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 - YNot - 01-24-2020 06:26 PM

(01-24-2020 05:46 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  
(01-24-2020 05:45 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  
(01-24-2020 05:27 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(01-24-2020 04:46 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-24-2020 04:44 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Also just as big is while the money might be ok- maybe, I'd venture a guess the exposure would be down big time. And if the AAC went for Boise, SDSU, and Air Force, it's utterly game over for the MWC.

Agree that if Boise leaves the MW, the MW is greatly diminished, and if it lost all three of those it would probably be the weakest of the G5 conferences on the field and in brand value. Gutted.

But I have doubts about whether the AAC can lure any of Boise, Air Force, or SDSU away.

When MWC ditched ESPN the last time, ESPN responded by giving WAC a pretty nice raise that lifted the league notably above MAC and Sun Belt money.

Time zones matter and ESPN didn't treat western non-AQ football as strictly a commodity, it wasn't far removed from that.

MWC sans Boise is likely still going to be priced as the second most valuable G5 league. They can offer a useful time zone that Pac-12 is growing less inclined to fill and they offer proximity that makes scheduling useful. A quick count, 6 MWC schools that are not Boise State and are not Hawaii host a P5 in 2020.

I've dealt with Thompson, he's no dummy. Throwing down the gauntlet so quickly with Boise State makes me think he and the presidents have a pretty good idea that they are no worse off economically sans Boise State than they are if Boise State remains and gets an extra helping from the serving tray.

I don't think they want Boise to walk because Boise State does have a great brand but if they force the Broncos to stare into the abyss and conclude that they are worse off if they leave, then the other 10 equity members get more money.

The real questions are
Can Boise leave and do better financially?
The league obviously believes the answer is No. If they thought it were Yes they would be in Iowa State and Baylor mode dealing with OU and UT.
Can Boise leave and be in a roughly equal situation?
Maybe MWC believes the answer is No which makes the play logical or they are hoping the calculation is such that Boise's new leadership wouldn't roll the dice where Kustra might have.

Timing is interesting as well. There has to be a reason to pull the pin on that grenade right now rather than closer to the next contract.


The Fox/CBS deal is with Boise State. Boise State goes independent? MWC gets weaken, and they can not fulfill the agreement as the deal is void, and MWC will wind up with a new deal which would be far less.

No it won’t be far less because Boise isn’t worth $10-15 million on its own.

But, Boise State's value *as part of the MWC* could easily top $15 million.

Of all MWC schools, Boise State easily has the most appearances on ABC and ESPN national broadcasts for the past several seasons and the best ratings.

FOX and CBS are collectively paying $45M/year for 3 games on CBS, 7 games on FOX or FS1, the MWC CCG...and then 20 games for CBSSN and some on-demand and all-access type inventory. Boise State's home games go specifically to FOX and Boise State's road games are to specifically go to CBS.

What team do you think CBS plans to broadcast on OTA? Which games will be at the top of FOX's list? The 10 games for CBS, FOX, or FS1 are worth way more than the 20 games for CBSSN and the rest of the non-linear MWC inventory....and all 10 CBS/FOX/FS1 games could involve Boise State.

What is the value of the MWC's CCG with and without Boise State?

Boise State could easily carry 50% of the anticipated value to CBS and FOX.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - ken d - 01-24-2020 06:42 PM

(01-24-2020 06:26 PM)YNot Wrote:  
(01-24-2020 05:46 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  
(01-24-2020 05:45 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  
(01-24-2020 05:27 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(01-24-2020 04:46 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Agree that if Boise leaves the MW, the MW is greatly diminished, and if it lost all three of those it would probably be the weakest of the G5 conferences on the field and in brand value. Gutted.

But I have doubts about whether the AAC can lure any of Boise, Air Force, or SDSU away.

When MWC ditched ESPN the last time, ESPN responded by giving WAC a pretty nice raise that lifted the league notably above MAC and Sun Belt money.

Time zones matter and ESPN didn't treat western non-AQ football as strictly a commodity, it wasn't far removed from that.

MWC sans Boise is likely still going to be priced as the second most valuable G5 league. They can offer a useful time zone that Pac-12 is growing less inclined to fill and they offer proximity that makes scheduling useful. A quick count, 6 MWC schools that are not Boise State and are not Hawaii host a P5 in 2020.

I've dealt with Thompson, he's no dummy. Throwing down the gauntlet so quickly with Boise State makes me think he and the presidents have a pretty good idea that they are no worse off economically sans Boise State than they are if Boise State remains and gets an extra helping from the serving tray.

I don't think they want Boise to walk because Boise State does have a great brand but if they force the Broncos to stare into the abyss and conclude that they are worse off if they leave, then the other 10 equity members get more money.

The real questions are
Can Boise leave and do better financially?
The league obviously believes the answer is No. If they thought it were Yes they would be in Iowa State and Baylor mode dealing with OU and UT.
Can Boise leave and be in a roughly equal situation?
Maybe MWC believes the answer is No which makes the play logical or they are hoping the calculation is such that Boise's new leadership wouldn't roll the dice where Kustra might have.

Timing is interesting as well. There has to be a reason to pull the pin on that grenade right now rather than closer to the next contract.


