(01-18-2020 02:38 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  So back to why I’m here. Does Boise have the votes to get in? With 11 members, I am unclear on the threshold. Who is a solid no and who is a solid yes?

I have heard:

Solid no:
Navy (would rather have AF)

Solid yes:
UCF?

You forget the ESPiN vote. Where from the money is paid.

(01-19-2020 12:14 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 10:28 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 08:37 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 04:32 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 12:56 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  Before you talk about reneging you might want to read the terms of the deal. Notice nowhere does it say “media rights”.


Just so it is available again for this thread, here is the 2012 term sheet.

http://www.usufans.com/Forums/download/file.php?id=1724

Thanks for the link. Links to the actual text are always good. But the language doesn't really support your idea that it's limited to TV rights, and so the MWC can get around it by selling the games to a streaming service. Some things are very clearly stated.

Looking at section 3, "Television Rights" by sentence:
Sentences 2, 3. MWC has to sell the Boise STate package separately.
Sentence 4. Boise State and the MWC must mutually agree to the Boise State TV package.

So the MWC can't sell the Boise games to anybody without Boise's signature. And if they sell the games to a streaming service to get around that provision, the MWC is in breach because they're obligated to sell the Boise football TV rights.

Are you a lawyer?

Then please describe the point of section 5 which talks specifically about web streaming rights. You are applying the conditions specified for Broadcast Television rights to web video which is specifically described differently. Where by your read does broadcast TV stop and web streaming start.

Mountain West and Stadium want to stream Boise's football games under Section 5? Go ahead. As long as they are televised in accordance with Section 3.

Again are you a lawyer?

I’m a lawyer and I agree with johnbragg’s assessment. The streaming language in Section 5 is irrelevant with respect to the MWC’s obligations under Section 3. The MWC can sell Boise’s streaming rights all that they want under Section 5, but if they don’t sell a separate Boise television package under Section 3 (and television is very clearly distinct from streaming), then Boise gets the TV rights to its home games back from the conference... and that’s EVEN if Boise stays as a member of the MWC. Section 3 is dealing with the most valuable portion of “media rights” and it’s very specific. This is a pretty clear provision without much ambiguity.

Ultimately, Boise State has complete and 100% contractual leverage over the MWC here (in addition to their own real world market leverage over the MWC even if they didn’t have such a great contract in their favor here). I have zero idea why any MWC fan thinks they’re going to be better off fighting Boise State here (and once again, I have absolutely no dog in this fight).

(01-19-2020 12:54 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-19-2020 12:14 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 10:28 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 08:37 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 04:32 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Thanks for the link. Links to the actual text are always good. But the language doesn't really support your idea that it's limited to TV rights, and so the MWC can get around it by selling the games to a streaming service. Some things are very clearly stated.

Looking at section 3, "Television Rights" by sentence:
Sentences 2, 3. MWC has to sell the Boise STate package separately.
Sentence 4. Boise State and the MWC must mutually agree to the Boise State TV package.

So the MWC can't sell the Boise games to anybody without Boise's signature. And if they sell the games to a streaming service to get around that provision, the MWC is in breach because they're obligated to sell the Boise football TV rights.

Are you a lawyer?

Then please describe the point of section 5 which talks specifically about web streaming rights. You are applying the conditions specified for Broadcast Television rights to web video which is specifically described differently. Where by your read does broadcast TV stop and web streaming start.

Mountain West and Stadium want to stream Boise's football games under Section 5? Go ahead. As long as they are televised in accordance with Section 3.

Again are you a lawyer?

I’m a lawyer and I agree with johnbragg’s assessment. The streaming language in Section 5 is irrelevant with respect to the MWC’s obligations under Section 3. The MWC can sell Boise’s streaming rights all that they want under Section 5, but if they don’t sell a separate Boise television package under Section 3 (and television is very clearly distinct from streaming), then Boise gets the TV rights to its home games back from the conference... and that’s EVEN if Boise stays as a member of the MWC. Section 3 is dealing with the most valuable portion of “media rights” and it’s very specific. This is a pretty clear provision without much ambiguity.

Ultimately, Boise State has complete and 100% contractual leverage over the MWC here (in addition to their own real world market leverage over the MWC even if they didn’t have such a great contract in their favor here). I have zero idea why any MWC fan thinks they’re going to be better off fighting Boise State here (and once again, I have absolutely no dog in this fight).

