(02-07-2020 04:33 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(02-07-2020 12:46 PM)Wedge Wrote:  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."

Neither does Boise State. They are both in the same boat. Boise State is right about the current agreement, but long term the agreement needs to change. San Diego State has some legitimate gripes about the contract:

1. San Diego State has the best athletic program in the MWC.
2. SDSU has been to 10 straight bowl games.
3. Boise State owns a winning record in football against every MWC school in football except SDSU (3-3).
4. Boise State is recruiting in their neighborhood. SDSU is not spending much time in Idaho recruiting.
5. As Wedge pointed out, TV exposure favors Boise State. That is written into the contract.

I believe that the smart move was always to extend the agreement to 2026 and then it end at that point. Eventually, other schools are going to catch up in football and additional revenue should be rewarded on performance. Everybody should be treated equally.