Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC
Author Message
sierrajip Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,221
Joined: May 2011
Reputation: 85
I Root For: UCF
Location:
Post: #381
RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC
No matter how how look at this, the AAC is is in a much greater position as far as a conference. Navy has a separate contract with CBS, but the real major players (no offence to Navy), UCF, Memphis, UC, and UH, have a much better position than the MWC. Good luck BSU and the MWC. They will need it unless ESPiN gets involved. G4 MWC.
02-08-2020 06:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 33,693
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 888
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #382
RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC
(02-08-2020 06:47 AM)sierrajip Wrote:  No matter how how look at this, the AAC is is in a much greater position as far as a conference. Navy has a separate contract with CBS, but the real major players (no offence to Navy), UCF, Memphis, UC, and UH, have a much better position than the MWC. Good luck BSU and the MWC. They will need it unless ESPiN gets involved. G4 MWC.

I agree the AAC is clearly in a better position. Its school will be making $7m a year starting next year compared to $4m for the MW. And, the AAC has finished ahead of the AAC in the football rankings 4 times out of 6 so far.

But on the other hand, that's also kind of like having the longest banana under 4 inches.
(This post was last modified: 02-08-2020 12:02 PM by quo vadis.)
02-08-2020 08:33 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
johnbragg Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 9,782
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 353
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #383
RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC
(02-07-2020 01:43 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  
(02-07-2020 12:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-07-2020 12:33 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  
(02-07-2020 12:27 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-07-2020 12:07 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  So BSU might have received word that the AAC wasn’t interested in BSU and/or BSU couldn’t find a decent landing spot for the Olympic sports.
Hence both backed off and postponed in 5 years.

I dont think so. Boise didnt cave---the MW did. I mean, Boise didnt get an increase in their bonus---but they never had much of a true legal right to an increase. On the hand, everywhere the law favored them---the MW caved. Which begs the question---Why make such determined divisive push for this in the MW meetings if your just going to cave in a few days? Again---the whole episode just seems odd. I just cant figure out what the MW presidents were thinking.

Don’t think they caved....just postponed.

Perhaps---but this would further undermine any attempt to do the same thing later as this is now the THIRD time the MW has acknowledged and agreed to the terms of the deal.
Well, the one victory the MW got was no proportional increase in the bonus that BSU was wanting.

Lesson learned is to fight just before the contract ends not when it hasn’t started.

Why would the MWC have had more leverage, say, a year ago?
02-08-2020 09:08 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SoCalBobcat78 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,882
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 67
I Root For: TXST, UCLA, CBU
Location:
Post: #384
RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC
(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.
02-08-2020 03:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
sierrajip Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,221
Joined: May 2011
Reputation: 85
I Root For: UCF
Location:
Post: #385
RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC
(02-08-2020 08:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(02-08-2020 06:47 AM)sierrajip Wrote:  No matter how how look at this, the AAC is is in a much greater position as far as a conference. Navy has a separate contract with CBS, but the real major players (no offence to Navy), UCF, Memphis, UC, and UH, have a much better position than the MWC. Good luck BSU and the MWC. They will need it unless ESPiN gets involved. G4 MWC.

I agree the AAC is clearly in a better position. Its school will be making $7m a year starting next year compared to $4m for the MW. And, the AAC has finished ahead of the AAC in the football rankings 4 times out of 6 so far.

But on the other hand, that's also kind of like having the longest banana under 4 inches.

Gotta stay positive.
02-08-2020 11:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stever20 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 37,096
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 375
I Root For: College Sports
Location:
Post: #386
RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC
(02-08-2020 03:14 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  
(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.

It's clear as day though that the MWC has no mechanism to change the agreement though.... The MWC sold their soul to the Devil back in 2012.
02-08-2020 11:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,140
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 166
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #387
RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC
(02-08-2020 11:53 PM)stever20 Wrote:  It's clear as day though that the MWC has no mechanism to change the agreement though.... The MWC sold their soul to the Devil back in 2012.