Fair enough. Thanks for the assessment. To answer your question the MWC Presidents believed the Boise dollars would pay off when Boise made the access bowl. They have not made it for a number of years. I also speculate the Boise deal is hindering other schools ability to retain top coaches as other coaches don’t want to stay and play on an uneven playing field.

The net of the situation is Thompson has never been a Commissioner to make idle threats. If he is saying this 6 years are the last of Boise’s special treatment it’s because the Presidents want it that way. As some have stated, you can’t force people to stay in a contract forever.

(01-18-2020 08:37 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 04:32 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 12:56 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 12:29 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 12:18 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  Boise is enough of a pain in the ass, I think most of the MWC schools don’t care. I doubt Thompson’s comment was an idle threat.

Boise’s options are:
1) Renegotiate the terms into a true performance bonus available to all
2) See their rights sold to stadium as a streaming only option
3) Leave and become independent for football and X for all sports

I stopped by to get a sense of option 4
4) Leave and join the AAC for football and X for all sports.

Or have Boise sue their ass for reneging on the contract... You can't just change the terms of the deal because you don't like it.

Before you talk about reneging you might want to read the terms of the deal. Notice nowhere does it say “media rights”.


Just so it is available again for this thread, here is the 2012 term sheet.

http://www.usufans.com/Forums/download/file.php?id=1724

Thanks for the link. Links to the actual text are always good. But the language doesn't really support your idea that it's limited to TV rights, and so the MWC can get around it by selling the games to a streaming service. Some things are very clearly stated.

Looking at section 3, "Television Rights" by sentence:
Sentences 2, 3. MWC has to sell the Boise STate package separately.
Sentence 4. Boise State and the MWC must mutually agree to the Boise State TV package.

So the MWC can't sell the Boise games to anybody without Boise's signature. And if they sell the games to a streaming service to get around that provision, the MWC is in breach because they're obligated to sell the Boise football TV rights.

Are you a lawyer?

Then please describe the point of section 5 which talks specifically about web streaming rights. You are applying the conditions specified for Broadcast Television rights to web video which is specifically described differently. Where by your read does broadcast TV stop and web streaming start.

The section 5 clause is speaking about a small very specific set of rights that Boise had already signed away to some unnamed party. Basically it said that this current pre-existing Boise digital agreement would be honored—but when it expired—-then the rights covered in that specific pre-existing package would revert to the MW. That section 5 clause has no bearing on the rights to Boise football games discussed in the prior sections.

Also, section 6 (the “binding section”) would appear to completely end any debate over the conferences ability to unilaterally change the agreement as it states that the Boise/MW term sheet agreement supersedes in any conflict with existing or future conference bylaws or votes. If you read section 6, I’m not even sure the MW could use expulsion to rid themselves of the contract if Boise objected.

(01-19-2020 12:14 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 10:28 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 08:37 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 04:32 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 12:56 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  Before you talk about reneging you might want to read the terms of the deal. Notice nowhere does it say “media rights”.


Just so it is available again for this thread, here is the 2012 term sheet.

http://www.usufans.com/Forums/download/file.php?id=1724

Thanks for the link. Links to the actual text are always good. But the language doesn't really support your idea that it's limited to TV rights, and so the MWC can get around it by selling the games to a streaming service. Some things are very clearly stated.

Looking at section 3, "Television Rights" by sentence:
Sentences 2, 3. MWC has to sell the Boise STate package separately.
Sentence 4. Boise State and the MWC must mutually agree to the Boise State TV package.

So the MWC can't sell the Boise games to anybody without Boise's signature. And if they sell the games to a streaming service to get around that provision, the MWC is in breach because they're obligated to sell the Boise football TV rights.

Are you a lawyer?

Then please describe the point of section 5 which talks specifically about web streaming rights. You are applying the conditions specified for Broadcast Television rights to web video which is specifically described differently. Where by your read does broadcast TV stop and web streaming start.

Mountain West and Stadium want to stream Boise's football games under Section 5? Go ahead. As long as they are televised in accordance with Section 3.

Again are you a lawyer?

No. Are you?

(01-19-2020 06:18 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-19-2020 12:14 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 10:28 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 08:37 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 04:32 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Thanks for the link. Links to the actual text are always good. But the language doesn't really support your idea that it's limited to TV rights, and so the MWC can get around it by selling the games to a streaming service. Some things are very clearly stated.