The Fox/CBS deal is with Boise State. Boise State goes independent? MWC gets weaken, and they can not fulfill the agreement as the deal is void, and MWC will wind up with a new deal which would be far less.

No it won’t be far less because Boise isn’t worth $10-15 million on its own.

But, Boise State's value *as part of the MWC* could easily top $15 million.

Of all MWC schools, Boise State easily has the most appearances on ABC and ESPN national broadcasts for the past several seasons and the best ratings.

FOX and CBS are collectively paying $45M/year for 3 games on CBS, 7 games on FOX or FS1, the MWC CCG...and then 20 games for CBSSN and some on-demand and all-access type inventory. Boise State's home games go specifically to FOX and Boise State's road games are to specifically go to CBS.

What team do you think CBS plans to broadcast on OTA? Which games will be at the top of FOX's list? The 10 games for CBS, FOX, or FS1 are worth way more than the 20 games for CBSSN and the rest of the non-linear MWC inventory....and all 10 CBS/FOX/FS1 games could involve Boise State.

What is the value of the MWC's CCG with and without Boise State?

Boise State could easily carry 50% of the anticipated value to CBS and FOX.

Take Boise and SDSU out of the MWC, and that league is probably not worth more than $20 million. It's no better than the Sun Belt or CUSA. But that's not the same thing as saying that those two as independents would be worth $25 million combined. They probably wouldn't, IMO. Fact is the total value of the 12 schools would likely be less if they were to split up. Each side needs the other.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - BruceMcF - 01-25-2020 12:00 AM

(01-24-2020 06:42 PM)ken d Wrote:  Take Boise and SDSU out of the MWC, and that league is probably not worth more than $20 million. It's no better than the Sun Belt or CUSA. But that's not the same thing as saying that those two as independents would be worth $25 million combined. They probably wouldn't, IMO. Fact is the total value of the 12 schools would likely be less if they were to split up. Each side needs the other.

Quite ... if $25m of that is Boise State or SDSU playing one of the other MWC schools, am appreciable share of that is the inventory effect of being able to start when there is less competing live football on TV. Boise State and SDSU goes to the AAC, the away games are in the Central or Eastern time zone, not Mountain and Pacific time zones, and only the home games have the time zone bonus.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - SoCalBobcat78 - 01-25-2020 12:43 AM

(01-24-2020 06:42 PM)ken d Wrote:  Take Boise and SDSU out of the MWC, and that league is probably not worth more than $20 million. It's no better than the Sun Belt or CUSA. But that's not the same thing as saying that those two as independents would be worth $25 million combined. They probably wouldn't, IMO. Fact is the total value of the 12 schools would likely be less if they were to split up. Each side needs the other.

San Diego State is not leaving the MWC. I suspect that SDSU was one of the two schools trying to end the Boise State bonus. This is all about Boise State football. They want more revenue and at least two schools want revenue distribution to be equal among the schools. I think they will come to an agreement, but if I am wrong it will only be Boise State leaving. SDSU complains about travel within the MWC. The last thing they want to do is travel even further East.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - B easy - 01-25-2020 01:16 AM

(01-25-2020 12:43 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  
(01-24-2020 06:42 PM)ken d Wrote:  Take Boise and SDSU out of the MWC, and that league is probably not worth more than $20 million. It's no better than the Sun Belt or CUSA. But that's not the same thing as saying that those two as independents would be worth $25 million combined. They probably wouldn't, IMO. Fact is the total value of the 12 schools would likely be less if they were to split up. Each side needs the other.

San Diego State is not leaving the MWC. I suspect that SDSU was one of the two schools trying to end the Boise State bonus. This is all about Boise State football. They want more revenue and at least two schools want revenue distribution to be equal among the schools. I think they will come to an agreement, but if I am wrong it will only be Boise State leaving. SDSU complains about travel within the MWC. The last thing they want to do is travel even further East.

SDSU originally joined the Big East back in 2012 then they reluctantly returned back to the MWC only after BSU left. It seemed they were pretty gung-ho about moving on from the MWC back then when the opportunity presented itself. What's changed since then?


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - Aztec Since 88 - 01-25-2020 01:40 AM

SDSU's move to the Big East in 2012 was for football only. The Big East still had AQ status, and the prospect for more $$ in TV revenue. Basketball reluctantly was going to move to the Big West, but Fisher was willing to do so for football and the athletic department. For the rest of our olympic sports it was probably a better move to the BW, as travel costs would go down, and they have a better baseball league. Also, I am not sure if our men's soccer team would have been allowed to stay in the PAC12, as the BW sponsors that sport and the MW doesn't. Once the Big East lost the AQ status and extra money wasn't going to be there, along with no true rival or western partner it didn't make sense to stay in for football.

IMO, I think it would take a P5 invite which is unlikely or true BOR conference with a western division to get us to move this time.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - Sactowndog - 01-25-2020 02:11 AM

(01-24-2020 02:59 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-24-2020 12:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-24-2020 11:34 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-23-2020 07:13 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-23-2020 06:18 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Here is quote from BSU rep about the new TV deal.

