if we build our brand value or start winning more and can get in more nationally televised games".

Pride-wise, it's a lot easier to watch someone else get more if they earned it than if they are entitled to it regardless of 'performance'.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - Attackcoog - 01-27-2020 02:09 PM

(01-27-2020 12:57 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(01-27-2020 12:33 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-27-2020 12:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-27-2020 12:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-27-2020 11:59 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  About the bolded .... first, one could say the same thing about Boise's demand for a proportional bonus in this new deal, that this was settled in 2016 when they agreed to the flat $1.8m. Bottom line is, despite the existence of agreements, both sides can always ask for a change. Doesn't mean the other side has to accommodate them, but they can ask.

Second, IIRC, the decision to make the bonus a flat rate was mutual, not something the MW pushed for moreso than Boise. The nature of the 2012 deal meant that the bonus varied, and one thing administrators of all stripes hate is revenue uncertainty. So they agreed to nail it down at $1.8m as that was the average it had been fluctuating around since 2012.

Correct. The bonus made it hard to budget. Plus, becasue the Boise game pacakge was purchased by ESPN and ESPN networks mostly had 90+ million subscribers, most games against Boise qualified for the bonus. If you werent playing in Boise's division, then you automatically got fewer bonus checks because you played Boise less often. Basically, the membership ultimately decided that a nice steady consistent revenue stream was preferred.

Yes, but also, a key thing about the 2016 amendment was that it elevated Boise. The 2012 scheme wasn't only for Boise, all MW schools were eligible for the bonus if they could get on 'nationally televised' broadcasts. It didn't specify anything special about Boise though in practice it was expected Boise would get the most bonus payments, and they did. But still, it was formally not a "Boise" bonus.

In contrast, the 2016 scheme only mentions Boise, they alone get the $1.8m and nobody else does. Boise could play in zero nationally televised games and Fresno could play in three, and Boise would still get the bonus whereas Fresno would get no bonus. Heck, the 2016 scheme removed any reference to nationally televised games or games on specific networks, as those were now irrelevant. It was at that point a flat $1.8m bonus for Boise unconnected to appearances on TV.

True...but that was really just smoke and mirrors. Boise was always massively favored in the bonus structure. Why? Because only games on networks with 90 million+ subscribers qualified. The issue was that the primary MW rights were on CBS-Sports (50 million subscribers) and did not qualify for the bonus. On the other hand, Boise was on a separate TV deal with ESPN that specified at least 3 games on ABC/ESPN/ESPN2.

As the primary rights holder, CBS-Sports would select the most valuable games. Thus, what was left when ESPN selected, was mostly not top quality (beyond the Boise games). Thus, because the games ESPN was forced to select from were not top quality, most of the MW games ESPN selected ended up on ESPNU (75-80 million subscribers) and were not eligible for the bonus.

So, while it was true that the bonus structure theoretically applied to all the teams in the MW equally, the TV deal structure that the Boise deal required also made sure that Boise was by far the biggest beneficiary of the bonus clause--as well as being the only team GUARANTEED at least 3 bonus payments every year.

There is always some value though in nominal equality, even if it is "the equal right to sleep under bridges." That's what kept Boise State out of the AAC in the first place.

I don’t disagree. I’m just saying it was largely smoke and mirrors. It was always a special deal for Boise.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - Attackcoog - 01-27-2020 02:12 PM

(01-27-2020 01:03 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-27-2020 12:33 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-27-2020 12:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-27-2020 12:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-27-2020 11:59 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  About the bolded .... first, one could say the same thing about Boise's demand for a proportional bonus in this new deal, that this was settled in 2016 when they agreed to the flat $1.8m. Bottom line is, despite the existence of agreements, both sides can always ask for a change. Doesn't mean the other side has to accommodate them, but they can ask.

Second, IIRC, the decision to make the bonus a flat rate was mutual, not something the MW pushed for moreso than Boise. The nature of the 2012 deal meant that the bonus varied, and one thing administrators of all stripes hate is revenue uncertainty. So they agreed to nail it down at $1.8m as that was the average it had been fluctuating around since 2012.