Looking at section 3, "Television Rights" by sentence:
Sentences 2, 3. MWC has to sell the Boise STate package separately.
Sentence 4. Boise State and the MWC must mutually agree to the Boise State TV package.

So the MWC can't sell the Boise games to anybody without Boise's signature. And if they sell the games to a streaming service to get around that provision, the MWC is in breach because they're obligated to sell the Boise football TV rights.

Are you a lawyer?

Then please describe the point of section 5 which talks specifically about web streaming rights. You are applying the conditions specified for Broadcast Television rights to web video which is specifically described differently. Where by your read does broadcast TV stop and web streaming start.

Mountain West and Stadium want to stream Boise's football games under Section 5? Go ahead. As long as they are televised in accordance with Section 3.

Again are you a lawyer?

No. Are you?

Well did you at least stay at a Holiday Inn Hotel last night?

(01-19-2020 02:07 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-19-2020 12:54 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-19-2020 12:14 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 10:28 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 08:37 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  Are you a lawyer?

Then please describe the point of section 5 which talks specifically about web streaming rights. You are applying the conditions specified for Broadcast Television rights to web video which is specifically described differently. Where by your read does broadcast TV stop and web streaming start.

Mountain West and Stadium want to stream Boise's football games under Section 5? Go ahead. As long as they are televised in accordance with Section 3.

Again are you a lawyer?

I’m a lawyer and I agree with johnbragg’s assessment. The streaming language in Section 5 is irrelevant with respect to the MWC’s obligations under Section 3. The MWC can sell Boise’s streaming rights all that they want under Section 5, but if they don’t sell a separate Boise television package under Section 3 (and television is very clearly distinct from streaming), then Boise gets the TV rights to its home games back from the conference... and that’s EVEN if Boise stays as a member of the MWC. Section 3 is dealing with the most valuable portion of “media rights” and it’s very specific. This is a pretty clear provision without much ambiguity.

Ultimately, Boise State has complete and 100% contractual leverage over the MWC here (in addition to their own real world market leverage over the MWC even if they didn’t have such a great contract in their favor here). I have zero idea why any MWC fan thinks they’re going to be better off fighting Boise State here (and once again, I have absolutely no dog in this fight).

Fair enough. Thanks for the assessment. To answer your question the MWC Presidents believed the Boise dollars would pay off when Boise made the access bowl. They have not made it for a number of years. I also speculate the Boise deal is hindering other schools ability to retain top coaches as other coaches don’t want to stay and play on an uneven playing field.

The net of the situation is Thompson has never been a Commissioner to make idle threats. If he is saying this 6 years are the last of Boise’s special treatment it’s because the Presidents want it that way. As some have stated, you can’t force people to stay in a contract forever.

I pretty much concur.

And the bonus system never worked out.

Although, the commissioner made his statement, BSU’s top cut could still done in the next contract, it’s just that the MW will not have to negotiate two different packages which probably makes it easier to go to market.

(01-19-2020 12:54 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-19-2020 12:14 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 10:28 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 08:37 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 04:32 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Thanks for the link. Links to the actual text are always good. But the language doesn't really support your idea that it's limited to TV rights, and so the MWC can get around it by selling the games to a streaming service. Some things are very clearly stated.

Looking at section 3, "Television Rights" by sentence:
Sentences 2, 3. MWC has to sell the Boise STate package separately.
Sentence 4. Boise State and the MWC must mutually agree to the Boise State TV package.

So the MWC can't sell the Boise games to anybody without Boise's signature. And if they sell the games to a streaming service to get around that provision, the MWC is in breach because they're obligated to sell the Boise football TV rights.

Are you a lawyer?

Then please describe the point of section 5 which talks specifically about web streaming rights. You are applying the conditions specified for Broadcast Television rights to web video which is specifically described differently. Where by your read does broadcast TV stop and web streaming start.

Mountain West and Stadium want to stream Boise's football games under Section 5? Go ahead. As long as they are televised in accordance with Section 3.

Again are you a lawyer?