”ESPN has been a great partner of Boise State – and the Mountain West – for a long time, and we had some hesitation about moving away from that relationship. However, the terms and value offered to the Mountain West by FOX were better. We feel that our new partner is committed to helping Boise State continue to grow our brand and raise our institutional profile across the nation.”

https://www.nbcrightnow.com/sports/national/boise-state-ready-to-fight-mountain-west-over-extra-tv/article_17ff23c2-c4a9-52a9-a08c-eb210bc0be77.html

That statement, describing FOX as their "new partner" seems to imply that Boise did agree to the TV deal that was negotiated on their behalf by the MWC.

If so, they really don't have any grounds for their complaint, as the MWC vote to end paying them the bonus in 2025 seems irrelevant until the MWC actually misses a payment.

For all we know that quote was created by a low level athletic department communications official when the expectation was that the MW would forward over the relevant info on the deal and, if it contained what they were being told, Boise would then sign off. They never sent the info—or they did—-and the deal didn’t match the promises.

Here is what I think is really going on. Boise never accepted the deal. The law suit spells out the particulars and you can see the Boise strategy if you read between the lines. The Boise strategy was to delay acceptance, using their contract veto power as a lever to force the MW to bump up their bonus to reflect the proportional increase in the new deal. When the MW accepted the deal without Boise consent, they took away Boise’s leverage—but in doing so—violated the Boise term sheet agreement.

Unless the MW can produce a signature showing that Boise signed off on the deal, then the MW clearly violated the agreement and will lose in court. Thus, this will be settled with the MW issuing a statement that the Boise bonus is increasing to “X” (that’s negotiable and will likely be less than the proportional increase Boise wants) and that the “Boise bonus” is a permanent fixture in the leagues media structure which can only be altered or eliminated by mutual agreement of both parties. Boise will probably make moving noises right up to the time that the bluff turns real—-which is the exact moment the MW will fold and give Boise most all of what they want. That’s been the pattern in the past.

I think the end result is Boise doesn’t move, but sets up a landscape in which it’s possible for the AAC to pick off an unhappy eastern member of the MW as an all sports addition (or possibly AF as a football only)l. I don’t think the math works for Boise. It does for certain other members.

Yes, as I said far back in the post, the onus is on the MW to produce evidence that Boise signed off on their segment of the deal.

But I suspect they have that evidence. The MW commissioner doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who wouldn't know something basic like Boise having to agree to their portion of the deal, and wouldn't make a statement announcing the deal unless the deal really was done in all respects. I suspect Boise screwed up and agreed to the deal without having made sure they were getting a bigger bonus. The complaint is about trying to undo that mistake and get the bigger bonus. IMO that's why there is fuzzy language in the complaint about Boise not being given all the specifics and MW officials not following through on alleged pledges to get the Board to agree to a bonus increase. That strikes me as Boise trying to say there was bad faith on the part of the MW and therefore the deal is invalid.

One thing that makes me think that is that Boise's ire wasn't triggered until the MW commissioner made that statement about ending the $1.8m bonus in 2026. IIRC Boise publicly objected to that, not the real issue, the enhanced bonus. I bet they were stewing over not getting a bigger bonus to begin with, but they were going to eat that, but this public announcement about ending it entirely was too much for their ego. That's when they replied. All the public talk was about ending the $1.8m in 2026 - and that is purely ego related, as it has zero to do with dollars now or even the next five years. The real issue that is in play now is the Boise desire for a boost to their bonus.

That said, like you, I think what is most likely to happen is that a deal is being hammered out, probably as we speak, and that deal will come to fruition, with Boise remaining in the MW but also getting a boost on that $1.8m bonus.

But I am not sure that will happen. It's possible that an impasse could be reached, there does seem to be some evidence that the other MW members are fed up with escalating Boise demands, and the public nature of the spat has now created a "loss of face" situation for both sides, which tends to harden everyone's position. Kind of like how AAC officials bristled at the notion of UConn keeping their football in the AAC after announcing they were leaving for the Big East.

If that happens then it could get very messy and who knows what the result will be and where Boise will end up.

We shall see.

I dont think Thompson was the problem. Again, the law suit tells us what we need to know. I suspect the MW presidents drove this decision. Two MW presidents voted to end the Boise special deal IMMEDIATELY (an obvious violation of the agreement). All the presidents (other than Boise) voted to end it when the new CBS/FOX deal expires (again, a violation of the term sheet).

Seems obvious to me the presidents are sick of the deal, believe it should end, and apparently were not willing to allow the term sheet from interfering with the new FOX/CBS deal. Ignoring Boise's lack of consent is perfectly congruent with the other two votes that we know occurred (as Thompson's comments about ending the Boise special deal basically confirm that these conference votes alleged by Boise actually occurred). I have little doubt that Boise never gave the MW its consent. The law suit is calling the MW presidents bluff. Here is the thing---the lawsuit has no value as a negotiating tool unless Boise never gave its consent---which is why I suspect they, in fact, did not give their consent. If you notice--the MW has not denied any claim in the suit.

The way I see it---the purpose of the MW presidents accepting the deal without Boise's consent was to remove the Boise ability to hold the leagues tv deal hostage until the Boise "bonus" increase demands were satisfied by the league. The purpose of the law suit is to reinstate Boise's leverage.

The MWC Presidents ended the deal because the value didn’t happen as anticipated. They gave additional revenue on the assumption Boise would replace the lost revenue with Access Bowl dollars. Those never materialized. Boise made the Access bowl earlier and hasn’t been back in quite some time.

