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 - The Cutter of Bish - 01-28-2020 05:53 AM

(01-27-2020 11:00 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  In 2012 when the MW offered Boise that deal, the MW was looking at losing their top 2 teams (Boise and SDSU) and had a reasonable expectation that the Big East might try to take at least 2 more. If you think our replacement options in the east are limited, the replacement options available in the West were almost nonexistent. After NM State, your looking at CUSA/SB schools in Texas or FCS move ups. Getting Boise back in 2012 was worth it at the time because the conference was desperate to prevent the league from being depleted to CUSA/Sunbelt levels.

Time hasn't been kind to the potential MWC falloff. Logically, to me, at least, it was always a tough sell, because the money never was great for any of the non-major conferences, therefore leveling things off a bit, and because you had the MWC destroy the only non-major football competitor it had regionally.

So, to me, while an olive branch to Boise football, recognizing the bonus for the strength Boise football has/d, that hasn't aged well in the same way UTEP passed on a MWC invite because of the merger talk that also never materialized. The bonus happened, because at the point in time when it happened, the information favored the gesture or decision. Time hasn't redeemed it as a good, fair, or reasonable one. And now you have the MWC walking it back, going to the table and signing rights away it didn't have permission to so it could erase that component.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - BruceMcF - 01-28-2020 06:17 AM

(01-27-2020 01:03 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  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'.

If you want to move a performance pool toward greater predictability, do it over four years. And having a finish pool in addition to an appearance pool would level out the divisional discrimination a bit, since it's easier for the schools NOT in Boise's division to get a share of a top four performance bonus.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - goodknightfl - 01-28-2020 07:54 AM

At the end of the day Boise and the MWC will kiss and make up. And the next big fight will happen when the next contract happens in 6 years. The AAC will continue to separate from the MWC, and move forward. Most likely with 12 FB schools in the mix. I have no idea who #12 will be, but doubt it will be Boise.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - BruceMcF - 01-28-2020 08:40 AM

(01-28-2020 07:54 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  At the end of the day Boise and the MWC will kiss and make up. ...
Most likely ... all speculation to the contrary is out in "this is not likely, BUT ...." territory.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - The Cutter of Bish - 01-28-2020 09:35 AM

(01-28-2020 07:54 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  I have no idea who #12 will be, but doubt it will be Boise.

Same.

Honestly, I don't know how people could link Boise and the AAC together again given how the last arrangement fell apart. The kind of money that could convince the AAC to reconsider won't happen just because it's Boise.

The AAC had to shake down the Broncos legally for skipping on the bill. And throughout the "will they or won't they," I don't know how you do business with a school that clearly didn't have the rest of the move (for the other sports) arranged as to not further jeopardize joining the football conference.

If people want to remember MWC as being close to the edge of irrelevance, they should also be reminded about how trashy Boise handled its business with the move. And I think many of the MWC school presidents haven't forgotten that, know Boise is no closer to a contingency plan now than before, and are leveraging that with this new arrangement.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - quo vadis - 01-28-2020 09:37 AM

(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.

To me, those schools like UNLV are wrong. Even though Boise may not have met expectations in terms of getting the NY6 slot and the $4m it comes with, they are IMO still easily the biggest brand in the MW and account for a disproportionate share of TV interest in the conference, and if the MW does force them out, it will cost them more than the bonus does in money and exposure. IOW's, monetarily, the Boise bonus is a good investment for the MW.

But sometimes, 'people' would rather have less money than endure what they think is an injustice, and clearly, many/most MW members think the bonus is an injustice, especially the demand for an increased bonus.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - The Cutter of Bish - 01-28-2020 09:51 AM

Ironically, wasn't UNLV the first of the "core" MWC schools to drop the act and work with BYU to give them H&H's?

If UNLV basketball wasn't relevant at the time of the WAC split, they wouldn't have been part of that MWC core. Yikes, with a football legacy as horrid as theirs is, they are HARDLY ones to talk.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - bullet - 01-28-2020 11:46 AM

(01-28-2020 09:35 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  
(01-28-2020 07:54 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  I have no idea who #12 will be, but doubt it will be Boise.

Same.

Honestly, I don't know how people could link Boise and the AAC together again given how the last arrangement fell apart. The kind of money that could convince the AAC to reconsider won't happen just because it's Boise.

The AAC had to shake down the Broncos legally for skipping on the bill. And throughout the "will they or won't they," I don't know how you do business with a school that clearly didn't have the rest of the move (for the other sports) arranged as to not further jeopardize joining the football conference.

If people want to remember MWC as being close to the edge of irrelevance, they should also be reminded about how trashy Boise handled its business with the move. And I think many of the MWC school presidents haven't forgotten that, know Boise is no closer to a contingency plan now than before, and are leveraging that with this new arrangement.

I don't see the AAC doing that again as long as they are getting at least half the NY6 invites and there is no P6 golden ring for adding them.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - bullet - 01-28-2020 11:48 AM

(01-28-2020 09:37 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(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:  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.