I’m a lawyer and I agree with johnbragg’s assessment. The streaming language in Section 5 is irrelevant with respect to the MWC’s obligations under Section 3. The MWC can sell Boise’s streaming rights all that they want under Section 5, but if they don’t sell a separate Boise television package under Section 3 (and television is very clearly distinct from streaming), then Boise gets the TV rights to its home games back from the conference... and that’s EVEN if Boise stays as a member of the MWC. Section 3 is dealing with the most valuable portion of “media rights” and it’s very specific. This is a pretty clear provision without much ambiguity.

Ultimately, Boise State has complete and 100% contractual leverage over the MWC here (in addition to their own real world market leverage over the MWC even if they didn’t have such a great contract in their favor here). I have zero idea why any MWC fan thinks they’re going to be better off fighting Boise State here (and once again, I have absolutely no dog in this fight).

How much in your opinion does the premise of the contract falls apart with the bonus system (that now has been tweaked) in regard that ESPN and other cable sports networks are below the 90 million household as stated in the contract?
At that time ESPN was in over 100 million households but in the past few years are now at 85 million.
If one can go by the letter of the term sheet, then nobody can get a bonus because the broadcast of that game wasn’t on a platform that met minimum of 90 million households.

(01-19-2020 02:07 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  Fair enough. Thanks for the assessment. To answer your question the MWC Presidents believed the Boise dollars would pay off when Boise made the access bowl. They have not made it for a number of years. I also speculate the Boise deal is hindering other schools ability to retain top coaches as other coaches don’t want to stay and play on an uneven playing field.

The net of the situation is Thompson has never been a Commissioner to make idle threats. If he is saying this 6 years are the last of Boise’s special treatment it’s because the Presidents want it that way. As some have stated, you can’t force people to stay in a contract forever.

I agree with you, I doubt Thompson just made this comment off-the-cuff independent of a push from the other members. Heck if he had, he would have had to quickly retract it. But we haven't gotten a retraction.

So given that his comment expressed the will of the membership, it amazes me that the membership doesn't realize how important Boise is to the MW, how the MW would go from being benchmarked vs the AAC to being benchmarked vs the Sun Belt. It's as if they want out of the contract so bad they are goading Boise to leave, which IMO would be cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Even if Boise hasn't brought in the dollars the others hoped for, their symbolic/brand value alone is much more significant to the MW than the members seem to realize. Dumb.

(01-18-2020 01:07 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 01:04 PM)CoastalVANDAL Wrote:  The AAC might have to take one member eventually for CCG.
Even taking a Utah St or CSU would then force the MWC to add.
Basically a U Conn for USU, SDSU , UNLV or CSU trade.
Then the MWC kicks Hawaii out or adds one of NMSU, UTEP, Rice type of program.

Where the AAC adds a top half of conference performer from the MWC. and the MWC adds a new bottom dweller increasing the gap.

great point. I mean folks UConn was #180 in Sagarin this year. CSU finished #103. NMSU was #166.

UConn is a basketball power in both men's and women's basketball.
They do bring value just not currently in football.
My point if twelve is needed for championship game or scheduling .
Then the MWC would then be forced to add a school lowering their rating. The Texas G5 choices are pretty slim right now . UTSA might be a better long term add than SJSU just not right away. Chances are any addition weakens the Eastern division of the MWC . Replacing USU with UTEP makes it even harder for BSU to get the Access bowl spot or any MWC team. It would also make it tougher to get a second bid to the NCAA tourney.

(01-18-2020 01:10 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 12:22 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 05:07 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  This is much ado about nothing. Craig Thompson should have kept his mouth shut. This is an issue they don’t need to deal with for another five years. There was no reason to bring this issue up. At the end of the day, the current deal costs the other ten teams each $180,000 annually. Boise State can make that up in college football playoff revenue, if they can continue to play at their current level. If they drop off or other schools emerge in the next five years, then they can have the discussion with Boise State about the current contract.

One thing I am certain of, Boise State is not sending their Olympic sports to an eastern or southern conference. If they did join the AAC at some point in the future, they would drop their Olympic sports in the WAC. Boise State is starting baseball in 2020 and since the Big Sky does not have baseball, the WAC is a better fit.

This past season, Boise State had 38 California players on their football roster. They would have to think hard about moving out of a western conference, especially when the revenue difference is minimal. They are not going to leave the MWC.