If they want to change it, they need to set up the contracts to set the stage to change it, and the other 11 have got to have a united bargaining front. SDSU has four or five years to see if they can put that together.
(This post was last modified: 02-09-2020 01:42 AM by BruceMcF.)
02-09-2020 01:41 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CoastalVANDAL Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 361
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 8
I Root For: Idaho
Location:
Post: #388
RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC
(02-08-2020 03:14 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  
(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.
SDSU currently the best basketball program with Nevada then maybe USU. UNLV and UNM have historically good programs .If SDSU makes a deep tournament run the members share in the profit. It looks like any MWC team has to finish with a better record than an AAC team for the Access Bowl. So Boise really does not help the conference that much. Yes the conference would be weaker two MAC teams have made it to the top spot though. If Boise is just going to keep their extra value to themselves why keep them ? A deep SDSU run helps the conference a Boise Access Bowl berth helps Boise mostly. Obviously it was great for Loyola to get to the final four they benefited . The whole MVC got the same revenue bump .
02-09-2020 10:05 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stever20 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 37,096
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 375
I Root For: College Sports
Location:
Post: #389
RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC
(02-09-2020 01:41 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(02-08-2020 11:53 PM)stever20 Wrote:  It's clear as day though that the MWC has no mechanism to change the agreement though.... The MWC sold their soul to the Devil back in 2012.

If they want to change it, they need to set up the contracts to set the stage to change it, and the other 11 have got to have a united bargaining front. SDSU has four or five years to see if they can put that together.

That doesn't change the contract that is on the books though.....

The only thing that the MWC can do to get out of this is to kick out Boise. Period.
02-09-2020 01:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 16,316
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 678
I Root For: California
Location: TROS
Post: #390
RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC
(02-09-2020 01:35 PM)stever20 Wrote:  
(02-09-2020 01:41 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(02-08-2020 11:53 PM)stever20 Wrote:  It's clear as day though that the MWC has no mechanism to change the agreement though.... The MWC sold their soul to the Devil back in 2012.

If they want to change it, they need to set up the contracts to set the stage to change it, and the other 11 have got to have a united bargaining front. SDSU has four or five years to see if they can put that together.

That doesn't change the contract that is on the books though.....

The only thing that the MWC can do to get out of this is to kick out Boise. Period.

They can figure out how to outplay Boise on the football field year in and year out. If another MWC team wins 3 or 4 conference titles in the next 5 years, wins 11 or more games in each of those years, and gets at least one access bowl, while the rest of the league improves enough to give Boise at least 3 or 4 losses each year, then the TV networks won’t want to pay Boise more after that. They will then prefer to put the team that has elevated itself far above Boise on TV every week.

And if the rest of the MWC can’t do that, then the fault lies in their own football programs.
02-09-2020 02:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,140
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 166
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #391
RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC
(02-09-2020 01:35 PM)stever20 Wrote:  
(02-09-2020 01:41 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(02-08-2020 11:53 PM)stever20 Wrote:  It's clear as day though that the MWC has no mechanism to change the agreement though.... The MWC sold their soul to the Devil back in 2012.

If they want to change it, they need to set up the contracts to set the stage to change it, and the other 11 have got to have a united bargaining front. SDSU has four or five years to see if they can put that together.

That doesn't change the contract that is on the books though.....

The only thing that the MWC can do to get out of this is to kick out Boise. Period.

Both the MWC and Boise State must approve Boise State's contract: Boise State alone cannot do so. That's leverage, given that Boise State needs to be on TV.

How much leverage it is depends on whether Boise State has anywhere else good to go ... but if Boise State has no good alternative, it would be sufficient leverage to force Boise State to agree to a modification of the agreement.

But the rest of the schools in the MWC would have to be willing to play hardball like Boise State is willing to play.

