(01-27-2020 12:33 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 12:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 12:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 11:59 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 11:02 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  That was settled in 2012. The Mountain West signed the deal.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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