Boise State will not send their Olympics to the WAC. Even though I would love to see it, it's not happening. Back when they were joining the Big East, they planned on doing that, before the WAC was weakened. They're not going to play with Dixie St, Cal Baptist, Tarleton St, and Chicago St.

They would need an absolute homerun deal for their football team to leave the MWC. The Big West probably wouldn't take them now, the Big Sky is "too small time for them" and the WCC isn't taking them. Their only real option is the WAC, but like I said, not happening without a sweet deal

Why wouldn’t the Big West take Boise State? I don’t think that would be off the table at all if Boise State wanted to pursue football-only membership in the AAC or independence. The WCC isn’t necessarily off the table, either, although that isn’t the same type of fit on paper. Ultimately, the WCC will do whatever it will take to keep Gonzaga happy. If Gonzaga sees adding Boise State as a positive (where even if they aren’t necessarily a great basketball program as of now, it’s still a legit top-to-bottom athletic department like BYU), then that can’t be discounted.

I think the long-term playoff structure will surely matter. If there’s an 8-team playoff with a guaranteed spot for the G5 champ, then that’s a huge incentive for Boise State to stay in the MWC. However, if we still have the current system or there isn’t any guaranteed spot for the G5 champ, then that’s where independence might become more attractive. The one thing that we have seen with BYU is that it’s actually a little easier getting a P5-like schedule as a western team because the Pac-12 schools are much more willing to grant home-and-home series to non-P5 schools than the other P5 conferences. Boise State has garnered a certain amount of credibility as a brand name, as well - P5 fan bases don’t have the reflexive “that’s a G5 school” reaction to playing Boise State that they do with virtually everyone else.

So, I guess I’m a little more open to the possibility seeing schools like Boise State going independent than I was a few years ago. Independence by choice (meaning schools like BYU and UConn as opposed to UMass and New Mexico State) is going to be most attractive to the schools that have hit the glass ceiling on wrong side of the P5/G5 divide, which certainly would apply to Boise State.

Also, I really don’t know what the MWC leadership is doing with its statements, either. Craig Thompson should be much more scared of pissing off Boise State compared to any other school in the MWC. This is the G5 equivalent of the Big 12 worrying more about pissing off Iowa State and Kansas State instead of Texas and Oklahoma. If the Big 12 doesn’t have Texas and Oklahoma, then they don’t have a conference. Similarly, if the MWC doesn’t have Boise State, it doesn’t take too much movement for it to suddenly face a similar fate as the WAC. If I was running the MWC, I wouldn’t let the tail wag the dog... which means keeping Boise State happy should be priority #1 regardless of the complaints of much less valuable schools that don’t have any real realignment market power.

I get what your saying especially the independent part.
The MWC would lose even more prestige adding to what they already lost losing TCU, BYU and Utah.
Five years from now if they have one Access Bowl the MAC one AAC three its going to happen anyway.
Allowing Boise a competitive advantage and getting little from their success is also a problem for members. Say SDSU makes a tourney run or two don't they bring the conference members more value .I do think the MWC is less stable having an inferior school having special athletic treatment. Texas and Gonzaga have those as well but they are not newer members and are more well rounded .
A Northern Illinois of a few years ago could have went independent/Horizon today maybe.

(01-19-2020 11:44 AM)CoastalVANDAL Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 01:07 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 01:04 PM)CoastalVANDAL Wrote:  The AAC might have to take one member eventually for CCG.
Even taking a Utah St or CSU would then force the MWC to add.
Basically a U Conn for USU, SDSU , UNLV or CSU trade.
Then the MWC kicks Hawaii out or adds one of NMSU, UTEP, Rice type of program.

Where the AAC adds a top half of conference performer from the MWC. and the MWC adds a new bottom dweller increasing the gap.

great point. I mean folks UConn was #180 in Sagarin this year. CSU finished #103. NMSU was #166.

UConn is a basketball power in both men's and women's basketball.
They do bring value just not currently in football.
My point if twelve is needed for championship game or scheduling .
Then the MWC would then be forced to add a school lowering their rating. The Texas G5 choices are pretty slim right now . UTSA might be a better long term add than SJSU just not right away. Chances are any addition weakens the Eastern division of the MWC . Replacing USU with UTEP makes it even harder for BSU to get the Access bowl spot or any MWC team. It would also make it tougher to get a second bid to the NCAA tourney.

I think we're close to agreement..