Correct. The bonus made it hard to budget. Plus, becasue the Boise game pacakge was purchased by ESPN and ESPN networks mostly had 90+ million subscribers, most games against Boise qualified for the bonus. If you werent playing in Boise's division, then you automatically got fewer bonus checks because you played Boise less often. Basically, the membership ultimately decided that a nice steady consistent revenue stream was preferred.

Yes, but also, a key thing about the 2016 amendment was that it elevated Boise. The 2012 scheme wasn't only for Boise, all MW schools were eligible for the bonus if they could get on 'nationally televised' broadcasts. It didn't specify anything special about Boise though in practice it was expected Boise would get the most bonus payments, and they did. But still, it was formally not a "Boise" bonus.

In contrast, the 2016 scheme only mentions Boise, they alone get the $1.8m and nobody else does. Boise could play in zero nationally televised games and Fresno could play in three, and Boise would still get the bonus whereas Fresno would get no bonus. Heck, the 2016 scheme removed any reference to nationally televised games or games on specific networks, as those were now irrelevant. It was at that point a flat $1.8m bonus for Boise unconnected to appearances on TV.

True...but that was really just smoke and mirrors. Boise was always massively favored in the bonus structure. Why? Because only games on networks with 90 million+ subscribers qualified. The issue was that the primary MW rights were on CBS-Sports (50 million subscribers) and did not qualify for the bonus. On the other hand, Boise was on a separate TV deal with ESPN that specified at least 3 games on ABC/ESPN/ESPN2.

As the primary rights holder, CBS-Sports would select the most valuable games. Thus, what was left when ESPN selected, was mostly not top quality (beyond the Boise games). Thus, because the games ESPN was forced to select from were not top quality, most of the MW games ESPN selected ended up on ESPNU (75-80 million subscribers) and were not eligible for the bonus.

So, while it was true that the bonus structure theoretically applied to all the teams in the MW equally, the TV deal structure that the Boise deal required also made sure that Boise was by far the biggest beneficiary of the bonus clause--as well as being the only team GUARANTEED at least 3 bonus payments every year.

Yes, as I said, in practice the 2012 scheme favored Boise. However, I think it matters a lot that in theory others could get the bonus. That isn't just smoke and mirrors, it lends an element of 'merit' that was missing from the 2016 scheme. Other schools could say to themselves "well, we can get the bonus too, if we build our brand value or start winning more and can get in more nationally televised games".

Pride-wise, it's a lot easier to watch someone else get more if they earned it than if they are entitled to it regardless of 'performance'.

As I said to Bragg, I don’t really disagree with you. My point is it was all smoke and mirrors, so much so that membership themselves stripped away the veneer in 2017 just to aid budgeting and equalize the effect outside of Boise.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - DavidSt - 01-27-2020 04:25 PM

So, schools like San Jose State, UNLV, Colorado State and New Mexico are jealous that Boise State gets more money? Boise State is the best product in the MWC and they should not be hold down by leaches in the bottom feeders who bring nothing to the MWC but b**ch and moan about Boise being the media darlings. All the schools in the MWC need to do is put up 19 years of a winning record to get noticed. Until then, they need to shut up, improve themselves, beat big name P5 schools, and get an exclusive tv contract with ESPN to get that bonus. Boise State do not need MWC, MWC needs Boise State more then they realized it.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - quo vadis - 01-27-2020 07:04 PM

(01-27-2020 02:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-27-2020 01:03 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-27-2020 12:33 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-27-2020 12:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-27-2020 12:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Correct. The bonus made it hard to budget. Plus, becasue the Boise game pacakge was purchased by ESPN and ESPN networks mostly had 90+ million subscribers, most games against Boise qualified for the bonus. If you werent playing in Boise's division, then you automatically got fewer bonus checks because you played Boise less often. Basically, the membership ultimately decided that a nice steady consistent revenue stream was preferred.

