(01-22-2020 04:00 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  I'm going to put on my tin foil hat here for a minute.

Could this be being encouraged by the AAC & ESPN to try and get Boise on as the 12th member of the AAC in football? I mean, it's not the craziest thing that's been said on here.

The fact that Boise has been so aggressive, it almost seems like they are trying to blow things up. The timing of the AAC needing a member makes sense.

I think that is spot on.... makes a lot of sense.

boise to 12

move either tulane or memphs west

done

(01-22-2020 03:34 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 03:22 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  Developing story from Idaho Statesman:

https://www.idahostatesman.com/sports/co...33543.html

In sum:
The MWC is in breach of contract with Boise St by signing the contract without approval of Boise St.

The MWC broke a deal made in 2013 by ending two benefits - including an $1.8 million bonus per year.

Except for the fact that the term sheet includes a clause that the 90m threshold must be reached. The bonus pay outs are obviously negotiable because BSU already did renegotiate them.

At best Boise has two arguements:

1. They didn't approve the deal. That's a big one, but the MWC could simply release them and then Boise can try to find a landing spot. Of course not a lot of P5 teams will be lining up to fill a Boise schedule and they will have a hard time ever getting a ny6 bowl again (which will be a rare opportunity anyway, the AAC has a lock for the next 5-6 years).

2. They deserve the 1.8 bonus. They can't reasonably argue for a higher bonus legally, but they could argue they get the extra pay.

MWC will likely return Boise's rights and give them the boot. Boise will rot in independence. Contracts are made to be ended, broken, or dissolved. Boise has made its bed, it will get a minor pay out and then slowly die trying to make an Army, NMST, BYU, and Liberty Nov schedule look appealing, while doing four or five buy games to the PAC in Septemeber and playing an FCS team and UTEP or someone similar in Oct with a buy week.

As I said before, they have no right to more money per the agreement. However, they CAN use their rights within the agreement (the right of refusal) as a lever to negotiate a bigger bonus. The MW has a huge problem because they absolutely ignored the Boise refusal to sign off on the deal.

(01-22-2020 04:06 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 04:00 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  I'm going to put on my tin foil hat here for a minute.

Could this be being encouraged by the AAC & ESPN to try and get Boise on as the 12th member of the AAC in football? I mean, it's not the craziest thing that's been said on here.

The fact that Boise has been so aggressive, it almost seems like they are trying to blow things up. The timing of the AAC needing a member makes sense.

no, that new deal outside of money is gold for Boise...
the aac contract has top teams get the best tv slots...the mwc contract has boise getting the top tv slots no matter how good or bad they are

they are getting a minimum of 6 fs1/fox games a year (every home game)..and most likely 2 or 3 cbs games a year as away games

i dont think boise is being aggressive because they want out..i think they are being aggressive because the tv deal has embolden them to think they are worth gold, this deal made them kings in their own eyes

Maybe, and I'm certainly playing out in left field a bit, but I think that adding Boise would add value to the TV deal. Their football properties are so much more valuable than UConn's it's not even funny. Basketball is obviously a factor, but it's clear a lot of the AAC's tv deal value was in football.

If Boise is able to add to the AAC's TV deal, it would make them more money to move. No bonus payment from the MWC can match what the AAC can offer. Now, you are right that it comes with exposure risk, but given that Boise would have a unique timeslot, I'd think they end up often on ESPN main channels unless they were really having a bad year.

People may not want them, and I get it, but it's a possible win/win. Obviously, any special deal for them is out of the question, so they'd have to check their egos at the door.

This whole fiasco is why unequal revenue sharing never works. It always blows up. You just have to be picky about who joins the conference, not enact a class system once you have one.

(01-22-2020 04:14 PM)mtmedlin Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 04:00 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  I'm going to put on my tin foil hat here for a minute.

Could this be being encouraged by the AAC & ESPN to try and get Boise on as the 12th member of the AAC in football? I mean, it's not the craziest thing that's been said on here.

The fact that Boise has been so aggressive, it almost seems like they are trying to blow things up. The timing of the AAC needing a member makes sense.

I think that is spot on.... makes a lot of sense.

I dont think it is. I think its just Boise being Boise. However, if I were to don the tin foil hat, I would say that if the MW is in breach of the term sheet----and since this document controls Boise's membership to the MW---its certainly possible Boise can now argue that due to the failure of the MW to comply with the terms of the "special deal" Boise has the right to walk away from the MW without penalty or exit fees.