It would help that side of the negotiating table a lot of someone from the MWC other than Boise State were to go to an Access Bowl ... and even more if it were to go and win. That would lift the media value of the "all games without Boise State in them" contract.
(This post was last modified: 02-09-2020 02:21 PM by BruceMcF.)
02-09-2020 02:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SoCalBobcat78 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,882
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 67
I Root For: TXST, UCLA, CBU
Location:
Post: #392
RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC
(02-09-2020 01:41 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(02-08-2020 11:53 PM)stever20 Wrote:  It's clear as day though that the MWC has no mechanism to change the agreement though.... The MWC sold their soul to the Devil back in 2012.

If they want to change it, they need to set up the contracts to set the stage to change it, and the other 11 have got to have a united bargaining front. SDSU has four or five years to see if they can put that together.

I think the two parties made the correct the decision to extend the new contract through 2026 and discuss this at a future point in time. For the long term, this contract is not healthy to the conference. I get that Boise State wants to protect their football brand, but the additional revenue in perpetuity for a brand makes no sense. If that brand ever fades, they will be just another MWC football team playing in a distant location.

Having done enough contracts in my time, I have never seen a contract without an end date or a termination clause. Just common sense for both parities, because things will change. Worst case scenario, this will eventually get settled with the MWC paying a lot in legal fees and/or Boise State leaving the conference. Best case scenario is that all parties agree to a revenue system that rewards actual performance. Whoever thought that the "deal with the devil" in 2012 was a good idea, should be fired.
(This post was last modified: 02-09-2020 03:31 PM by SoCalBobcat78.)
02-09-2020 03:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stever20 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 37,096
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 375
I Root For: College Sports
Location:
Post: #393
RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC
(02-09-2020 03:30 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  
(02-09-2020 01:41 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(02-08-2020 11:53 PM)stever20 Wrote:  It's clear as day though that the MWC has no mechanism to change the agreement though.... The MWC sold their soul to the Devil back in 2012.

If they want to change it, they need to set up the contracts to set the stage to change it, and the other 11 have got to have a united bargaining front. SDSU has four or five years to see if they can put that together.

I think the two parties made the correct the decision to extend the new contract through 2026 and discuss this at a future point in time. For the long term, this contract is not healthy to the conference. I get that Boise State wants to protect their football brand, but the additional revenue in perpetuity for a brand makes no sense. If that brand ever fades, they will be just another MWC football team playing in a distant location.

Having done enough contracts in my time, I have never seen a contract without an end date or a termination clause. Just common sense for both parities, because things will change. Worst case scenario, this will eventually get settled with the MWC paying a lot in legal fees and/or Boise State leaving the conference. Best case scenario is that all parties agree to a revenue system that rewards actual performance. Whoever thought that the "deal with the devil" in 2012 was a good idea, should be fired.

I think they had no real choice in the matter. A MWC in 2013 w/o Boise and San Diego St would have been right about where the MWC would be now without them....
02-09-2020 07:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,140
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 166
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #394
RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC
(02-09-2020 03:30 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  Having done enough contracts in my time, I have never seen a contract without an end date or a termination clause. Just common sense for both parities, because things will change. ...

Not just common sense, but also taking off the table the question over whether termination under "in perpetuity clause" precedents that some types of contracts are not permitted to be "in perperuity".

That doesn't seem like it applies to this case, as the supermajority by-laws to kick a school out of the conference act would seem like it would be the de facto termination clause ...

... but still, if they had put a 20 year deadline on the permanent Bonus and Boise State veto on contracts including Boise State, at the time that they switched from the formula bonus, Boise State would not have balked at that time.
02-10-2020 05:03 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
panite Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,113
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 115
I Root For: Owls-SC-RU-Navy
Location:
Post: #395
RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC
(02-09-2020 01:35 PM)stever20 Wrote:  
(02-09-2020 01:41 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(02-08-2020 11:53 PM)stever20 Wrote:  It's clear as day though that the MWC has no mechanism to change the agreement though.... The MWC sold their soul to the Devil back in 2012.

If they want to change it, they need to set up the contracts to set the stage to change it, and the other 11 have got to have a united bargaining front. SDSU has four or five years to see if they can put that together.

