Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC
Author Message
NeighSayer Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 110
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 7
I Root For: Boise State
Location:
Post: #421
RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC
(02-11-2020 12:37 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(02-11-2020 09:41 AM)bullet Wrote:  Performance bonuses are not hard to write. Everybody but the Big 10 used to have them.

But the performance bonuses that they wrote at the outset were too volatile for Boise State's liking. A fixed bonus just for being Boise State is not to the liking of SDSU, and likely a few other schools as well.

Somewhere in the middle of the negotiating range is a performance bonus that is more stable from year to year for budgeting purposes without just being "you get more money because that was the price of getting both you and SDSU back X years ago."

The current bonus would be especially irksome to SDSU, since the original deal was basically a buy-one-get-one-free.
To be clear, the change to the original bonus system was not Boise State’s idea. It was the schools in the West division, who don’t play Boise State as often as the schools in the Mountain division. They wanted to discontinue the tiered merit system, and go to a flat distribution, to which Boise State agreed, and averaged their earnings for the previous 3 years to get to the $1.8M figure.
02-11-2020 02:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MWC Tex Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,190
Joined: Aug 2012
Reputation: 159
I Root For: MW
Location: TX
Post: #422
RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC
So unless I missed something, there is no official word from BSU or the MW that this is resolved. Only a speculative article from San Diego.
02-13-2020 02:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MWC Tex Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,190
Joined: Aug 2012
Reputation: 159
I Root For: MW
Location: TX
Post: #423
RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC
https://amp.idahostatesman.com/sports/co...ssion=true

Suit is still ongoing apparently and not resolved.

“In January, Boise State filed a legal complaint against the Mountain West over its attempt to negate the Broncos’ additional $1.8 million in annual TV revenue and their right to have their home games negotiated as a separate package from the rest of the conference. Both stipulations were built into the agreement that kept Boise State in the Mountain West in 2012.

In February, The San Diego Union-Tribune reported that the Mountain West’s board of directors voted to rescind its stance against Boise State’s TV bonus. On Thursday, Apsey said the case remains in question. The Fourth District Court in Ada County also showed the case active and pending.

“It’s, right now, just discussions between the conference and Boise State,” Apsey said. “As we move forward, I’m hopeful that it will all work out the right way.”
(This post was last modified: 03-21-2020 09:19 AM by MWC Tex.)
03-21-2020 09:13 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Sactowndog Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,853
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation: 38
I Root For: Fresno State
Location:
Post: #424
RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC
(02-11-2020 02:57 PM)NeighSayer Wrote:  
(02-11-2020 12:37 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(02-11-2020 09:41 AM)bullet Wrote:  Performance bonuses are not hard to write. Everybody but the Big 10 used to have them.

But the performance bonuses that they wrote at the outset were too volatile for Boise State's liking. A fixed bonus just for being Boise State is not to the liking of SDSU, and likely a few other schools as well.

Somewhere in the middle of the negotiating range is a performance bonus that is more stable from year to year for budgeting purposes without just being "you get more money because that was the price of getting both you and SDSU back X years ago."

The current bonus would be especially irksome to SDSU, since the original deal was basically a buy-one-get-one-free.
To be clear, the change to the original bonus system was not Boise State’s idea. It was the schools in the West division, who don’t play Boise State as often as the schools in the Mountain division. They wanted to discontinue the tiered merit system, and go to a flat distribution, to which Boise State agreed, and averaged their earnings for the previous 3 years to get to the $1.8M figure.

It was never a Merit system. The Presidents who sold it as such have largely left the conference except for Wyoming’s President. Not a surprise since Wyoming was a slightly above average team in a small market and the benefitted the most. Good teams in large markets like SDSU and Air Force rarely got any bonus because CBSSports got first pick and generally snapped up all their desirable games.

If they didn’t change the system they would have likely lost their best teams.
03-21-2020 03:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Sactowndog Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,853
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation: 38
I Root For: Fresno State
Location:
Post: #425
RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC
(02-10-2020 05:38 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(02-10-2020 09:43 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  Which gets back to my point. If they have distinct contracts, first they approve the MWC-without-Boise contract.

