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 - Wedge - 02-07-2020 12:46 PM

(02-07-2020 12:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-07-2020 12:11 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(02-07-2020 10:46 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(02-07-2020 10:24 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(02-07-2020 08:08 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  I wouldn't be so sure that BSD Boise State isn't still pushing for more money.



"Bringing this matter to a resolution," not "this matter is resolved.

Regardless, Boise STate won, the haters-and-losers caucus of the MWC lost.

They just postponed the fight. What they voted on before was unnecessary. Its 6 years down the road.

They had the initial skirmish. The loser-and-haters came at Boise, tried to muscle Boise. Boise called them on it and they backed down.

There will probably be a rematch in 6 years. But this confrontation happened, the MWC tried to buffalo Boise State into accepting the end of the Reentry Agreement, and Boise stood up to them successfully.

It was bad timing for the anti-Boise contingent to bring this out into the open when they did. The schools probably felt some pressure to confirm that they were going forward with the new Fox/CBS contract, and dropped the dispute for now to reassure the TV networks. The rest of the MWC will hope that Boise is in a weaker position a few years down the road.

Maybe----but its not like they didnt know the timing or the situation going into the decision. Despite that---two schools were willing to take the dispute to an even higher level by voting to end the deal immediately. Regardless of the outcome---the one thing we can take away from the incident is that there is wide spread tremendous resentment of the special Boise deal roiling just beneath the surface in the MW---and that will continue to fester regardless of any unity preaching joint statement that gets issued in the aftermath of this dispute.

Might be that only one or two MWC members feel really strongly about this, and the rest went along with it initially, but backed off (against the votes of the one or two who still feel strongly about it).

And, the money might not even be the biggest issue. It's easy to imagine San Diego State, for example, being more irritated about Boise being guaranteed better TV exposure than the rest of the league gets, and SDSU would feel more entitled than the rest of the MWC to complain, because SDSU has a better football team than most of them.

Compare the 2019 TV for Boise State and SDSU to see why SDSU might want either better TV exposure for themselves or less for Boise:
Boise State 2019 games, with TV outlets: https://fbschedules.com/ncaa-2019/team/boise-state
SDSU 2019 games, with TV outlets: https://fbschedules.com/ncaa-2019/team/san-diego-state


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - johnbragg - 02-07-2020 12:46 PM

(02-07-2020 12:11 PM)Wedge Wrote:  It was bad timing for the anti-Boise contingent to bring this out into the open when they did. The schools probably felt some pressure to confirm that they were going forward with the new Fox/CBS contract, and dropped the dispute for now to reassure the TV networks. The rest of the MWC will hope that Boise is in a weaker position a few years down the road.

What is going to change to hurt or help Boise's position? The contract language isn't changing unless Boise agrees to a change, and why would they do that, unless its in exchange for more bonus money?

(02-07-2020 12:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Maybe----but its not like they didnt know the timing or the situation going into the decision. Despite that---two schools were willing to take the dispute to an even higher level by voting to end the deal immediately. Regardless of the outcome---the one thing we can take away from the incident is that there is wide spread tremendous resentment of the special Boise deal roiling just beneath the surface in the MW---and that will continue to fester regardless of any unity preaching joint statement that gets issued in the aftermath of this dispute.

The Little 8 resent Texas and Oklahoma.

(02-07-2020 12:27 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  (Oops, munched)

The MW presidents reacted emotionally, didn't do their homework and got caught out on a limb. What you said.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - quo vadis - 02-07-2020 12:48 PM

(02-07-2020 11:52 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Frankly, the whole episode is odd. The MW never had a winning legal case. The only thing that made sense was that the schools had had enough with the deal and were going to rid themselves of it regardless of the consequences. Instead, they caved in a few days and reverse the decision to end the deal. Now that we know the conclusion, the whole nasty episode makes even less sense. Maybe with Kustra gone, the MW members thought there was a chance the new Boise president might be an easy pushover? Honesty—this decision by the membership to press episode so hard in the MW meetings just doesn’t make sense now that we know the outcome.