Yes, but also, a key thing about the 2016 amendment was that it elevated Boise. The 2012 scheme wasn't only for Boise, all MW schools were eligible for the bonus if they could get on 'nationally televised' broadcasts. It didn't specify anything special about Boise though in practice it was expected Boise would get the most bonus payments, and they did. But still, it was formally not a "Boise" bonus.

In contrast, the 2016 scheme only mentions Boise, they alone get the $1.8m and nobody else does. Boise could play in zero nationally televised games and Fresno could play in three, and Boise would still get the bonus whereas Fresno would get no bonus. Heck, the 2016 scheme removed any reference to nationally televised games or games on specific networks, as those were now irrelevant. It was at that point a flat $1.8m bonus for Boise unconnected to appearances on TV.

True...but that was really just smoke and mirrors. Boise was always massively favored in the bonus structure. Why? Because only games on networks with 90 million+ subscribers qualified. The issue was that the primary MW rights were on CBS-Sports (50 million subscribers) and did not qualify for the bonus. On the other hand, Boise was on a separate TV deal with ESPN that specified at least 3 games on ABC/ESPN/ESPN2.

As the primary rights holder, CBS-Sports would select the most valuable games. Thus, what was left when ESPN selected, was mostly not top quality (beyond the Boise games). Thus, because the games ESPN was forced to select from were not top quality, most of the MW games ESPN selected ended up on ESPNU (75-80 million subscribers) and were not eligible for the bonus.

So, while it was true that the bonus structure theoretically applied to all the teams in the MW equally, the TV deal structure that the Boise deal required also made sure that Boise was by far the biggest beneficiary of the bonus clause--as well as being the only team GUARANTEED at least 3 bonus payments every year.

Yes, as I said, in practice the 2012 scheme favored Boise. However, I think it matters a lot that in theory others could get the bonus. That isn't just smoke and mirrors, it lends an element of 'merit' that was missing from the 2016 scheme. Other schools could say to themselves "well, we can get the bonus too, if we build our brand value or start winning more and can get in more nationally televised games".

Pride-wise, it's a lot easier to watch someone else get more if they earned it than if they are entitled to it regardless of 'performance'.

As I said to Bragg, I don’t really disagree with you. My point is it was all smoke and mirrors, so much so that membership themselves stripped away the veneer in 2017 just to aid budgeting and equalize the effect outside of Boise.

But in two important senses it has turned out not to be smoke and mirrors. The "nominal equality" thing that JB and I mentioned may have begun to rub members the wrong way, and also, the fixing of the bonus has eliminated flexibility in that it doesn't permit the MW to ratchet Boise back if the conditions that led to it to begin with change.

Personally, I don't think we have the current impasse had the bonus remained variable.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - Attackcoog - 01-27-2020 07:35 PM

(01-27-2020 07:04 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-27-2020 02:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-27-2020 01:03 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-27-2020 12:33 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-27-2020 12:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yes, but also, a key thing about the 2016 amendment was that it elevated Boise. The 2012 scheme wasn't only for Boise, all MW schools were eligible for the bonus if they could get on 'nationally televised' broadcasts. It didn't specify anything special about Boise though in practice it was expected Boise would get the most bonus payments, and they did. But still, it was formally not a "Boise" bonus.

In contrast, the 2016 scheme only mentions Boise, they alone get the $1.8m and nobody else does. Boise could play in zero nationally televised games and Fresno could play in three, and Boise would still get the bonus whereas Fresno would get no bonus. Heck, the 2016 scheme removed any reference to nationally televised games or games on specific networks, as those were now irrelevant. It was at that point a flat $1.8m bonus for Boise unconnected to appearances on TV.

True...but that was really just smoke and mirrors. Boise was always massively favored in the bonus structure. Why? Because only games on networks with 90 million+ subscribers qualified. The issue was that the primary MW rights were on CBS-Sports (50 million subscribers) and did not qualify for the bonus. On the other hand, Boise was on a separate TV deal with ESPN that specified at least 3 games on ABC/ESPN/ESPN2.