Boise is a small market with limited recruiting.... one of the MWC’s smallest markets. At 100 only Reno and Cheyanne are smaller. Even Fresno who many dismiss as a smaller market is 54. Performance wise Boise is trending down. You don’t see many on the MWC board too concerned with losing them.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - SoCalBobcat78 - 01-25-2020 02:36 AM

(01-25-2020 01:16 AM)B easy Wrote:  
(01-25-2020 12:43 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  
(01-24-2020 06:42 PM)ken d Wrote:  Take Boise and SDSU out of the MWC, and that league is probably not worth more than $20 million. It's no better than the Sun Belt or CUSA. But that's not the same thing as saying that those two as independents would be worth $25 million combined. They probably wouldn't, IMO. Fact is the total value of the 12 schools would likely be less if they were to split up. Each side needs the other.

San Diego State is not leaving the MWC. I suspect that SDSU was one of the two schools trying to end the Boise State bonus. This is all about Boise State football. They want more revenue and at least two schools want revenue distribution to be equal among the schools. I think they will come to an agreement, but if I am wrong it will only be Boise State leaving. SDSU complains about travel within the MWC. The last thing they want to do is travel even further East.

SDSU originally joined the Big East back in 2012 then they reluctantly returned back to the MWC only after BSU left. It seemed they were pretty gung-ho about moving on from the MWC back then when the opportunity presented itself. What's changed since then?

The move to the Big East in 2012 was for more TV revenue ($5 million est.), to an AQ conference and with the hope of creating a national brand. It was for football only, but there was going to be two home and two road games against Big East basketball schools. The AAC is just a G5 conference these days.

Right now, SDSU is the best athletic program in the MWC. They have had ten straight winning seasons in football and ten consecutive bowl appearances. They have five wins in the last four seasons vs Pac-12 schools (Cal, Stanford, UCLA and Arizona State twice). They are 3-3 versus Boise State, with a 19-13 win at Boise in 2018. SDSU has only played Boise State six times in football.

They are about to make their 8th NCAA tournament basketball appearance in the past 11 seasons. They have won the MWC post-season baseball tournament 5 of the past 7 seasons. I think they have probably reached a point where they look at Boise State and think they are no better than us.
I still think these schools need each other and will work out a deal, but BSU has been put on notice.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - BruceMcF - 01-25-2020 04:49 AM

Yeah, it seems like the ambit claim for Boise State is for a pro-rata increase in their bonus, plus the promises they were offered when they agreed to cancel their move to the attempted "Big East of Reno" locked in place for perpetuity ... while the ambit claim for the MWC is whatever "proportional" (but not pro-rata) increase they offered, and perhaps some kind of transition to a bonus system based on ongoing performance with no school-specific guarantees.

Odds are the final outcome will be somewhere in between those two ambit claims, but the "more exciting" outcome is if negotiations break down, so speculation about what will happen if negotiations break down and Boise State makes a run for it will proceed without much interruption until and unless the agreed resolution of the negotiation is announced.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - DavidSt - 01-25-2020 04:51 AM

(01-25-2020 02:11 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  
(01-24-2020 02:59 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-24-2020 12:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-24-2020 11:34 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-23-2020 07:13 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  That statement, describing FOX as their "new partner" seems to imply that Boise did agree to the TV deal that was negotiated on their behalf by the MWC.

If so, they really don't have any grounds for their complaint, as the MWC vote to end paying them the bonus in 2025 seems irrelevant until the MWC actually misses a payment.

For all we know that quote was created by a low level athletic department communications official when the expectation was that the MW would forward over the relevant info on the deal and, if it contained what they were being told, Boise would then sign off. They never sent the info—or they did—-and the deal didn’t match the promises.

Here is what I think is really going on. Boise never accepted the deal. The law suit spells out the particulars and you can see the Boise strategy if you read between the lines. The Boise strategy was to delay acceptance, using their contract veto power as a lever to force the MW to bump up their bonus to reflect the proportional increase in the new deal. When the MW accepted the deal without Boise consent, they took away Boise’s leverage—but in doing so—violated the Boise term sheet agreement.

Unless the MW can produce a signature showing that Boise signed off on the deal, then the MW clearly violated the agreement and will lose in court. Thus, this will be settled with the MW issuing a statement that the Boise bonus is increasing to “X” (that’s negotiable and will likely be less than the proportional increase Boise wants) and that the “Boise bonus” is a permanent fixture in the leagues media structure which can only be altered or eliminated by mutual agreement of both parties. Boise will probably make moving noises right up to the time that the bluff turns real—-which is the exact moment the MW will fold and give Boise most all of what they want. That’s been the pattern in the past.

I think the end result is Boise doesn’t move, but sets up a landscape in which it’s possible for the AAC to pick off an unhappy eastern member of the MW as an all sports addition (or possibly AF as a football only)l. I don’t think the math works for Boise. It does for certain other members.

Yes, as I said far back in the post, the onus is on the MW to produce evidence that Boise signed off on their segment of the deal.