I think there's a clear possible logic to what the MW did: By their own account, Boise proposed increasing the bonus, something the other members obviously were against. So the proposal to rescind the bonus entirely was a way to set a new marker that would result in a 'compromise' of just keeping the old bonus.

It's like if I am your employee and am making $15 an hour and I come in to your office with the righteous belief I am underpaid and ask for a raise to $17, instead of just saying "no" you might say "well actually, I was about to propose cutting your pay to $13 an hour because revenue has grown tight". The prospect of my pay getting cut then changing my psychology, making me happy to escape your office with my pay remaining at $15 rather than being upset I didn't get the $17 as I would have been if you had just said "no" without proposing cutting the pay.

I mean, FWIW, the article has no mention of Boise getting a bonus increase, something they did seem quite determined to get in December. And it doesn't matter that they aren't entitled to an increased bonus, they could have held up the whole deal to get it, as they can oppose the deal negotiated for their home games on any grounds they want. But maybe we lack all the information.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - Wedge - 02-07-2020 12:53 PM

(02-07-2020 12:46 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(02-07-2020 12:11 PM)Wedge Wrote:  It was bad timing for the anti-Boise contingent to bring this out into the open when they did. The schools probably felt some pressure to confirm that they were going forward with the new Fox/CBS contract, and dropped the dispute for now to reassure the TV networks. The rest of the MWC will hope that Boise is in a weaker position a few years down the road.

What is going to change to hurt or help Boise's position? The contract language isn't changing unless Boise agrees to a change, and why would they do that, unless its in exchange for more bonus money?

If Boise State's football fortunes drop off a bit, say, only one division title, no MWC titles, and no CFP appearances in the next 5 years, and there isn't an immediately pending TV deal that the rest of the league wants to cash in on, then the conference might be more willing to fight it out, to dare Boise to either take it to court or leave the conference.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - BePcr07 - 02-07-2020 12:56 PM

(02-07-2020 12:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-07-2020 12:33 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  
(02-07-2020 12:27 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-07-2020 12:07 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  So BSU might have received word that the AAC wasn’t interested in BSU and/or BSU couldn’t find a decent landing spot for the Olympic sports.
Hence both backed off and postponed in 5 years.

I dont think so. Boise didnt cave---the MW did. I mean, Boise didnt get an increase in their bonus---but they never had much of a true legal right to an increase. On the hand, everywhere the law favored them---the MW caved. Which begs the question---Why make such determined divisive push for this in the MW meetings if your just going to cave in a few days? Again---the whole episode just seems odd. I just cant figure out what the MW presidents were thinking.

Don’t think they caved....just postponed.

Perhaps---but this would further undermine any attempt to do the same thing later as this is now the THIRD time the MW has acknowledged and agreed to the terms of the deal.

6 years brings them around the time of some conference TV deals coming to renegotiation and renewal. Look for Boise St to jump if there is realignment to a "new" central time zone based conference.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - MWC Tex - 02-07-2020 01:43 PM

(02-07-2020 12:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-07-2020 12:33 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  
(02-07-2020 12:27 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-07-2020 12:07 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  So BSU might have received word that the AAC wasn’t interested in BSU and/or BSU couldn’t find a decent landing spot for the Olympic sports.
Hence both backed off and postponed in 5 years.

I dont think so. Boise didnt cave---the MW did. I mean, Boise didnt get an increase in their bonus---but they never had much of a true legal right to an increase. On the hand, everywhere the law favored them---the MW caved. Which begs the question---Why make such determined divisive push for this in the MW meetings if your just going to cave in a few days? Again---the whole episode just seems odd. I just cant figure out what the MW presidents were thinking.

Don’t think they caved....just postponed.