Which is worth a lot less than the MWC-With-Boise contract. Taking the December articles about the MWC contract negotiations as mostly accurate ($20M a year from CBS, $15M from Fox, Boise home games in a separate deal), and comparing them to the $45M a year that the combined MWC-Boise contract brings in, the 6 Boise State football games are valued at about $10M.

Quote: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.

Yeah, for a lot less money. And Boise would be exiting the MWC as soon as possible, devaluing the rest-of-MWC deal because you lose the 4 Boise road games.



(02-10-2020 09:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(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.

If the Mountain West shows that degree of bad faith, Boise has a pretty good shot at getting a court to declare that since the Reentry Agreement has been violated, the home game TV rights revert to Boise State, who can sell them directly to TV and not share the proceeds.

Why would that be? Boise agreed and modified the term sheet to be 1.8. The Mountain West has no obligation to increase it. If Boise wants to break the agreement and leave then so be it. If neither side can come to an agreement then what happens? Do Boise games go dark for a year?
03-21-2020 05:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Sactowndog Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,853
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation: 38
I Root For: Fresno State
Location:
Post: #426
RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC
(02-10-2020 07:55 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(02-10-2020 07:19 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(02-10-2020 05:38 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(02-10-2020 09:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  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.

If the Mountain West shows that degree of bad faith, Boise has a pretty good shot at getting a court to declare that since the Reentry Agreement has been violated, the home game TV rights revert to Boise State, who can sell them directly to TV and not share the proceeds.

How would the MW doing what I describe be in "bad faith"? The MW would be fully justified in voting on the packages separately, as, at Boise's insistence, they are negotiated separately.

Plus, that would be in keeping with the theme of the re-entry agreement, which gives Boise a veto over its own deal, but not the MW deal as a whole, and lumping them in to one vote gives them an effective veto over the whole, which is not how it is supposed to work.

It shouldn't matter. They're supposed to negotiate the TV contract in good faith, no? I assume that means they can't just put something on the table that is plainly terrible from Boise's point of view. They can't make Boise's home games live streams on the conference website filmed by a college student with a single camera. If they negotiate something that is a good deal for Boise State, then they don't need separate votes, and if they negotiate a terrible deal for Boise's home games and refuse to renegotiate it, then, I would think, the conference is in violation of its contract with Boise whether they hold one vote or two.

The conference for now has agreed to the agreed 1.8 off the top. They aren’t willing to pay more and in fact given Boise’s lack of Access Bowl invites would rather pay less.

So I doubt the conference will agree to pay more and I struggle to see how that is in bad faith. And fine don’t stream them. Let them get nothing for a year and we will talk next year.
03-21-2020 05:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Sactowndog Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,853
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation: 38
I Root For: Fresno State
Location:
Post: #427
RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC
(02-10-2020 09:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(02-10-2020 08:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(02-10-2020 07:55 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(02-10-2020 07:19 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(02-10-2020 05:38 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  If the Mountain West shows that degree of bad faith, Boise has a pretty good shot at getting a court to declare that since the Reentry Agreement has been violated, the home game TV rights revert to Boise State, who can sell them directly to TV and not share the proceeds.

How would the MW doing what I describe be in "bad faith"? The MW would be fully justified in voting on the packages separately, as, at Boise's insistence, they are negotiated separately.

Plus, that would be in keeping with the theme of the re-entry agreement, which gives Boise a veto over its own deal, but not the MW deal as a whole, and lumping them in to one vote gives them an effective veto over the whole, which is not how it is supposed to work.

It shouldn't matter. They're supposed to negotiate the TV contract in good faith, no? I assume that means they can't just put something on the table that is plainly terrible from Boise's point of view. They can't make Boise's home games live streams on the conference website filmed by a college student with a single camera. If they negotiate something that is a good deal for Boise State, then they don't need separate votes, and if they negotiate a terrible deal for Boise's home games and refuse to renegotiate it, then, I would think, the conference is in violation of its contract with Boise whether they hold one vote or two.

Boise is protected from all that by having a veto over the deal the MW negotiates on their behalf. It's not like Boise is forced to accept whatever deal the MW negotiates, to the contrary, the re-entry agreement gives Boise the power to veto their deal on whatever grounds they want, so there is no way the MW can foist a bad deal on Boise.