But I suspect they have that evidence. The MW commissioner doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who wouldn't know something basic like Boise having to agree to their portion of the deal, and wouldn't make a statement announcing the deal unless the deal really was done in all respects. I suspect Boise screwed up and agreed to the deal without having made sure they were getting a bigger bonus. The complaint is about trying to undo that mistake and get the bigger bonus. IMO that's why there is fuzzy language in the complaint about Boise not being given all the specifics and MW officials not following through on alleged pledges to get the Board to agree to a bonus increase. That strikes me as Boise trying to say there was bad faith on the part of the MW and therefore the deal is invalid.

One thing that makes me think that is that Boise's ire wasn't triggered until the MW commissioner made that statement about ending the $1.8m bonus in 2026. IIRC Boise publicly objected to that, not the real issue, the enhanced bonus. I bet they were stewing over not getting a bigger bonus to begin with, but they were going to eat that, but this public announcement about ending it entirely was too much for their ego. That's when they replied. All the public talk was about ending the $1.8m in 2026 - and that is purely ego related, as it has zero to do with dollars now or even the next five years. The real issue that is in play now is the Boise desire for a boost to their bonus.

That said, like you, I think what is most likely to happen is that a deal is being hammered out, probably as we speak, and that deal will come to fruition, with Boise remaining in the MW but also getting a boost on that $1.8m bonus.

But I am not sure that will happen. It's possible that an impasse could be reached, there does seem to be some evidence that the other MW members are fed up with escalating Boise demands, and the public nature of the spat has now created a "loss of face" situation for both sides, which tends to harden everyone's position. Kind of like how AAC officials bristled at the notion of UConn keeping their football in the AAC after announcing they were leaving for the Big East.

If that happens then it could get very messy and who knows what the result will be and where Boise will end up.

We shall see.

I dont think Thompson was the problem. Again, the law suit tells us what we need to know. I suspect the MW presidents drove this decision. Two MW presidents voted to end the Boise special deal IMMEDIATELY (an obvious violation of the agreement). All the presidents (other than Boise) voted to end it when the new CBS/FOX deal expires (again, a violation of the term sheet).

Seems obvious to me the presidents are sick of the deal, believe it should end, and apparently were not willing to allow the term sheet from interfering with the new FOX/CBS deal. Ignoring Boise's lack of consent is perfectly congruent with the other two votes that we know occurred (as Thompson's comments about ending the Boise special deal basically confirm that these conference votes alleged by Boise actually occurred). I have little doubt that Boise never gave the MW its consent. The law suit is calling the MW presidents bluff. Here is the thing---the lawsuit has no value as a negotiating tool unless Boise never gave its consent---which is why I suspect they, in fact, did not give their consent. If you notice--the MW has not denied any claim in the suit.

The way I see it---the purpose of the MW presidents accepting the deal without Boise's consent was to remove the Boise ability to hold the leagues tv deal hostage until the Boise "bonus" increase demands were satisfied by the league. The purpose of the law suit is to reinstate Boise's leverage.

The MWC Presidents ended the deal because the value didn’t happen as anticipated. They gave additional revenue on the assumption Boise would replace the lost revenue with Access Bowl dollars. Those never materialized. Boise made the Access bowl earlier and hasn’t been back in quite some time.

Boise is a small market with limited recruiting.... one of the MWC’s smallest markets. At 100 only Reno and Cheyanne are smaller. Even Fresno who many dismiss as a smaller market is 54. Performance wise Boise is trending down. You don’t see many on the MWC board too concerned with losing them.


They are not trending down. They are still playing the same with the wins. They are still number one since 2000 with the win percentage. AAC schools have been a yo-yo with their win/lost records. Next year Memphis would be down in wins with a new coach. UCF is rebuilding. Houston keeps losing their coaches. How long SMU keep winning? Navy turned from a losing season to winning last year. Temple are trending downward. Boise State gets more viewers than the population of their state when they are on ESPN. That is the key word here. Boise gets better exposure on ESPN, and MWC is kicking themselves in the butt for what they are doing. No ESPN? No exposure to get better players. ESPN is in more households than Fox and CBS Sports. Boise State goes independent? They are opened to play more P5 schools, and could get more money than the MWC deal from ESPN to show home games against P5 schools. Imagine Boise State plays Washington, Oregon, Oregon State, Washington State, BYU and Utah in the same year?


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - slhNavy91 - 01-25-2020 09:18 AM

(01-25-2020 04:51 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  
(01-25-2020 02:11 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  
(01-24-2020 02:59 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-24-2020 12:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-24-2020 11:34 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  For all we know that quote was created by a low level athletic department communications official when the expectation was that the MW would forward over the relevant info on the deal and, if it contained what they were being told, Boise would then sign off. They never sent the info—or they did—-and the deal didn’t match the promises.

Here is what I think is really going on. Boise never accepted the deal. The law suit spells out the particulars and you can see the Boise strategy if you read between the lines. The Boise strategy was to delay acceptance, using their contract veto power as a lever to force the MW to bump up their bonus to reflect the proportional increase in the new deal. When the MW accepted the deal without Boise consent, they took away Boise’s leverage—but in doing so—violated the Boise term sheet agreement.

Unless the MW can produce a signature showing that Boise signed off on the deal, then the MW clearly violated the agreement and will lose in court. Thus, this will be settled with the MW issuing a statement that the Boise bonus is increasing to “X” (that’s negotiable and will likely be less than the proportional increase Boise wants) and that the “Boise bonus” is a permanent fixture in the leagues media structure which can only be altered or eliminated by mutual agreement of both parties. Boise will probably make moving noises right up to the time that the bluff turns real—-which is the exact moment the MW will fold and give Boise most all of what they want. That’s been the pattern in the past.