Perhaps---but this would further undermine any attempt to do the same thing later as this is now the THIRD time the MW has acknowledged and agreed to the terms of the deal.
Well, the one victory the MW got was no proportional increase in the bonus that BSU was wanting.

Lesson learned is to fight just before the contract ends not when it hasn’t started.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - Attackcoog - 02-07-2020 02:43 PM

(02-07-2020 12:48 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(02-07-2020 11:52 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Frankly, the whole episode is odd. The MW never had a winning legal case. The only thing that made sense was that the schools had had enough with the deal and were going to rid themselves of it regardless of the consequences. Instead, they caved in a few days and reverse the decision to end the deal. Now that we know the conclusion, the whole nasty episode makes even less sense. Maybe with Kustra gone, the MW members thought there was a chance the new Boise president might be an easy pushover? Honesty—this decision by the membership to press episode so hard in the MW meetings just doesn’t make sense now that we know the outcome.

I think there's a clear possible logic to what the MW did: By their own account, Boise proposed increasing the bonus, something the other members obviously were against. So the proposal to rescind the bonus entirely was a way to set a new marker that would result in a 'compromise' of just keeping the old bonus.

It's like if I am your employee and am making $15 an hour and I come in to your office with the righteous belief I am underpaid and ask for a raise to $17, instead of just saying "no" you might say "well actually, I was about to propose cutting your pay to $13 an hour because revenue has grown tight". The prospect of my pay getting cut then changing my psychology, making me happy to escape your office with my pay remaining at $15 rather than being upset I didn't get the $17 as I would have been if you had just said "no" without proposing cutting the pay.

I mean, FWIW, the article has no mention of Boise getting a bonus increase, something they did seem quite determined to get in December. And it doesn't matter that they aren't entitled to an increased bonus, they could have held up the whole deal to get it, as they can oppose the deal negotiated for their home games on any grounds they want. But maybe we lack all the information.

But nobody uses that strategy when the employee in question can get $17 or $18 dollars at the place across the street with a "help wanted" sign hanging in the window. The definitely don't do it when they know their best clients request this employee and are willing to pay extra when this employee performs the work. No---I think its very possible the MW presidents had themselves a proper hissey fit and had to walk it back.

The MW should have just said "no". That was their legal right and the contract backed them up. Boise can ask---no violation there either--but the MW can say no. The rest of this fiasco appears to be an unforced error by a group of presidents that almost certainly knew better. Like I said---this appears to be a decision that was based more on emotion rather than logic or contract law.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - Captain Bearcat - 02-07-2020 04:30 PM

(02-07-2020 12:46 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(02-07-2020 12:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-07-2020 12:11 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(02-07-2020 10:46 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(02-07-2020 10:24 AM)bullet Wrote:  They just postponed the fight. What they voted on before was unnecessary. Its 6 years down the road.

They had the initial skirmish. The loser-and-haters came at Boise, tried to muscle Boise. Boise called them on it and they backed down.

There will probably be a rematch in 6 years. But this confrontation happened, the MWC tried to buffalo Boise State into accepting the end of the Reentry Agreement, and Boise stood up to them successfully.

It was bad timing for the anti-Boise contingent to bring this out into the open when they did. The schools probably felt some pressure to confirm that they were going forward with the new Fox/CBS contract, and dropped the dispute for now to reassure the TV networks. The rest of the MWC will hope that Boise is in a weaker position a few years down the road.

Maybe----but its not like they didnt know the timing or the situation going into the decision. Despite that---two schools were willing to take the dispute to an even higher level by voting to end the deal immediately. Regardless of the outcome---the one thing we can take away from the incident is that there is wide spread tremendous resentment of the special Boise deal roiling just beneath the surface in the MW---and that will continue to fester regardless of any unity preaching joint statement that gets issued in the aftermath of this dispute.

Might be that only one or two MWC members feel really strongly about this, and the rest went along with it initially, but backed off (against the votes of the one or two who still feel strongly about it).

