(01-27-2020 02:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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