I think the end result is Boise doesn’t move, but sets up a landscape in which it’s possible for the AAC to pick off an unhappy eastern member of the MW as an all sports addition (or possibly AF as a football only)l. I don’t think the math works for Boise. It does for certain other members.

Yes, as I said far back in the post, the onus is on the MW to produce evidence that Boise signed off on their segment of the deal.

But I suspect they have that evidence. The MW commissioner doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who wouldn't know something basic like Boise having to agree to their portion of the deal, and wouldn't make a statement announcing the deal unless the deal really was done in all respects. I suspect Boise screwed up and agreed to the deal without having made sure they were getting a bigger bonus. The complaint is about trying to undo that mistake and get the bigger bonus. IMO that's why there is fuzzy language in the complaint about Boise not being given all the specifics and MW officials not following through on alleged pledges to get the Board to agree to a bonus increase. That strikes me as Boise trying to say there was bad faith on the part of the MW and therefore the deal is invalid.

One thing that makes me think that is that Boise's ire wasn't triggered until the MW commissioner made that statement about ending the $1.8m bonus in 2026. IIRC Boise publicly objected to that, not the real issue, the enhanced bonus. I bet they were stewing over not getting a bigger bonus to begin with, but they were going to eat that, but this public announcement about ending it entirely was too much for their ego. That's when they replied. All the public talk was about ending the $1.8m in 2026 - and that is purely ego related, as it has zero to do with dollars now or even the next five years. The real issue that is in play now is the Boise desire for a boost to their bonus.

That said, like you, I think what is most likely to happen is that a deal is being hammered out, probably as we speak, and that deal will come to fruition, with Boise remaining in the MW but also getting a boost on that $1.8m bonus.

But I am not sure that will happen. It's possible that an impasse could be reached, there does seem to be some evidence that the other MW members are fed up with escalating Boise demands, and the public nature of the spat has now created a "loss of face" situation for both sides, which tends to harden everyone's position. Kind of like how AAC officials bristled at the notion of UConn keeping their football in the AAC after announcing they were leaving for the Big East.

If that happens then it could get very messy and who knows what the result will be and where Boise will end up.

We shall see.

I dont think Thompson was the problem. Again, the law suit tells us what we need to know. I suspect the MW presidents drove this decision. Two MW presidents voted to end the Boise special deal IMMEDIATELY (an obvious violation of the agreement). All the presidents (other than Boise) voted to end it when the new CBS/FOX deal expires (again, a violation of the term sheet).

Seems obvious to me the presidents are sick of the deal, believe it should end, and apparently were not willing to allow the term sheet from interfering with the new FOX/CBS deal. Ignoring Boise's lack of consent is perfectly congruent with the other two votes that we know occurred (as Thompson's comments about ending the Boise special deal basically confirm that these conference votes alleged by Boise actually occurred). I have little doubt that Boise never gave the MW its consent. The law suit is calling the MW presidents bluff. Here is the thing---the lawsuit has no value as a negotiating tool unless Boise never gave its consent---which is why I suspect they, in fact, did not give their consent. If you notice--the MW has not denied any claim in the suit.

The way I see it---the purpose of the MW presidents accepting the deal without Boise's consent was to remove the Boise ability to hold the leagues tv deal hostage until the Boise "bonus" increase demands were satisfied by the league. The purpose of the law suit is to reinstate Boise's leverage.

The MWC Presidents ended the deal because the value didn’t happen as anticipated. They gave additional revenue on the assumption Boise would replace the lost revenue with Access Bowl dollars. Those never materialized. Boise made the Access bowl earlier and hasn’t been back in quite some time.

Boise is a small market with limited recruiting.... one of the MWC’s smallest markets. At 100 only Reno and Cheyanne are smaller. Even Fresno who many dismiss as a smaller market is 54. Performance wise Boise is trending down. You don’t see many on the MWC board too concerned with losing them.


They are not trending down. They are still playing the same with the wins. They are still number one since 2000 with the win percentage. AAC schools have been a yo-yo with their win/lost records. Next year Memphis would be down in wins with a new coach. UCF is rebuilding. Houston keeps losing their coaches. How long SMU keep winning? Navy turned from a losing season to winning last year. Temple are trending downward. Boise State gets more viewers than the population of their state when they are on ESPN. That is the key word here. Boise gets better exposure on ESPN, and MWC is kicking themselves in the butt for what they are doing. No ESPN? No exposure to get better players. ESPN is in more households than Fox and CBS Sports. Boise State goes independent? They are opened to play more P5 schools, and could get more money than the MWC deal from ESPN to show home games against P5 schools. Imagine Boise State plays Washington, Oregon, Oregon State, Washington State, BYU and Utah in the same year?

Little bit of a "Germans bombed Pearl Harbor" moment with the bolded.
The population of Idaho is 1.754 million people.
In 2019, the best viewed Boise state game was Marshall at Boise State, 1.380 million viewers.
In 2018, the best viewed Boise state game in the inventory controlled by the conference was Utah State at Boise State 1.078 million viewers (Boise's away game at Oklahoma State was better but still short of the population of Idaho.)
In 2017, Boise had a "P5" home game vs UVA...1.324 million viewers/streamers.