And, the money might not even be the biggest issue. It's easy to imagine San Diego State, for example, being more irritated about Boise being guaranteed better TV exposure than the rest of the league gets, and SDSU would feel more entitled than the rest of the MWC to complain, because SDSU has a better football team than most of them.

Compare the 2019 TV for Boise State and SDSU to see why SDSU might want either better TV exposure for themselves or less for Boise:
Boise State 2019 games, with TV outlets: https://fbschedules.com/ncaa-2019/team/boise-state
SDSU 2019 games, with TV outlets: https://fbschedules.com/ncaa-2019/team/san-diego-state

Even if they weren't guaranteed better exposure by the contract, Boise would still get better exposure because TV executives would choose their games more often.

USC isn't guaranteed better exposure than Utah. But in 2019 Utah only had 3 games on major OTA networks compared to 6 for USC. Utah games were dumped on the Pac-12 network 4 times compared to 1 for USC. This is despite Utah having a better team.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - jdgaucho - 02-07-2020 04:33 PM

(02-07-2020 12:46 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(02-07-2020 12:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-07-2020 12:11 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(02-07-2020 10:46 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(02-07-2020 10:24 AM)bullet Wrote:  They just postponed the fight. What they voted on before was unnecessary. Its 6 years down the road.

They had the initial skirmish. The loser-and-haters came at Boise, tried to muscle Boise. Boise called them on it and they backed down.

There will probably be a rematch in 6 years. But this confrontation happened, the MWC tried to buffalo Boise State into accepting the end of the Reentry Agreement, and Boise stood up to them successfully.

It was bad timing for the anti-Boise contingent to bring this out into the open when they did. The schools probably felt some pressure to confirm that they were going forward with the new Fox/CBS contract, and dropped the dispute for now to reassure the TV networks. The rest of the MWC will hope that Boise is in a weaker position a few years down the road.

Maybe----but its not like they didnt know the timing or the situation going into the decision. Despite that---two schools were willing to take the dispute to an even higher level by voting to end the deal immediately. Regardless of the outcome---the one thing we can take away from the incident is that there is wide spread tremendous resentment of the special Boise deal roiling just beneath the surface in the MW---and that will continue to fester regardless of any unity preaching joint statement that gets issued in the aftermath of this dispute.

Might be that only one or two MWC members feel really strongly about this, and the rest went along with it initially, but backed off (against the votes of the one or two who still feel strongly about it).

And, the money might not even be the biggest issue. It's easy to imagine San Diego State, for example, being more irritated about Boise being guaranteed better TV exposure than the rest of the league gets, and SDSU would feel more entitled than the rest of the MWC to complain, because SDSU has a better football team than most of them.

Compare the 2019 TV for Boise State and SDSU to see why SDSU might want either better TV exposure for themselves or less for Boise:
Boise State 2019 games, with TV outlets: https://fbschedules.com/ncaa-2019/team/boise-state
SDSU 2019 games, with TV outlets: https://fbschedules.com/ncaa-2019/team/san-diego-state

And the MWC could simply tell SDSU "So what are you going to do about it? You have nowhere to go."


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - MidknightWhiskey - 02-07-2020 05:10 PM

So Boise is essentially saying that they’re the only good team in the conference so they should get more money, AND THE CONFERENCE AGREED! They’re going to be crying about the NY6 bid every time they have a good year. We‘ll all just have to remind them that they're the only good team in their conference so they clearly don't play anyone.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - HawaiiMongoose - 02-07-2020 06:43 PM

I predicted this outcome two weeks ago, as did several others. It was pretty much a foregone conclusion as soon as BSU filed the complaint, since (1) eliminating the cost of the existing bonus isn't enough reason for other MWC members to suffer the financial and competitive consequences of pushing BSU out of the conference and (2) not getting an increase to the existing bonus isn't enough reason for BSU to suffer the financial and competitive consequences of leaving the conference.