To me, those schools like UNLV are wrong. Even though Boise may not have met expectations in terms of getting the NY6 slot and the $4m it comes with, they are IMO still easily the biggest brand in the MW and account for a disproportionate share of TV interest in the conference, and if the MW does force them out, it will cost them more than the bonus does in money and exposure. IOW's, monetarily, the Boise bonus is a good investment for the MW.

But sometimes, 'people' would rather have less money than endure what they think is an injustice, and clearly, many/most MW members think the bonus is an injustice, especially the demand for an increased bonus.

I don't know that it makes much difference in the money (after deducting Boise's share). MWC is still much more recognized than MAC, CUSA, SB. And so they will get more money. Boise is obviously their top brand, but not big enough to really hurt them short term.

Long term is always a different issue. If Boise gets NY6 invites, it is good intangibly for the conference.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - BruceMcF - 01-28-2020 03:01 PM

(01-28-2020 11:48 AM)bullet Wrote:  MWC is still much more recognized than MAC, CUSA, SB. And so they will get more money. Boise is obviously their top brand, but not big enough to really hurt them short term.

Even at equal recognition the MWC would still get more money ... because of the time zone benefit. There's one Eastern, two Eastern/Central and one Central time zone P5, and one Mountain/Pacific P5. There's four Eastern/Central Go5 conferences, and one Mountain/Pacific Go5.

Now, of course that is tracking population distribution, and with such a large share of the population in the Eastern and Central time zones, and such a large share of the audience getting their fill of college football after one or two games on a Saturday, that drop off in the "general" audience by the time the Pac-12 games kick off is an entrenched disadvantage of the Pac-12.

But there is also the "never enough football" part of the audience from the East and Central times zones to supplement the Pacific (and, by rumor, Mountain) time zone audience, and if you can combine inventory when there is much less competition for broadcast slots and some team names that some of the people looking for a game can recognize, when you are starting from the Go5 audience levels, that spells a substantial boost in media value.

So the "Boise State Brand Value" is a joint product of the Boise State brand awareness and all of those Mountain and Pacific time zone games to play. Like all joint products, dividing the total value between the component parts is largely arbitrary.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - The Cutter of Bish - 01-28-2020 03:30 PM

You know, maybe losing Boise does take a chunk of change with it from the media deal. Does picking up a school in the central time zone, someone from Texas, help to recoup any of that?


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - YNot - 01-28-2020 03:36 PM

(01-28-2020 03:30 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  You know, maybe losing Boise does take a chunk of change with it from the media deal. Does picking up a school in the central time zone, someone from Texas, help to recoup any of that?

No. Because the MWC's primary value is in the 10pm ET timeslot and CBSSN-level inventory. To add a CUSA or Sun Belt team in Texas will not help the MWC to get better timeslots, better channels, or better value from their media partners.

The media deal has specific preferences for both Boise's home AND ROAD football inventory. If CBS and FOX lose Boise inventory, there isn't anyone else available to replace them and the MWC's media deal will suffer.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - DavidSt - 01-28-2020 04:10 PM

CBSSN and Fox Sports are in a lot less households than ESPN group of family. That is why Boise State is bulking at the crappy deal that the MWC commish made. Boise State wants the exposure from ESPN.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - stever20 - 01-28-2020 04:16 PM

I wonder if the MWC didn't want the Boise part to be ESPN so there wouldn't be the Friday night games.....


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - BruceMcF - 01-29-2020 02:40 AM

(01-28-2020 03:36 PM)YNot Wrote:  
(01-28-2020 03:30 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  You know, maybe losing Boise does take a chunk of change with it from the media deal. Does picking up a school in the central time zone, someone from Texas, help to recoup any of that?

No. Because the MWC's primary value is in the 10pm ET timeslot and CBSSN-level inventory. To add a CUSA or Sun Belt team in Texas will not help the MWC to get better timeslots, better channels, or better value from their media partners.

The media deal has specific preferences for both Boise's home AND ROAD football inventory. If CBS and FOX lose Boise inventory, there isn't anyone else available to replace them and the MWC's media deal will suffer.

Quite. Both for people who plan out their viewing, and for channel hoppers ... say the game they are already watching looks like its heading to a comfortable win. To attract channel hoppers, you need for that couple of seconds as they are flashing past or glancing across the program listings for them to say, "oh, yeah, they are playing, let's have a look at that".

So in the context of the MWC schedule, the Boise State brand has extra value.

Someone else wants to use the opportunity to build their brand ... well, like TCU, they need to go ahead and do that.

Picking up a school -- or several -- from the Central Time Zone is a game for the Pac-12 to be thinking through. At the MWC's level, the MT/PT market niche is a bonus, not a constraint.

For the MWC, if UTEP was hot right now, either for FB or for Basketball, they would be a fine add.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - arkstfan - 01-29-2020 09:52 AM

(01-24-2020 06:26 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Fox is apparently obligated to air at least 7 games per year on either Fox OTA or FS1, including the MWC CCG, with the rest on FS2. Fox could take the position that without the Boise State home games, which Fox has all of, they'll air every MWC game they have (except the CCG) on FS2. Then the MWC would get a CCG on either Fox OTA or FS1, plus 3 games on CBS OTA, and everything else on either FS2 or CBSSN.