As the primary rights holder, CBS-Sports would select the most valuable games. Thus, what was left when ESPN selected, was mostly not top quality (beyond the Boise games). Thus, because the games ESPN was forced to select from were not top quality, most of the MW games ESPN selected ended up on ESPNU (75-80 million subscribers) and were not eligible for the bonus.

So, while it was true that the bonus structure theoretically applied to all the teams in the MW equally, the TV deal structure that the Boise deal required also made sure that Boise was by far the biggest beneficiary of the bonus clause--as well as being the only team GUARANTEED at least 3 bonus payments every year.

Yes, as I said, in practice the 2012 scheme favored Boise. However, I think it matters a lot that in theory others could get the bonus. That isn't just smoke and mirrors, it lends an element of 'merit' that was missing from the 2016 scheme. Other schools could say to themselves "well, we can get the bonus too, if we build our brand value or start winning more and can get in more nationally televised games".

Pride-wise, it's a lot easier to watch someone else get more if they earned it than if they are entitled to it regardless of 'performance'.

As I said to Bragg, I don’t really disagree with you. My point is it was all smoke and mirrors, so much so that membership themselves stripped away the veneer in 2017 just to aid budgeting and equalize the effect outside of Boise.

But in two important senses it has turned out not to be smoke and mirrors. The "nominal equality" thing that JB and I mentioned may have begun to rub members the wrong way, and also, the fixing of the bonus has eliminated flexibility in that it doesn't permit the MW to ratchet Boise back if the conditions that led to it to begin with change.

Personally, I don't think we have the current impasse had the bonus remained variable.

Interesting thought---that frankly I think it has a lot of validity. That said, you dont have to look too hard to find that the deal has rubbed members the wrong way almost from the very start. They did it because they were desperate and cornered at the time. But as soon as the danger passed---they immediately resented Boise having taken advantage of the situation and chafed at the second class citizen status the deal imparted to the non-Boise membership. UNLV was complaining by the second season---that was 3 years before the deal was altered to its present form.

https://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2014/12/01/Media/MWC-TV.aspx


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - Wedge - 01-27-2020 08:00 PM

(01-27-2020 07:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-27-2020 07:04 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-27-2020 02:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-27-2020 01:03 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-27-2020 12:33 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  True...but that was really just smoke and mirrors. Boise was always massively favored in the bonus structure. Why? Because only games on networks with 90 million+ subscribers qualified. The issue was that the primary MW rights were on CBS-Sports (50 million subscribers) and did not qualify for the bonus. On the other hand, Boise was on a separate TV deal with ESPN that specified at least 3 games on ABC/ESPN/ESPN2.

As the primary rights holder, CBS-Sports would select the most valuable games. Thus, what was left when ESPN selected, was mostly not top quality (beyond the Boise games). Thus, because the games ESPN was forced to select from were not top quality, most of the MW games ESPN selected ended up on ESPNU (75-80 million subscribers) and were not eligible for the bonus.

So, while it was true that the bonus structure theoretically applied to all the teams in the MW equally, the TV deal structure that the Boise deal required also made sure that Boise was by far the biggest beneficiary of the bonus clause--as well as being the only team GUARANTEED at least 3 bonus payments every year.

Yes, as I said, in practice the 2012 scheme favored Boise. However, I think it matters a lot that in theory others could get the bonus. That isn't just smoke and mirrors, it lends an element of 'merit' that was missing from the 2016 scheme. Other schools could say to themselves "well, we can get the bonus too, if we build our brand value or start winning more and can get in more nationally televised games".

Pride-wise, it's a lot easier to watch someone else get more if they earned it than if they are entitled to it regardless of 'performance'.

As I said to Bragg, I don’t really disagree with you. My point is it was all smoke and mirrors, so much so that membership themselves stripped away the veneer in 2017 just to aid budgeting and equalize the effect outside of Boise.