The reality is that the existing bonus will almost certainly continue in force until the majority of MWC conference members are viewed by the marketplace as contributing as much value to the TV deal as BSU does. If six years from now BSU is still the dominant football and ratings performer in the MWC then the calculus will remain the same and the conference presidents will be in no better position to kill the bonus than they were this time.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - Wedge - 02-07-2020 07:18 PM

(02-07-2020 04:30 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  
(02-07-2020 12:46 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(02-07-2020 12:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-07-2020 12:11 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(02-07-2020 10:46 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  They had the initial skirmish. The loser-and-haters came at Boise, tried to muscle Boise. Boise called them on it and they backed down.

There will probably be a rematch in 6 years. But this confrontation happened, the MWC tried to buffalo Boise State into accepting the end of the Reentry Agreement, and Boise stood up to them successfully.

It was bad timing for the anti-Boise contingent to bring this out into the open when they did. The schools probably felt some pressure to confirm that they were going forward with the new Fox/CBS contract, and dropped the dispute for now to reassure the TV networks. The rest of the MWC will hope that Boise is in a weaker position a few years down the road.

Maybe----but its not like they didnt know the timing or the situation going into the decision. Despite that---two schools were willing to take the dispute to an even higher level by voting to end the deal immediately. Regardless of the outcome---the one thing we can take away from the incident is that there is wide spread tremendous resentment of the special Boise deal roiling just beneath the surface in the MW---and that will continue to fester regardless of any unity preaching joint statement that gets issued in the aftermath of this dispute.

Might be that only one or two MWC members feel really strongly about this, and the rest went along with it initially, but backed off (against the votes of the one or two who still feel strongly about it).

And, the money might not even be the biggest issue. It's easy to imagine San Diego State, for example, being more irritated about Boise being guaranteed better TV exposure than the rest of the league gets, and SDSU would feel more entitled than the rest of the MWC to complain, because SDSU has a better football team than most of them.

Compare the 2019 TV for Boise State and SDSU to see why SDSU might want either better TV exposure for themselves or less for Boise:
Boise State 2019 games, with TV outlets: https://fbschedules.com/ncaa-2019/team/boise-state
SDSU 2019 games, with TV outlets: https://fbschedules.com/ncaa-2019/team/san-diego-state

Even if they weren't guaranteed better exposure by the contract, Boise would still get better exposure because TV executives would choose their games more often.

USC isn't guaranteed better exposure than Utah. But in 2019 Utah only had 3 games on major OTA networks compared to 6 for USC. Utah games were dumped on the Pac-12 network 4 times compared to 1 for USC. This is despite Utah having a better team.

True, but that comparison only goes so far, because the audience gap between USC vs. generic and Utah vs. generic is far greater than the gap between Boise vs. generic and SDSU vs. generic. Not only does USC have the name brand to pull in casual fans outside each team's local area, but the LA metro area alone has more than 6 times as many people as the whole state of Utah. I'm not any happier about USC reflexively getting better TV than anyone else is, but there are good reasons why USC doesn't need a guarantee of better TV exposure, and those reasons either don't apply to Boise State or apply to Boise in a miniscule way compared to USC.

The obvious argument for the MWC members to make here is that if Boise thinks they're as valuable to MWC TV rights as USC is to Pac-12 TV rights, then they don't really need guaranteed exposure and might as well give it up. But of course, Boise is perfectly within its rights to say, you guys signed this contract and we're holding you to it.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - Scoochpooch1 - 02-07-2020 07:38 PM

(02-07-2020 10:46 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(02-07-2020 10:24 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(02-07-2020 08:08 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(02-07-2020 07:58 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(02-07-2020 07:16 AM)Yosef Himself Wrote:  The MWC and members have reversed their decision on Boise and BSU will be dropping lawsuit.

Smart move by the MW to rescind the vote to 'terminate' the bonus, as that clearly was a contract breach. And if Boise is going to vote to accept the contract, that *seems* to mean they are backing down from their demand for an increased bonus.