In each of those years four to six different AAC teams were in conference-controlled games that drew more viewers than Boise State's best - saying Boise State isn't THAT big a deal isn't vindictive or anything, it is just factual.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - quo vadis - 01-25-2020 09:36 AM

(01-25-2020 02:11 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  The MWC Presidents ended the deal because the value didn’t happen as anticipated. They gave additional revenue on the assumption Boise would replace the lost revenue with Access Bowl dollars. Those never materialized. Boise made the Access bowl earlier and hasn’t been back in quite some time.

They should have thought about that possibility before signing a deal with Boise that guarantees them that bonus in perpetuity.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - IWokeUpLikeThis - 01-25-2020 10:15 AM

Boise’s market isn’t just Boise. Boise is a national program with devout followers across the nation including outposts like Arkansas.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - quo vadis - 01-25-2020 10:18 AM

(01-25-2020 10:15 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Boise’s market isn’t just Boise. Boise is a national program with devout followers across the nation including outposts like Arkansas.

No question, Boise is like BYU in that they have built a national brand that draws viewers. Problem is, like BYU, they think they are more than they are. They aren't Notre Dame or USC in that respect, but seem to act like they are.

BYU has become more humble the last 6-7 years, as reality in the form of the cold shower of Utah to the PAC while they flounder in Independence has sunk in. Boise still has a fresh Prima Donna patina on them.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - Stugray2 - 01-25-2020 12:18 PM

(01-22-2020 02:47 PM)Wedge Wrote:  They have a contract. Boise State says the contract is important to them. The MWC commissioner said, "We are going to ignore this contract from now on." Presumably, lawyers told Boise State that if they just let those comments go, the MWC would take the position that Boise State agreed with Thompson's comments. And like pretty much all of these lawsuits, they filed it where they think the judges will be on their side.

So, this is not surprising at all.

Either the MWC wanted this to be fought out in court and they're getting their wish, or Thompson stepped in a big pile of doo-doo when he made those comments.

The latter


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - B easy - 01-25-2020 01:01 PM

(01-25-2020 09:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-25-2020 02:11 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  The MWC Presidents ended the deal because the value didn’t happen as anticipated. They gave additional revenue on the assumption Boise would replace the lost revenue with Access Bowl dollars. Those never materialized. Boise made the Access bowl earlier and hasn’t been back in quite some time.

They should have thought about that possibility before signing a deal with Boise that guarantees them that bonus in perpetuity.

Wouldn't the rule against perpetuities apply?

"No interest is good unless it must vest, if at all, not later than twenty-one years after some life in being at the creation of the interest."

— John Chipman Gray, Rule Against Perpetuities § 201.[2]

In most jurisdictions that utilize the common law “life in being” to measure the permitted vesting period, the measurement life is limited to the life of a human being, regardless of whether or not business entities are considered “persons” for other legal purposes (see, e.g., Metro. Transp. Auth. V. Bruken Realty Corp., 492 N.E.2d 379 (N.Y. 1986)).

https://business-finance-restructuring.weil.com/bankruptcy-beach-reading/the-rule-against-perpetuities-may-be-forgotten-but-it-should-not-be-ignored-it-may-still-affect-the-validity-of-your-deal/

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1113497?seq=1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_against_perpetuities


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - johnbragg - 01-25-2020 01:28 PM

(01-25-2020 01:01 PM)B easy Wrote:  
(01-25-2020 09:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-25-2020 02:11 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  The MWC Presidents ended the deal because the value didn’t happen as anticipated. They gave additional revenue on the assumption Boise would replace the lost revenue with Access Bowl dollars. Those never materialized. Boise made the Access bowl earlier and hasn’t been back in quite some time.

They should have thought about that possibility before signing a deal with Boise that guarantees them that bonus in perpetuity.

Wouldn't the rule against perpetuities apply?

"No interest is good unless it must vest, if at all, not later than twenty-one years after some life in being at the creation of the interest."

— John Chipman Gray, Rule Against Perpetuities § 201.[2]

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1113497?seq=1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_against_perpetuities

Looking at that wikipedia page, that's something involving wills. So, if it remotely applies, I suppose the Boise State TV veto clause would expire 21 years after the deaths of Craig "Hair" Thompson and Bob Kustra.

Ooh, and a couple of wikipedia paragraphs later, it's been abolished in Idaho, but enacted in Colorado.

But seriously I don't think that applies.

The provision looks to be perpetual until:
Case 1. Boise State and the Mountain West mutually agree to void and replace it (This would include Boise State leaving the MWC, under the MWC exit bylaws)

Case 2. Mountain West breaches the contract, voiding it, which would return Boise STate's home football television rights to Boise State.

Case 3. Boise State somehow breaching the contract--I can't think of an example of what Boise could plausibly or implausibly do to void the contract, but if they did, I guess the contract voids, Boise State gets their home TV rights back, and Boise probably owes the Mountain West monetary damages for whatever they did to breach the contract.