But in two important senses it has turned out not to be smoke and mirrors. The "nominal equality" thing that JB and I mentioned may have begun to rub members the wrong way, and also, the fixing of the bonus has eliminated flexibility in that it doesn't permit the MW to ratchet Boise back if the conditions that led to it to begin with change.

Personally, I don't think we have the current impasse had the bonus remained variable.

Interesting thought---that frankly I think it has a lot of validity. That said, you dont have to look too hard to find that the deal has rubbed members the wrong way almost from the very start. They did it because they were desperate and cornered at the time. But as soon as the danger passed---they immediately resented Boise having taken advantage of the situation and chafed at the second class citizen status the deal imparted to the non-Boise membership. UNLV was complaining by the second season---that was 3 years before the deal was altered to its present form.

https://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2014/12/01/Media/MWC-TV.aspx

UNLV is complaining? C'mon. They're the only team in the MWC that hasn't played in a bowl game since the MWC entered into this deal with Boise State.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - AZcats - 01-27-2020 10:08 PM

(01-27-2020 04:25 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  So, schools like San Jose State, UNLV, Colorado State and New Mexico are jealous that Boise State gets more money? Boise State is the best product in the MWC and they should not be hold down by leaches in the bottom feeders who bring nothing to the MWC but b**ch and moan about Boise being the media darlings. All the schools in the MWC need to do is put up 19 years of a winning record to get noticed. Until then, they need to shut up, improve themselves, beat big name P5 schools, and get an exclusive tv contract with ESPN to get that bonus. Boise State do not need MWC, MWC needs Boise State more then they realized it.

There is nothing special about Boise State anymore, take off your smurf turf shades. Sure they were undefeated in conference play, BUT ... BSU won only 1 P5 game while Air Force and Hawaii won 2 each. Hawaii also did something BSU could not do; beat Brigham Young. The 2nd Air Force P5 win was in a bowl game while BSU lost by 31 in their bowl game to their former coach. Even lowly UNLV and San Jose State won their P5 games which both happen to be at a SEC school. None of the P5 teams beaten by a MW team had a winning record.

Arizona (4-8) lost @ Hawaii (10-5)
Purdue (4-8) lost @ Nevada (7-6)
Florida St (6-7) lost at home to Boise St (12-2)
Missouri (6-6) lost @ Wyoming (8-5)
UCLA (4-8) lost at home to San Diego St (10-3)
Oregon St (5-7) lost @ Hawaii (10-5)
Colorado (5-7) lost at home to Air Force (11-2)
Arkansas (2-10) lost at home to San Jose St (5-7)
Vanderbilt (3-9) lost at home to UNLV (4-8)
Washington St (6-7) loses Cheez Whiz Bowl to Air Force (11-2)

Yes this is only a 1 year sample but it also was just a couple years ago that Boise State had a 3-game losing streak to Air Force. BSU has not won the division 3 times and has won only 3 of the 7 MW football championship games. BSU has not dominated the MW like they did when they were in the WAC.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - Scoochpooch1 - 01-27-2020 11:08 PM

(01-27-2020 04:25 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  So, schools like San Jose State, UNLV, Colorado State and New Mexico are jealous that Boise State gets more money? Boise State is the best product in the MWC and they should not be hold down by leaches in the bottom feeders who bring nothing to the MWC but b**ch and moan about Boise being the media darlings. All the schools in the MWC need to do is put up 19 years of a winning record to get noticed. Until then, they need to shut up, improve themselves, beat big name P5 schools, and get an exclusive tv contract with ESPN to get that bonus. Boise State do not need MWC, MWC needs Boise State more then they realized it.

You keep pretending that this team is and should be ranked #1 each year. Since 2000, they are 22-22 vs P5 opponents. Most of those games were against the P12, which is considered the weakest P5 conference by far. They had a sorta nice win be FSU this year, except FSU was terrible and they barely squeaked out the win after a.luckback. And then they lose to Washington by 1000 points, another pretty bad team. Can you just stop already? Or at least try to get a job in their PR Department, so you'll actually get paid for lying.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - PicksUp - 01-27-2020 11:38 PM

Air Force and Hawaii beat two P5 teams but they couldn’t beat Boise St. great teams!