I wouldn't be so sure that BSD Boise State isn't still pushing for more money.

Quote:The Mountain West and Boise State subsequently issued a joint statement saying the two sides “are currently in discussions in hopes of bringing this matter to a resolution without litigation.”


"Bringing this matter to a resolution," not "this matter is resolved.

Regardless, Boise STate won, the haters-and-losers caucus of the MWC lost.

They just postponed the fight. What they voted on before was unnecessary. Its 6 years down the road.

They had the initial skirmish. The loser-and-haters came at Boise, tried to muscle Boise. Boise called them on it and they backed down.

There will probably be a rematch in 6 years. But this confrontation happened, the MWC tried to buffalo Boise State into accepting the end of the Reentry Agreement, and Boise stood up to them successfully.

So capitulation = success? Feel free to look up the definition of that word.
MWC is worth less in the near-term without Boise. The President's are worried about near-term dollars and 6 years from now will be someone else's problem. MWC had the leverage but are too scared to use it. Boise has no landing spot, that could always change in the future.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - Scoochpooch1 - 02-07-2020 07:40 PM

(02-04-2020 09:43 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(01-30-2020 07:27 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  
(01-30-2020 02:28 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  The re-entry agreement CAN be deemed perpetual and if it doesn't have some termination built in it is by definition perpetual.

If the MWC bylaws permit expulsion, then yeah Boise can be expelled and is entitled to some sort of damages whether calculated by actual loss or by terms of the membership agreement.

The re-entry agreement CAN'T be deemed perpetual and if it doesn't have some termination built in it is by definition NOT perpetual.
We can spin language anyway we like.

Basis for declaring it can't be perpetual????

Basis for declaring it can be perpetual????


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - johnbragg - 02-07-2020 09:19 PM

(02-07-2020 07:40 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  
(02-04-2020 09:43 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(01-30-2020 07:27 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  
(01-30-2020 02:28 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  The re-entry agreement CAN be deemed perpetual and if it doesn't have some termination built in it is by definition perpetual.

If the MWC bylaws permit expulsion, then yeah Boise can be expelled and is entitled to some sort of damages whether calculated by actual loss or by terms of the membership agreement.

The re-entry agreement CAN'T be deemed perpetual and if it doesn't have some termination built in it is by definition NOT perpetual.
We can spin language anyway we like.

Basis for declaring it can't be perpetual????

Basis for declaring it can be perpetual????

The Reentry Agreement does not have an end date, and specifically includes future TV contracts. If there is no specified end date, it is perpetual. (Perpetual as long as Boise State is a member of the Mountain West anyway)


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - stever20 - 02-07-2020 10:17 PM

Sounds like it's been settled-
https://awfulannouncing.com/ncaa/mountain-west-boise-state-complaint-dropped.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

The Mountain West Board of Directors has quietly voted to rescind a decision that would end Boise State’s additional slice of revenue from the conference’s TV contract, several sources told the Union-Tribune.
In exchange, Boise State will drop a legal complaint filed last month against the conference and agree to terms of the new TV contract that begins this summer.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - quo vadis - 02-08-2020 12:36 AM

(02-07-2020 02:43 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-07-2020 12:48 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(02-07-2020 11:52 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Frankly, the whole episode is odd. The MW never had a winning legal case. The only thing that made sense was that the schools had had enough with the deal and were going to rid themselves of it regardless of the consequences. Instead, they caved in a few days and reverse the decision to end the deal. Now that we know the conclusion, the whole nasty episode makes even less sense. Maybe with Kustra gone, the MW members thought there was a chance the new Boise president might be an easy pushover? Honesty—this decision by the membership to press episode so hard in the MW meetings just doesn’t make sense now that we know the outcome.

I think there's a clear possible logic to what the MW did: By their own account, Boise proposed increasing the bonus, something the other members obviously were against. So the proposal to rescind the bonus entirely was a way to set a new marker that would result in a 'compromise' of just keeping the old bonus.