This is much less like trying to put permanent conditions on a bequest in a will ("No heir to this property will marry a godforsaken ginger") and more like the deal the owners of the Spirits of St Louis made when the NBA absorbed the ABA. The Spirits' owners sold their franchise to the NBA for a share of NBA TV revenue, and cashed checks until 2015 when the NBA finally bought them out for a huge lump sum.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - SoCalBobcat78 - 01-25-2020 01:55 PM

(01-25-2020 10:15 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Boise’s market isn’t just Boise. Boise is a national program with devout followers across the nation including outposts like Arkansas.

Boise State has a proven brand in football. If they are on TV, you are watching a quality football program. They made a profit in football in 2017-2018 of $8.6 million. It has been all good in football for them. I don't see it as a devout following, but as a a trusted brand in football. Outside of football, athletically and academically okay. Nothing special.

BYU football has slipped. They are still decent and have gone to bowl games in 14 of the last 15 seasons. They beat Boise State this season. But what BYU really has is a devout following. They have their own TV network. This season, they have 12 basketball games televised live on the BYU TV Network. They televise games in other Olympic sports as well. They compete in all sports. They just won a NCAA title in men's cross country.

They are also highly ranked academically. They have a strong foundation. Boise State has football. That is their foundation. BYU has an endowment of $1.7 billion. Boise State has an endowment of $107 million. They need to be real careful and not overplay their hand. There is a lot of risk in leaving the MWC.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - DavidSt - 01-25-2020 02:06 PM

(01-25-2020 01:55 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  
(01-25-2020 10:15 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Boise’s market isn’t just Boise. Boise is a national program with devout followers across the nation including outposts like Arkansas.

Boise State has a proven brand in football. If they are on TV, you are watching a quality football program. They made a profit in football in 2017-2018 of $8.6 million. It has been all good in football for them. I don't see it as a devout following, but as a a trusted brand in football. Outside of football, athletically and academically okay. Nothing special.

BYU football has slipped. They are still decent and have gone to bowl games in 14 of the last 15 seasons. They beat Boise State this season. But what BYU really has is a devout following. They have their own TV network. This season, they have 12 basketball games televised live on the BYU TV Network. They televise games in other Olympic sports as well. They compete in all sports. They just won a NCAA title in men's cross country.

They are also highly ranked academically. They have a strong foundation. Boise State has football. That is their foundation. BYU has an endowment of $1.7 billion. Boise State has an endowment of $107 million. They need to be real careful and not overplay their hand. There is a lot of risk in leaving the MWC.


MWC do not have another team that is like Boise State. They could fall behind both SBC and CUSA if Boise leaves.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - B easy - 01-25-2020 02:15 PM

(01-25-2020 01:28 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(01-25-2020 01:01 PM)B easy Wrote:  
(01-25-2020 09:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-25-2020 02:11 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  The MWC Presidents ended the deal because the value didn’t happen as anticipated. They gave additional revenue on the assumption Boise would replace the lost revenue with Access Bowl dollars. Those never materialized. Boise made the Access bowl earlier and hasn’t been back in quite some time.

They should have thought about that possibility before signing a deal with Boise that guarantees them that bonus in perpetuity.

Wouldn't the rule against perpetuities apply?

"No interest is good unless it must vest, if at all, not later than twenty-one years after some life in being at the creation of the interest."

— John Chipman Gray, Rule Against Perpetuities § 201.[2]

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1113497?seq=1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_against_perpetuities

Looking at that wikipedia page, that's something involving wills. So, if it remotely applies, I suppose the Boise State TV veto clause would expire 21 years after the deaths of Craig "Hair" Thompson and Bob Kustra.

Ooh, and a couple of wikipedia paragraphs later, it's been abolished in Idaho, but enacted in Colorado.


But seriously I don't think that applies.

The provision looks to be perpetual until:
Case 1. Boise State and the Mountain West mutually agree to void and replace it (This would include Boise State leaving the MWC, under the MWC exit bylaws)

Case 2. Mountain West breaches the contract, voiding it, which would return Boise STate's home football television rights to Boise State.

Case 3. Boise State somehow breaching the contract--I can't think of an example of what Boise could plausibly or implausibly do to void the contract, but if they did, I guess the contract voids, Boise State gets their home TV rights back, and Boise probably owes the Mountain West monetary damages for whatever they did to breach the contract.

This is much less like trying to put permanent conditions on a bequest in a will ("No heir to this property will marry a godforsaken ginger") and more like the deal the owners of the Spirits of St Louis made when the NBA absorbed the ABA. The Spirits' owners sold their franchise to the NBA for a share of NBA TV revenue, and cashed checks until 2015 when the NBA finally bought them out for a huge lump sum.


It usually applies to wills and was originally created because of public policy concerns regarding the 'dead hand' controlling interests far into the future. However, it can also apply to contracts as well, particularly option contracts. The key is that the interest must vest no later than within 21 years of any life in being at the creation of the interest. It's actually a lot more confusing than it may 1st appear. For instance, review the unborn widow rule or fertile octogenarian example to truly understand how this rule can cause serious consequences if the language is not drafted appropriately.

So the question is whether any part of the contract violates the rule against perpetuities and if so those clauses could be voided all together as a result.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illustrations_of_the_rule_against_perpetuities#The_fertile_octogenarian

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illustrations_of_the_rule_against_perpetuities#The_unborn_widow

It is also significant that Colorado is the head quarters of the conference.