Also, it is in the MW's interest to drive as hard a bargain for Boise's rights as they can, because the Boise money gets lumped in with the 'rest' of the deal and split equally - after Boise gets its $1.8m off the top. So the MW has every incentive to drive as good a bargain as they can with the networks, and to satisfy Boise.

So both sides have leverage.

OK, if the bolded part is right, then that falls under something I said above: If they negotiate a good deal for Boise, then they don't need to hold two separate votes.

It’s not about whether the “deal” is good or not. It’s about how much Boise takes off the top. The problem Boise has is something that is a lot for them 1M plus is 90K for the other schools so they could care less. The issues with their AD’s and coaches is greater. None of them are moving for any amount of money I would guess.
03-21-2020 05:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Sactowndog Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,853
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation: 38
I Root For: Fresno State
Location:
Post: #428
RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC
(02-11-2020 12:37 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(02-11-2020 09:41 AM)bullet Wrote:  Performance bonuses are not hard to write. Everybody but the Big 10 used to have them.

But the performance bonuses that they wrote at the outset were too volatile for Boise State's liking. A fixed bonus just for being Boise State is not to the liking of SDSU, and likely a few other schools as well.

Somewhere in the middle of the negotiating range is a performance bonus that is more stable from year to year for budgeting purposes without just being "you get more money because that was the price of getting both you and SDSU back X years ago."

The current bonus would be especially irksome to SDSU, since the original deal was basically a buy-one-get-one-free.

If they had a real performance Bonus then other teams might not care. The major issue is the bonus’s were negative performance bonuses. If you were a known very good team, CBSSports would pick your games and you had no chance of being on ESPN. Boise knew this as they could never get on ESPN for the same reason but sold it as a performance bonus anyway.

If anyone has acted in bad faith it would be Boise State.
03-21-2020 06:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Sactowndog Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,853
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation: 38
I Root For: Fresno State
Location:
Post: #429
RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC
(02-11-2020 02:20 PM)ccd494 Wrote:  
(02-11-2020 12:37 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(02-11-2020 09:41 AM)bullet Wrote:  Performance bonuses are not hard to write. Everybody but the Big 10 used to have them.

But the performance bonuses that they wrote at the outset were too volatile for Boise State's liking. A fixed bonus just for being Boise State is not to the liking of SDSU, and likely a few other schools as well.

Somewhere in the middle of the negotiating range is a performance bonus that is more stable from year to year for budgeting purposes without just being "you get more money because that was the price of getting both you and SDSU back X years ago."

The current bonus would be especially irksome to SDSU, since the original deal was basically a buy-one-get-one-free.

If SDSU and other schools didn't like the fixed bonus, they shouldn't have signed the contract specifying it. "Buyer's remorse" isn't a valid reason to nullify a contract.

SDSU never signed it or agreed it. The bonus was agreed to prior to SDSU’s return.
03-21-2020 06:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jdgaucho Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,116
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 41
I Root For: UCSB
Location: Big West Land
Post: #430
RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC
(03-21-2020 09:13 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  https://amp.idahostatesman.com/sports/co...ssion=true

Suit is still ongoing apparently and not resolved.

“In January, Boise State filed a legal complaint against the Mountain West over its attempt to negate the Broncos’ additional $1.8 million in annual TV revenue and their right to have their home games negotiated as a separate package from the rest of the conference. Both stipulations were built into the agreement that kept Boise State in the Mountain West in 2012.

In February, The San Diego Union-Tribune reported that the Mountain West’s board of directors voted to rescind its stance against Boise State’s TV bonus. On Thursday, Apsey said the case remains in question. The Fourth District Court in Ada County also showed the case active and pending.

“It’s, right now, just discussions between the conference and Boise State,” Apsey said. “As we move forward, I’m hopeful that it will all work out the right way.”

This feels like a ticking time bomb. The current contract won't last to 2026. Something's going down.
03-21-2020 09:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
johnbragg Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 9,781
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 353
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #431
RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC
(03-21-2020 05:45 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  
(02-10-2020 05:38 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(02-10-2020 09:43 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  Which gets back to my point. If they have distinct contracts, first they approve the MWC-without-Boise contract.