It's like if I am your employee and am making $15 an hour and I come in to your office with the righteous belief I am underpaid and ask for a raise to $17, instead of just saying "no" you might say "well actually, I was about to propose cutting your pay to $13 an hour because revenue has grown tight". The prospect of my pay getting cut then changing my psychology, making me happy to escape your office with my pay remaining at $15 rather than being upset I didn't get the $17 as I would have been if you had just said "no" without proposing cutting the pay.

I mean, FWIW, the article has no mention of Boise getting a bonus increase, something they did seem quite determined to get in December. And it doesn't matter that they aren't entitled to an increased bonus, they could have held up the whole deal to get it, as they can oppose the deal negotiated for their home games on any grounds they want. But maybe we lack all the information.

But nobody uses that strategy when the employee in question can get $17 or $18 dollars at the place across the street with a "help wanted" sign hanging in the window. The definitely don't do it when they know their best clients request this employee and are willing to pay extra when this employee performs the work. No---I think its very possible the MW presidents had themselves a proper hissey fit and had to walk it back.

The MW should have just said "no". That was their legal right and the contract backed them up. Boise can ask---no violation there either--but the MW can say no. The rest of this fiasco appears to be an unforced error by a group of presidents that almost certainly knew better. Like I said---this appears to be a decision that was based more on emotion rather than logic or contract law.

Who says Boise can get $17 or $18 across the street? Boise may not be as hot on the open market as some around here think they are. What can they do? Go indy? That's very risky. They see how BYU has ebbed in relevance every year since doing that. Join the AAC and play games in Pennsylvania, Florida, Louisiana, Ohio, and North Carolina? Neither would likely net them significantly more than the $6m they stand to get in the MW, and heck there's no guarantee the AAC even wants them.

Maybe they lucked out, but in the end the MW got Boise in the fold for 6 more years at no increase in the bonus, which is actually a reduction in the bonus relative to the size of the contract, exactly what irked Boise. That's more of a win for the MW than Boise.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - MWC Tex - 02-08-2020 12:59 AM

(02-08-2020 12:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(02-07-2020 02:43 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-07-2020 12:48 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(02-07-2020 11:52 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Frankly, the whole episode is odd. The MW never had a winning legal case. The only thing that made sense was that the schools had had enough with the deal and were going to rid themselves of it regardless of the consequences. Instead, they caved in a few days and reverse the decision to end the deal. Now that we know the conclusion, the whole nasty episode makes even less sense. Maybe with Kustra gone, the MW members thought there was a chance the new Boise president might be an easy pushover? Honesty—this decision by the membership to press episode so hard in the MW meetings just doesn’t make sense now that we know the outcome.

I think there's a clear possible logic to what the MW did: By their own account, Boise proposed increasing the bonus, something the other members obviously were against. So the proposal to rescind the bonus entirely was a way to set a new marker that would result in a 'compromise' of just keeping the old bonus.

It's like if I am your employee and am making $15 an hour and I come in to your office with the righteous belief I am underpaid and ask for a raise to $17, instead of just saying "no" you might say "well actually, I was about to propose cutting your pay to $13 an hour because revenue has grown tight". The prospect of my pay getting cut then changing my psychology, making me happy to escape your office with my pay remaining at $15 rather than being upset I didn't get the $17 as I would have been if you had just said "no" without proposing cutting the pay.

I mean, FWIW, the article has no mention of Boise getting a bonus increase, something they did seem quite determined to get in December. And it doesn't matter that they aren't entitled to an increased bonus, they could have held up the whole deal to get it, as they can oppose the deal negotiated for their home games on any grounds they want. But maybe we lack all the information.

But nobody uses that strategy when the employee in question can get $17 or $18 dollars at the place across the street with a "help wanted" sign hanging in the window. The definitely don't do it when they know their best clients request this employee and are willing to pay extra when this employee performs the work. No---I think its very possible the MW presidents had themselves a proper hissey fit and had to walk it back.