Add Boise as a full member. Add VCU too. Be P6. Use the additions as an opportunity to tweak the contract. A bit more money and shorten the term a bit. My work is done here.

(01-22-2020 04:24 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 04:14 PM)mtmedlin Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 04:00 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  I'm going to put on my tin foil hat here for a minute.

Could this be being encouraged by the AAC & ESPN to try and get Boise on as the 12th member of the AAC in football? I mean, it's not the craziest thing that's been said on here.

The fact that Boise has been so aggressive, it almost seems like they are trying to blow things up. The timing of the AAC needing a member makes sense.

I think that is spot on.... makes a lot of sense.

I dont think it is. I think its just Boise being Boise. However, if I were to don the tin foil hat, I would say that if the MW is in breach of the term sheet----and since this document controls Boise's membership to the MW---its certainly possible Boise can now argue that due to the failure of the MW to comply with the terms of the "special deal" Boise has the right to walk away from the MW without penalty or exit fees.

Add Boise as a full member. Add VCU too. Be P6. Use the additions as an opportunity to tweak the contract. A bit more money and shorten the term a bit. My work is done here.

Go Big

VCU
Boise
AFA
CSU

(01-22-2020 04:30 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 04:24 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 04:14 PM)mtmedlin Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 04:00 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  I'm going to put on my tin foil hat here for a minute.

Could this be being encouraged by the AAC & ESPN to try and get Boise on as the 12th member of the AAC in football? I mean, it's not the craziest thing that's been said on here.

The fact that Boise has been so aggressive, it almost seems like they are trying to blow things up. The timing of the AAC needing a member makes sense.

I think that is spot on.... makes a lot of sense.

I dont think it is. I think its just Boise being Boise. However, if I were to don the tin foil hat, I would say that if the MW is in breach of the term sheet----and since this document controls Boise's membership to the MW---its certainly possible Boise can now argue that due to the failure of the MW to comply with the terms of the "special deal" Boise has the right to walk away from the MW without penalty or exit fees.

Add Boise as a full member. Add VCU too. Be P6. Use the additions as an opportunity to tweak the contract. A bit more money and shorten the term a bit. My work is done here.

Go Big

VCU
Boise
AFA
CSU

Only reason to water this down with AFA or CSU is if you somehow lured in both Boise and BYU and just needed a head to round it out. But don't need anyone else if Boise would make 12 for football.

(01-22-2020 04:30 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 04:24 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 04:14 PM)mtmedlin Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 04:00 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  I'm going to put on my tin foil hat here for a minute.

Could this be being encouraged by the AAC & ESPN to try and get Boise on as the 12th member of the AAC in football? I mean, it's not the craziest thing that's been said on here.

The fact that Boise has been so aggressive, it almost seems like they are trying to blow things up. The timing of the AAC needing a member makes sense.

I think that is spot on.... makes a lot of sense.

I dont think it is. I think its just Boise being Boise. However, if I were to don the tin foil hat, I would say that if the MW is in breach of the term sheet----and since this document controls Boise's membership to the MW---its certainly possible Boise can now argue that due to the failure of the MW to comply with the terms of the "special deal" Boise has the right to walk away from the MW without penalty or exit fees.

Add Boise as a full member. Add VCU too. Be P6. Use the additions as an opportunity to tweak the contract. A bit more money and shorten the term a bit. My work is done here.

Go Big

VCU
Boise
AFA
CSU

Lulz

Boise
SDSU
BYU

Gonzaga b-ball only
Pay me

I want no part of Boise in the AAC. They had their shot and they blew it.

Boise has NO tv value if no one wants to play them. They would have a horrible home schedule if they went independent. It's hard enough to get one or two decent home and home series every year. Things don't always end well when you go straight to litigation (see UCONN vs the ACC).

2 years ago it was UCF that deserved more, this past season it waws Memphis, in 2015 it was Houston... Most consistent is Navy... Do we hand out special contracts to all???

BSU is a solid no, they sued the BIG EAST after they reneged on their deal in order to avoid paying exit fees... see any patterns here??

NO TO BSU

(01-22-2020 04:46 PM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  2 years ago it was UCF that deserved more, this past season it waws Memphis, in 2015 it was Houston... Most consistent is Navy... Do we hand out special contracts to all???

BSU is a solid no, they sued the BIG EAST after they reneged on their deal in order to avoid paying exit fees... see any patterns here??