Which is worth a lot less than the MWC-With-Boise contract. Taking the December articles about the MWC contract negotiations as mostly accurate ($20M a year from CBS, $15M from Fox, Boise home games in a separate deal), and comparing them to the $45M a year that the combined MWC-Boise contract brings in, the 6 Boise State football games are valued at about $10M.

Quote: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.

Yeah, for a lot less money. And Boise would be exiting the MWC as soon as possible, devaluing the rest-of-MWC deal because you lose the 4 Boise road games.



(02-10-2020 09:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(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.

If the Mountain West shows that degree of bad faith, Boise has a pretty good shot at getting a court to declare that since the Reentry Agreement has been violated, the home game TV rights revert to Boise State, who can sell them directly to TV and not share the proceeds.

Why would that be? Boise agreed and modified the term sheet to be 1.8. The Mountain West has no obligation to increase it. If Boise wants to break the agreement and leave then so be it. If neither side can come to an agreement then what happens? Do Boise games go dark for a year?

That was my mistake--i was reacting to the idea that the MWC just keep Boise's games on the shelf or something.

It's been a while since I posted that, so I do not remember details
03-22-2020 06:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Sactowndog Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,853
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation: 38
I Root For: Fresno State
Location:
Post: #432
RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC
(03-22-2020 06:51 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(03-21-2020 05:45 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  
(02-10-2020 05:38 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(02-10-2020 09:43 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  Which gets back to my point. If they have distinct contracts, first they approve the MWC-without-Boise contract.

Which is worth a lot less than the MWC-With-Boise contract. Taking the December articles about the MWC contract negotiations as mostly accurate ($20M a year from CBS, $15M from Fox, Boise home games in a separate deal), and comparing them to the $45M a year that the combined MWC-Boise contract brings in, the 6 Boise State football games are valued at about $10M.

Quote: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.

Yeah, for a lot less money. And Boise would be exiting the MWC as soon as possible, devaluing the rest-of-MWC deal because you lose the 4 Boise road games.



(02-10-2020 09:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(02-10-2020 09:43 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  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.

If the Mountain West shows that degree of bad faith, Boise has a pretty good shot at getting a court to declare that since the Reentry Agreement has been violated, the home game TV rights revert to Boise State, who can sell them directly to TV and not share the proceeds.

Why would that be? Boise agreed and modified the term sheet to be 1.8. The Mountain West has no obligation to increase it. If Boise wants to break the agreement and leave then so be it. If neither side can come to an agreement then what happens? Do Boise games go dark for a year?

That was my mistake--i was reacting to the idea that the MWC just keep Boise's games on the shelf or something.

It's been a while since I posted that, so I do not remember details

So let’s say Boise refuses to sign without an increase and the MWC refuses to give them one. What legally is possible next? Can the MWC choose to stream the games? Do Boise home games go dark on any media? Boise doesn’t own the rights to stream their games, the MWC does.
03-22-2020 11:50 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 33,652
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 885
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #433
RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC
(03-21-2020 06:09 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  
(02-11-2020 02:20 PM)ccd494 Wrote:  
(02-11-2020 12:37 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(02-11-2020 09:41 AM)bullet Wrote:  Performance bonuses are not hard to write. Everybody but the Big 10 used to have them.

But the performance bonuses that they wrote at the outset were too volatile for Boise State's liking. A fixed bonus just for being Boise State is not to the liking of SDSU, and likely a few other schools as well.

Somewhere in the middle of the negotiating range is a performance bonus that is more stable from year to year for budgeting purposes without just being "you get more money because that was the price of getting both you and SDSU back X years ago."

The current bonus would be especially irksome to SDSU, since the original deal was basically a buy-one-get-one-free.

If SDSU and other schools didn't like the fixed bonus, they shouldn't have signed the contract specifying it. "Buyer's remorse" isn't a valid reason to nullify a contract.

SDSU never signed it or agreed it. The bonus was agreed to prior to SDSU’s return.

Well, if a school joins a conference, by inference it is agreeing to all of the agreements that conference has with other entities at the time of entry.
03-22-2020 11:59 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 33,652
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 885
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #434
RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC
(03-21-2020 09:40 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  This feels like a ticking time bomb. The current contract won't last to 2026. Something's going down.