OTOH, if the only games currently set to be on Fox OTA or FS1 are Boise State games anyway, the rest of the MWC might not care much.

And if Fox reduces its share of annual payments by $7 million to account for Boise leaving, it's only a loss of about $700,000/team/year for the remaining members. If they really want Boise gone, they may not care much about that reduction, either.

Fox surprised me that they stepped out of the CUSA negotiations rather than sign CUSA to fill content on FS2, now after looking like FS2 would be a niche backwater, they commit to MWC content.

They got to be staying drunk or doing drugs at Fox Sports, they are wildly unpredictable.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - quo vadis - 01-29-2020 09:59 AM

(01-29-2020 09:52 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(01-24-2020 06:26 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Fox is apparently obligated to air at least 7 games per year on either Fox OTA or FS1, including the MWC CCG, with the rest on FS2. Fox could take the position that without the Boise State home games, which Fox has all of, they'll air every MWC game they have (except the CCG) on FS2. Then the MWC would get a CCG on either Fox OTA or FS1, plus 3 games on CBS OTA, and everything else on either FS2 or CBSSN.

OTOH, if the only games currently set to be on Fox OTA or FS1 are Boise State games anyway, the rest of the MWC might not care much.

And if Fox reduces its share of annual payments by $7 million to account for Boise leaving, it's only a loss of about $700,000/team/year for the remaining members. If they really want Boise gone, they may not care much about that reduction, either.

Fox surprised me that they stepped out of the CUSA negotiations rather than sign CUSA to fill content on FS2, now after looking like FS2 would be a niche backwater, they commit to MWC content.

They got to be staying drunk or doing drugs at Fox Sports, they are wildly unpredictable.

I've never really bought in to the "filling content" or "inventory" motivations for sports channels so it never surprises me when those don't drive what a channel does. I've never heard FOX or ESPN or anyone else say "we signed the Sun Belt because well, we have this channel out there and we need to fill it with stuff to watch". I mean, that's true in a technical sense, but it doesn't distinguish one sports property from another.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - arkstfan - 01-29-2020 10:01 AM

(01-26-2020 01:37 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-25-2020 05:42 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  
(01-25-2020 05:39 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Yep, Fox and CBS wants to steal Boise State from ESPN. The majority of the contract demands a Boise State. Boise State leaves? MWC is in breach of that contract so the MWC commish not only screwed Boise State, but the whole conference as a whole. He should be fired, the contract should be voided and get a commish that will get a contract with ESPN that is the same amount as AAC gets.

No, thats not how TV contracts work. Ask yourself why the AAC contract wasn't voided when UConn left? Or any of the Big east contracts voided when they lost members over the years? Hell the XII lost FOUR TEAMS and the TV contract wasn't voided!

But in this case, the MW sold something they never had the rights to (and still dont). At the very least it completely voids the Boise home game portion of the deal---as those games could still be sold to anyone at this point. It also likely voids the amount since all parties seem to be in agreement that Boise games represent a larger than typical portion of the value on the TV package.

Here is where it gets interesting, if the MW really did not have Boise consent when they agreed to the CBS/FOX deal, it would seem that CBS/FOX would have a tremendous amount of legal leverage as the MW essentially committed fraud when they agreed to the deal. If those Boise home game rights end up with anyone other than CBS/FOX, it could get really ugly.

The norm is the commissioner and a committee (usually a mix of AD's and presidents, sometimes just presidents) will negotiate the TV deal and present it to the membership (normally via teleconference because everyone is getting uptight) and a simple majority vote ratifies the agreement.

Again talking norms
Unless the MWC has a bylaw or contract ratified by 3/4ths of the membership (ie a fundamental change to league equity and rules) granting a veto, Boise wouldn't get a veto.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - arkstfan - 01-29-2020 10:05 AM

(01-26-2020 06:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-26-2020 05:31 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Since it's about money it will be settled. It's just how much more will get Boise to accept and drop things. Beyond that Boise State wants the MWC to affirm their special rights and status -- I think that is more important than a few $K more.

The more Ive thought about, the more Im convinced, that's why this happening. The MW presidents are getting rid of the Boise bonus and the MW presidents have looked at the worst case scenarios presented by their lawyers and decided those wold be preferable to continuing on with the Boise bonus.

I think the bonus is gone at the end of this CBS/FOX deal. If Boise leaves over it---I think the MW presidents are willing to accept that outcome. They have had a can full of the "Boise bonus" (and perhaps Boise as well). The only real question is "Is there some monetary "buy out" or some set of temporary concessions the MW can give Boise that will get them to stay in the MW with equal revenue distribution?"

If you think about it----Its not like the Boise alternatives to the MW are "perfect"....so, Boise might in the end have to swallow their pride and take some sort of face saving settlement in order to stay in the MW simply because they decide its in the best interests of the school long term to stay.

That's been my argument. I think they've done the math and believe they are not fundamentally worse off if Boise State leaves but can restore balance to the force conference and pocket more money if the Boise bonus goes away.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - arkstfan - 01-29-2020 10:10 AM

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.