NO TO BSU

Isn't the common thread that conferences aren't honoring their deals?

(01-22-2020 03:00 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  So, the MW deal has no actual rights to the home games despite being paid for those home games. Lol...what a mess. One thing is clear—the concept that the potential for Boise having big issues with the MW doesn’t start until after this deal ends is FALSE. Boise has issues with the MW RIGHT NOW.

Knowing the Boise administrations mode of operation, I guarantee they have sent out feelers to the AAC.

This is not a surprising development. I also believe the AAC had already been reaching out to Boise so they wouldn't have any need to send feeders. If anything, the AAC has picked up the phone and said, "hey Boo, what's happening out in your neck of the woods?" Lol

(01-22-2020 04:08 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 03:41 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 03:38 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 03:23 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 03:20 PM)vick mike Wrote:  Didn’t want Boise then.
Don’t want Boise now.
Won’t want Boise ever.

I want them and any other MWC school under a deal offering a net financial and performance benefit to current AAC members (sans UConn).

Oh the **** show has only begun. My guess is we snag Air Force for FB, then try entice BYU with CSU for 14 and a more compact and Texas focused west. Slide Memphis, Tulane to the east. Colorado, Oklahoma, Texas isn't a bad little footprint even with Maryland as the outlier.

No to two triple option teams in the west.

I was told in July of 2015 that the option was simple to defend, and all the other teams would figure it out.
After the 2018 season, I was assured that this had occurred.

Most don’t want two option teams due to injury risk for defenses moreso than W/L probability Vs these teams.

Mickey Mouse got the cold shoulder from the MW, and Mickey be like "oh really you want some, huh?".

You have to cut ESPN a piece of the action or this is what happens.

(01-22-2020 04:48 PM)Stickboy46 Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 04:46 PM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  2 years ago it was UCF that deserved more, this past season it waws Memphis, in 2015 it was Houston... Most consistent is Navy... Do we hand out special contracts to all???

BSU is a solid no, they sued the BIG EAST after they reneged on their deal in order to avoid paying exit fees... see any patterns here??

NO TO BSU

Isn't the common thread that conferences aren't honoring their deals?

It is in today's environment, but it doesen't mean that the AAC is going to pretend that 2012 never existed and give BSU more than UCF, ECU or any AAC member.

(01-22-2020 05:12 PM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 04:48 PM)Stickboy46 Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 04:46 PM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  2 years ago it was UCF that deserved more, this past season it waws Memphis, in 2015 it was Houston... Most consistent is Navy... Do we hand out special contracts to all???

BSU is a solid no, they sued the BIG EAST after they reneged on their deal in order to avoid paying exit fees... see any patterns here??

NO TO BSU

Isn't the common thread that conferences aren't honoring their deals?

It is in today's environment, but it doesen't mean that the AAC is going to pretend that 2012 never existed and give BSU more than UCF, ECU or any AAC member.

No never said that. Just saying that if Boise agrees to an agreement that has no special clauses to them, then the risk to the AAC is drastically lowered. Boise might be realizing that without (or even with) special treatment by the MWC, then a standard agreement with the AAC could be better long term.

(01-22-2020 03:22 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 03:20 PM)vick mike Wrote:  Didn’t want Boise then.
Don’t want Boise now.
Won’t want Boise ever.

Bearcats#1 wants you to rewrite that in a Haiku format

They must not like Hair
Couldn't just work something out
Boise to Big West

Haiku format is 5-7-5

BSU to the Fun Belt.

(01-22-2020 05:17 PM)Stickboy46 Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 05:12 PM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 04:48 PM)Stickboy46 Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 04:46 PM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  2 years ago it was UCF that deserved more, this past season it waws Memphis, in 2015 it was Houston... Most consistent is Navy... Do we hand out special contracts to all???

BSU is a solid no, they sued the BIG EAST after they reneged on their deal in order to avoid paying exit fees... see any patterns here??

NO TO BSU

Isn't the common thread that conferences aren't honoring their deals?

It is in today's environment, but it doesen't mean that the AAC is going to pretend that 2012 never existed and give BSU more than UCF, ECU or any AAC member.

No never said that. Just saying that if Boise agrees to an agreement that has no special clauses to them, then the risk to the AAC is drastically lowered. Boise might be realizing that without (or even with) special treatment by the MWC, then a standard agreement with the AAC could be better long term.

That might turn out to be true, but they can also turn out to be like West Virginia and Rutgers and start looking for a way out as soon as they join.