The MW should have just said "no". That was their legal right and the contract backed them up. Boise can ask---no violation there either--but the MW can say no. The rest of this fiasco appears to be an unforced error by a group of presidents that almost certainly knew better. Like I said---this appears to be a decision that was based more on emotion rather than logic or contract law.

Who says Boise can get $17 or $18 across the street? Boise may not be as hot on the open market as some around here think they are. What can they do? Go indy? That's very risky. They see how BYU has ebbed in relevance every year since doing that. Join the AAC and play games in Pennsylvania, Florida, Louisiana, Ohio, and North Carolina? Neither would likely net them significantly more than the $6m they stand to get in the MW, and heck there's no guarantee the AAC even wants them.

Maybe they lucked out, but in the end the MW got Boise in the fold for 6 more years at no increase in the bonus, which is actually a reduction in the bonus relative to the size of the contract, exactly what irked Boise. That's more of a win for the MW than Boise.

I agree.
If next TV contract is more, that 1.8 million will even be less in relative size.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - Poster - 02-08-2020 01:48 AM

(01-22-2020 03:19 PM)johnintx Wrote:  Looks like the rest of the MW is looking for a way to make Boise's pay equal to the rest of the conference, and the commissioner is in on it.

Boise will end up with another conference arrangement before this is through.


The WAC hasn't existed for years, and the AAC is unlikely to take Boise State after they already reneged. What choice does BSU have but to stay in the MWC?


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - BruceMcF - 02-08-2020 04:11 AM

(02-07-2020 02:43 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  But nobody uses that strategy when the employee in question can get $17 or $18 dollars at the place across the street with a "help wanted" sign hanging in the window. The definitely don't do it when they know their best clients request this employee and are willing to pay extra when this employee performs the work.

Since there is no actual "help wanted" sign hanging up, people can easily go into these things with different view of how much the highest paid employee is worth. I recall observing from the ranks of freeway flyers at a two year for profit college the highest paid head of department responsible for putting together a new accredited degree program getting more and more demanding because of her perception of her value ... until then she was replaced by someone else (who was both less demanding and more competent so that was a partial win for this small college before their eventual closure).

And this is NOT an employer/employee relationship, this is a membership club. The manager is not the boss, the manager is working for the members ... in this case for a membership representatives board that happens to consist of each and every member.

The commissioner is treating ambit claims as Boise State keeps it's current bonus and Boise State gets a pro-rata increase in its current bonus, and talks some mushy language about a "proportional" increase which can mean multiple things to multiple people, and the membership representative board says, "oh, hang on, it's not like Boise State has been to the Access Bowl three times and turned in two Giant-Killer performances ... how about we go for an ambit claim of after this deal we are talking about, the bonus system is scratched. By that time the fading of Boise State's extra brand value will be complete."

And Boise State objects, and Boise State is voted down, and so Boise State files suit, and so we end up in between the two ambit claims ... the current bonus is in place, but it is proportionally a much smaller increment to the base distribution than it was before.

Because there really isn't a firm offer of "we'll pay someone more than they are paying you" standing behind a Help Wanted sign across the street ...

... Boise State might have a spot available in the AAC, but a spot at an FB-only affiliate fraction of one full distribution, and even if that is more than the MWC is paying, they'd likely have to spend that and more in travel subsidies if they wanted to talk the Big West into reviving the old deal ... and even at that, the Big West might say "no", leaving their Basketball and Olympic Sports in the island of misfit toys aka the WAC.

So rather than negotiating in a negotiating range, we have a corner solution, where the majority of the MWC recognize that Boise State probably CAN legally enforce their existing bonus, so let them have their existing bonus and keep their powder dry for a fight at the end of the current contract ... when it's possible that Boise State's leverage is greater, it's possible that it's weaker, and it's possible that intervening conference realignment has resolved the issue by plucking Boise State out of the MWC.