Also, in what world is Washington a bad team? Bad teams are Arizona, Oregon St and UCLA. Washington played well against the top two teams in the PAC-12.

I see a lot of Boise St hate. The MW is falling behind and will soon be similar to the MAC, Sun Belt and CUSA. If Boise leaves then P6 will be cemented.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - johnbragg - 01-28-2020 01:42 AM

(01-27-2020 10:08 PM)AZcats Wrote:  There is nothing special about Boise State anymore, take off your smurf turf shades.

Better go tell that to CBS and Fox, because they wrote Boise State guarantees into their TV contracts--Fox gets the Boise home games, CBS gets the road games. Did they do that with Utah State or Hawaii or Air Force? No they did not.

Texas or USC or Michigan is still Texas or USC or Michigan when they're 5-7. Boise isn't any of those, but relative to the MWC they kinda are.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - Sactowndog - 01-28-2020 02:12 AM

(01-27-2020 12:57 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(01-27-2020 12:33 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-27-2020 12:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-27-2020 12:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-27-2020 11:59 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  About the bolded .... first, one could say the same thing about Boise's demand for a proportional bonus in this new deal, that this was settled in 2016 when they agreed to the flat $1.8m. Bottom line is, despite the existence of agreements, both sides can always ask for a change. Doesn't mean the other side has to accommodate them, but they can ask.

Second, IIRC, the decision to make the bonus a flat rate was mutual, not something the MW pushed for moreso than Boise. The nature of the 2012 deal meant that the bonus varied, and one thing administrators of all stripes hate is revenue uncertainty. So they agreed to nail it down at $1.8m as that was the average it had been fluctuating around since 2012.

Correct. The bonus made it hard to budget. Plus, becasue the Boise game pacakge was purchased by ESPN and ESPN networks mostly had 90+ million subscribers, most games against Boise qualified for the bonus. If you werent playing in Boise's division, then you automatically got fewer bonus checks because you played Boise less often. Basically, the membership ultimately decided that a nice steady consistent revenue stream was preferred.

Yes, but also, a key thing about the 2016 amendment was that it elevated Boise. The 2012 scheme wasn't only for Boise, all MW schools were eligible for the bonus if they could get on 'nationally televised' broadcasts. It didn't specify anything special about Boise though in practice it was expected Boise would get the most bonus payments, and they did. But still, it was formally not a "Boise" bonus.

In contrast, the 2016 scheme only mentions Boise, they alone get the $1.8m and nobody else does. Boise could play in zero nationally televised games and Fresno could play in three, and Boise would still get the bonus whereas Fresno would get no bonus. Heck, the 2016 scheme removed any reference to nationally televised games or games on specific networks, as those were now irrelevant. It was at that point a flat $1.8m bonus for Boise unconnected to appearances on TV.

True...but that was really just smoke and mirrors. Boise was always massively favored in the bonus structure. Why? Because only games on networks with 90 million+ subscribers qualified. The issue was that the primary MW rights were on CBS-Sports (50 million subscribers) and did not qualify for the bonus. On the other hand, Boise was on a separate TV deal with ESPN that specified at least 3 games on ABC/ESPN/ESPN2.

As the primary rights holder, CBS-Sports would select the most valuable games. Thus, what was left when ESPN selected, was mostly not top quality (beyond the Boise games). Thus, because the games ESPN was forced to select from were not top quality, most of the MW games ESPN selected ended up on ESPNU (75-80 million subscribers) and were not eligible for the bonus.

So, while it was true that the bonus structure theoretically applied to all the teams in the MW equally, the TV deal structure that the Boise deal required also made sure that Boise was by far the biggest beneficiary of the bonus clause--as well as being the only team GUARANTEED at least 3 bonus payments every year.