That doesn't change the contract that is on the books though.....

The only thing that the MWC can do to get out of this is to kick out Boise. Period.

Or they can change the contract and call Boise's bluff then let them leave on their own when the next contract comes along. Where are they going to go CUSA, the MAC, the Sunbelt, or play as an Independent.

By 2026 when the next contract comes up the AAC will have straighten out their problem with or without the wavier, or with or without a change in the rule for the Championship Game. Heck by then a MWC school may have already skipped out to take the 12th AAC slot over this issue leaving Boise no where to go. If you sue enough then no one wants you. Just look at UConn's situation with the ACC and the old BE schools where they all put a straight arm on UConn for inclusion when that conference had an opening. 07-coffee3
(This post was last modified: 02-10-2020 09:14 AM by panite.)
02-10-2020 09:03 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
panite Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,113
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 115
I Root For: Owls-SC-RU-Navy
Location:
Post: #396
RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC
(02-09-2020 03:30 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  
(02-09-2020 01:41 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(02-08-2020 11:53 PM)stever20 Wrote:  It's clear as day though that the MWC has no mechanism to change the agreement though.... The MWC sold their soul to the Devil back in 2012.

If they want to change it, they need to set up the contracts to set the stage to change it, and the other 11 have got to have a united bargaining front. SDSU has four or five years to see if they can put that together.

I think the two parties made the correct the decision to extend the new contract through 2026 and discuss this at a future point in time. For the long term, this contract is not healthy to the conference. I get that Boise State wants to protect their football brand, but the additional revenue in perpetuity for a brand makes no sense. If that brand ever fades, they will be just another MWC football team playing in a distant location.

Having done enough contracts in my time, I have never seen a contract without an end date or a termination clause. Just common sense for both parities, because things will change. Worst case scenario, this will eventually get settled with the MWC paying a lot in legal fees and/or Boise State leaving the conference. Best case scenario is that all parties agree to a revenue system that rewards actual performance. Whoever thought that the "deal with the devil" in 2012 was a good idea, should be fired.

Totally agree however the MWC was desperate at the time because they would have lost SDSU at the same time too. If the conference wants to reward the top dog annually each school should have a shot at the golden ring. Yes Boise may grab the ring more times than any other school but at least each school would have a shot at the "pay for play" reward. That's what I would shoot for in the next TV contract in 2026 to eventually weed out the bonus system in the long run if that was the end run for the other schools in the conference to get back to equal distributions for the football funds. 07-coffee3
(This post was last modified: 02-10-2020 09:12 AM by panite.)
02-10-2020 09:09 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 24,148
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 777
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #397
RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC
(02-07-2020 07:40 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  
(02-04-2020 09:43 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(01-30-2020 07:27 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  
(01-30-2020 02:28 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  The re-entry agreement CAN be deemed perpetual and if it doesn't have some termination built in it is by definition perpetual.

If the MWC bylaws permit expulsion, then yeah Boise can be expelled and is entitled to some sort of damages whether calculated by actual loss or by terms of the membership agreement.

The re-entry agreement CAN'T be deemed perpetual and if it doesn't have some termination built in it is by definition NOT perpetual.
We can spin language anyway we like.

Basis for declaring it can't be perpetual????

Basis for declaring it can be perpetual????

Nothing in the agreement sets an end date. Boise stays in the MWC the payments continue forever. In reality it could continue so far into the future that inflation makes $1.8 million annually an irrelevantly small number.
02-10-2020 09:13 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 33,693
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 888
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #398
RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC
I don't get why so much ink has been spent in this thread on the "in perpetuity" notion. Except when they apply to wills and such, these clauses can be legal, and usually a court only refuses to enforce it if there is evidence of fraud, or if one party to the contract was obviously weaker than the other and thus at some kind of informational or expertise disadvantage such that enforcing the provision would "shock the conscience" or somesuch. E.g., if some big bank has a contract with a poor sharecropper who signed without having a lawyer present or something like that.