That's my feeling as well. I was surprised to see this new post, I thought this had been resolved or at least sufficiently papered over a month or so ago.

The fact that no resolution has been reached is a bad sign. I suspect egos are very much entrenched - that Boise deeply feels that it is largely responsible for the TV value of the MW, and therefore should be capturing a very significant chunk of that value, and they are hurt that the rest of the MW which sucks off its tit is contesting this (those ungrateful so-and-sos); while the other MW members feel just as deeply that Boise is overrating itself, that Boise isn't really earning even the extra $1.8m agreed to and now has the audacity to demand more (can you believe the nerve of them?).
(This post was last modified: 03-22-2020 12:06 PM by quo vadis.)
03-22-2020 12:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fighting Muskie Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,221
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 111
I Root For: Ohio St, MAC
Location:
Post: #435
RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC
The MWC and Boise St need to just get a divorce. There is never going to be peace as long as Boise is in the conference. They clearly want to be independent or an AAC fb affiliate.
03-22-2020 01:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Erictelevision Online
Special Teams
*

Posts: 890
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation: 14
I Root For: Uconn hoops
Location:
Post: #436
RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC
Would the PAC-12 be a willing "rebound conference"?
03-22-2020 01:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fighting Muskie Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,221
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 111
I Root For: Ohio St, MAC
Location:
Post: #437
RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC
(03-22-2020 01:43 PM)Erictelevision Wrote:  Would the PAC-12 be a willing "rebound conference"?

No, they don’t have the academics to get in. If Boise is t permitted to rule the MWC roost they will go independent like BYU or affiliate with the AAC in football. They’d need to convince the Big Sky or WAC to take their olympic sports.
03-22-2020 02:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MidknightWhiskey Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 203
Joined: Oct 2019
Reputation: 22
I Root For: UCF
Location:
Post: #438
RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC
(03-22-2020 02:33 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  
(03-22-2020 01:43 PM)Erictelevision Wrote:  Would the PAC-12 be a willing "rebound conference"?

No, they don’t have the academics to get in. If Boise is t permitted to rule the MWC roost they will go independent like BYU or affiliate with the AAC in football. They’d need to convince the Big Sky or WAC to take their olympic sports.

And frankly even if their academics got close the unfair fact of it is that the Pac would never invite a school that started out as a community college.
03-22-2020 02:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Sactowndog Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,853
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation: 38
I Root For: Fresno State
Location:
Post: #439
RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC
(03-22-2020 12:03 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(03-21-2020 09:40 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  This feels like a ticking time bomb. The current contract won't last to 2026. Something's going down.

That's my feeling as well. I was surprised to see this new post, I thought this had been resolved or at least sufficiently papered over a month or so ago.

The fact that no resolution has been reached is a bad sign. I suspect egos are very much entrenched - that Boise deeply feels that it is largely responsible for the TV value of the MW, and therefore should be capturing a very significant chunk of that value, and they are hurt that the rest of the MW which sucks off its tit is contesting this (those ungrateful so-and-sos); while the other MW members feel just as deeply that Boise is overrating itself, that Boise isn't really earning even the extra $1.8m agreed to and now has the audacity to demand more (can you believe the nerve of them?).

Pretty much this:

Boise was expected to bring in extra dollars by appearing in the Access Bowl. They only made one a long time ago and nobody has much confidence Harsin will get them back there. In fact, Boise has barely won more MWC titles than Fresno or San Diego State despite their significant advantages.
03-22-2020 03:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jdgaucho Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,116
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 41
I Root For: UCSB
Location: Big West Land
Post: #440
RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC
(03-22-2020 02:33 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  
(03-22-2020 01:43 PM)Erictelevision Wrote:  Would the PAC-12 be a willing "rebound conference"?

No, they don’t have the academics to get in. If Boise is t permitted to rule the MWC roost they will go independent like BYU or affiliate with the AAC in football. They’d need to convince the Big Sky or WAC to take their olympic sports.

Boise doesn't need to convince the WAC. They can bully their way in because it still needs another member or two to feel safe. The Big Sky won't need to be convinced either; Idaho and Idaho State would love nothing more than to bring them back down to their level. The Montana's and EWU would accept them too.
03-22-2020 09:17 PM
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.