There is always some value though in nominal equality, even if it is "the equal right to sleep under bridges." That's what kept Boise State out of the AAC in the first place.

The bonus as originally structured had to be killed because it was a performance disincentive. CBS Sports picked the first block of games (10 I Believe) and if you won you would be on CBS.

Boise and the conference agreed on 1.8 which the schools agreed to pay until Boise tried to hold the conference TV contract hostage to get more money. We shall see who is deemed in breach of faith but regardless I think the Presidents are happy for you ( the AAC) to have them


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - Attackcoog - 01-28-2020 03:14 AM

(01-28-2020 02:12 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  
(01-27-2020 12:57 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(01-27-2020 12:33 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-27-2020 12:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-27-2020 12:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Correct. The bonus made it hard to budget. Plus, becasue the Boise game pacakge was purchased by ESPN and ESPN networks mostly had 90+ million subscribers, most games against Boise qualified for the bonus. If you werent playing in Boise's division, then you automatically got fewer bonus checks because you played Boise less often. Basically, the membership ultimately decided that a nice steady consistent revenue stream was preferred.

Yes, but also, a key thing about the 2016 amendment was that it elevated Boise. The 2012 scheme wasn't only for Boise, all MW schools were eligible for the bonus if they could get on 'nationally televised' broadcasts. It didn't specify anything special about Boise though in practice it was expected Boise would get the most bonus payments, and they did. But still, it was formally not a "Boise" bonus.

In contrast, the 2016 scheme only mentions Boise, they alone get the $1.8m and nobody else does. Boise could play in zero nationally televised games and Fresno could play in three, and Boise would still get the bonus whereas Fresno would get no bonus. Heck, the 2016 scheme removed any reference to nationally televised games or games on specific networks, as those were now irrelevant. It was at that point a flat $1.8m bonus for Boise unconnected to appearances on TV.

True...but that was really just smoke and mirrors. Boise was always massively favored in the bonus structure. Why? Because only games on networks with 90 million+ subscribers qualified. The issue was that the primary MW rights were on CBS-Sports (50 million subscribers) and did not qualify for the bonus. On the other hand, Boise was on a separate TV deal with ESPN that specified at least 3 games on ABC/ESPN/ESPN2.

As the primary rights holder, CBS-Sports would select the most valuable games. Thus, what was left when ESPN selected, was mostly not top quality (beyond the Boise games). Thus, because the games ESPN was forced to select from were not top quality, most of the MW games ESPN selected ended up on ESPNU (75-80 million subscribers) and were not eligible for the bonus.

So, while it was true that the bonus structure theoretically applied to all the teams in the MW equally, the TV deal structure that the Boise deal required also made sure that Boise was by far the biggest beneficiary of the bonus clause--as well as being the only team GUARANTEED at least 3 bonus payments every year.

There is always some value though in nominal equality, even if it is "the equal right to sleep under bridges." That's what kept Boise State out of the AAC in the first place.

The bonus as originally structured had to be killed because it was a performance disincentive. CBS Sports picked the first block of games (10 I Believe) and if you won you would be on CBS.

Boise and the conference agreed on 1.8 which the schools agreed to pay until Boise tried to hold the conference TV contract hostage to get more money. We shall see who is deemed in breach of faith but regardless I think the Presidents are happy for you ( the AAC) to have them

Different dynamic in the AAC. The AAC told Boise to shove it when they tried to get a similar special deal from the AAC—and that was when the AAC was in a much more precarious position than they are now. UConn tried to push for special considerations—and the league was relatively accommodating—but wasn’t willing to flush a solid ESPN deal over UConns 3rd Tier SNY earnings. Later, when UConn bolted to the Big East, some in the UConn administration thought the AAC was bluffing on kicking their football out. They were wrong.

I think Boise will be ok in the AAC mainly because they will see pretty quickly that the leagues schools are reasonable, but won’t be taken advantage of. The AAC will have no issue with telling Boise no—and given the past history, I suspect any exploratory realignment talks with Boise will be friendly—but frank.