But that doesn't apply here, as both the MW and Boise are "big boy" entities, knowledgeable state organs with all kinds of legal resources when they signed the deal, etc. Thus, IMO, it is very unlikely that any court would ever sunset that provision. As long as Boise is in the MW, they get the $1.8m bonus, that's it.

And remember, the $1.8m bonus isn't obviously one-sided either. The MW wants to end it, but Boise also wants to "end it" too, in the sense of wanting it to go up in proportion to new deals. Clearly, to the extent the bonus is onerous to the MW, it just became less onerous with the new TV deal, as that bonus is now a significantly smaller portion of the contract than it was previously.
(This post was last modified: 02-10-2020 09:47 AM by quo vadis.)
02-10-2020 09:39 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,140
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 166
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #399
RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC
(02-10-2020 09:03 AM)panite Wrote:  By 2026 when the next contract comes up the AAC will have straighten out their problem with or without the wavier, or with or without a change in the rule for the Championship Game.

Which gets back to my point. If they have distinct contracts, first they approve the MWC-without-Boise contract. Then they approve a payout plus Boise State Bonus. They can approve that independently, and if it pays the Boise State Bonus, then Boise State cannot block it.

Then when the Boise State contract is handed out, they approve it contingent on the money going into performance pools, and Boise State only getting any share in excess of it's Boise State Bonus in the main contract.

Boise State can veto that. OK, so they aren't on TV. But they can't block the "rest of the MWC" contract, so the rest of the MWC IS on TV.

Can SDSU convince the majority of the MWC to play hardball like that? I don't know and wouldn't be prepared to speculate.

But the idea that "Boise State has an agreement so the MWC has no points of leverage" is just not true. Boise State doesn't just need the money. They also need to be on TV, or else their brand just wilts away.
02-10-2020 09:43 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 33,693
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 888
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #400
RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC
(02-10-2020 09:43 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(02-10-2020 09:03 AM)panite Wrote:  By 2026 when the next contract comes up the AAC will have straighten out their problem with or without the wavier, or with or without a change in the rule for the Championship Game.

Which gets back to my point. If they have distinct contracts, first they approve the MWC-without-Boise contract. Then they approve a payout plus Boise State Bonus. They can approve that independently, and if it pays the Boise State Bonus, then Boise State cannot block it.

Then when the Boise State contract is handed out, they approve it contingent on the money going into performance pools, and Boise State only getting any share in excess of it's Boise State Bonus in the main contract.

Boise State can veto that. OK, so they aren't on TV. But they can't block the "rest of the MWC" contract, so the rest of the MWC IS on TV.

Can SDSU convince the majority of the MWC to play hardball like that? I don't know and wouldn't be prepared to speculate.

But the idea that "Boise State has an agreement so the MWC has no points of leverage" is just not true. Boise State doesn't just need the money. They also need to be on TV, or else their brand just wilts away.

Yes, even if courts say that the $1.8m bonus is a perpetual thing, that doesn't mean that either side can't try to get the other to agree to change it, including using leverage in the contract negotiations. There is no clause in the $1.8m bonus deal that says neither side will ever ask the other to change it, LOL. Boise can try and use whatever leverage they have to try and boost it, and the MW can do the same to erode or eliminate it. The only thing the clause means is that for that $1.8m to change, you have to get the other party to agree to it.

This time around, the MW seemed to vote on the entire package at the same time. IMO that was an error, because lumping the Boise deal in with the "rest of MW" deal effectively gives Boise a veto over the whole package.

The MW should have two separate votes, one for the Boise deal and one for the "rest" deal. That way, Boise can't hold the rest of the conference's deal hostage to what they want in their deal. And that two-vote approach is totally justifiable, as Boise themselves insist that their deal be negotiated separately.
(This post was last modified: 02-10-2020 09:54 AM by quo vadis.)
02-10-2020 09:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2020 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2020 MyBB Group.