I'm saying AAC replaces #180 UConn with #103 Colorado St
You're saying MWC replaces #103 Colorado St with #166 NMSU

The AAC improves and MWC weakens by the same amount almost- so the gap between the conferences sees a double gap if you will....

(01-19-2020 11:41 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-19-2020 02:07 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  Fair enough. Thanks for the assessment. To answer your question the MWC Presidents believed the Boise dollars would pay off when Boise made the access bowl. They have not made it for a number of years. I also speculate the Boise deal is hindering other schools ability to retain top coaches as other coaches don’t want to stay and play on an uneven playing field.

The net of the situation is Thompson has never been a Commissioner to make idle threats. If he is saying this 6 years are the last of Boise’s special treatment it’s because the Presidents want it that way. As some have stated, you can’t force people to stay in a contract forever.

I agree with you, I doubt Thompson just made this comment off-the-cuff independent of a push from the other members. Heck if he had, he would have had to quickly retract it. But we haven't gotten a retraction.

So given that his comment expressed the will of the membership, it amazes me that the membership doesn't realize how important Boise is to the MW, how the MW would go from being benchmarked vs the AAC to being benchmarked vs the Sun Belt. It's as if they want out of the contract so bad they are goading Boise to leave, which IMO would be cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Even if Boise hasn't brought in the dollars the others hoped for, their symbolic/brand value alone is much more significant to the MW than the members seem to realize. Dumb.

Agree. I suspect that Thompson's comments reflect the will of the membership. I also think the membership has no real ability to carry out that course of action due to the contractual language of the term sheet. My question would be---why deliver a message publicly? The same desire by the membership to phase out the special Boise deal has no doubt been discussed in face to face closed meetings among the membership (including Boise). So, if we can assume Boise is aware of the desire----why say it in public? Thats the real question.

(01-19-2020 01:33 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-19-2020 11:41 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-19-2020 02:07 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  Fair enough. Thanks for the assessment. To answer your question the MWC Presidents believed the Boise dollars would pay off when Boise made the access bowl. They have not made it for a number of years. I also speculate the Boise deal is hindering other schools ability to retain top coaches as other coaches don’t want to stay and play on an uneven playing field.

The net of the situation is Thompson has never been a Commissioner to make idle threats. If he is saying this 6 years are the last of Boise’s special treatment it’s because the Presidents want it that way. As some have stated, you can’t force people to stay in a contract forever.

I agree with you, I doubt Thompson just made this comment off-the-cuff independent of a push from the other members. Heck if he had, he would have had to quickly retract it. But we haven't gotten a retraction.

So given that his comment expressed the will of the membership, it amazes me that the membership doesn't realize how important Boise is to the MW, how the MW would go from being benchmarked vs the AAC to being benchmarked vs the Sun Belt. It's as if they want out of the contract so bad they are goading Boise to leave, which IMO would be cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Even if Boise hasn't brought in the dollars the others hoped for, their symbolic/brand value alone is much more significant to the MW than the members seem to realize. Dumb.

Agree. I suspect that Thompson's comments reflect the will of the membership. I also think the membership has no real ability to carry out that course of action due to the contractual language of the term sheet. My question would be---why deliver a message publicly? The same desire by the membership to phase out the special Boise deal has no doubt been discussed in face to face closed meetings among the membership (including Boise). So, if we can assume Boise is aware of the desire----why say it in public? Thats the real question.

To show the other schools fans that they are trying?

(01-19-2020 01:50 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-19-2020 01:33 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-19-2020 11:41 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-19-2020 02:07 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  Fair enough. Thanks for the assessment. To answer your question the MWC Presidents believed the Boise dollars would pay off when Boise made the access bowl. They have not made it for a number of years. I also speculate the Boise deal is hindering other schools ability to retain top coaches as other coaches don’t want to stay and play on an uneven playing field.

The net of the situation is Thompson has never been a Commissioner to make idle threats. If he is saying this 6 years are the last of Boise’s special treatment it’s because the Presidents want it that way. As some have stated, you can’t force people to stay in a contract forever.

I agree with you, I doubt Thompson just made this comment off-the-cuff independent of a push from the other members. Heck if he had, he would have had to quickly retract it. But we haven't gotten a retraction.

So given that his comment expressed the will of the membership, it amazes me that the membership doesn't realize how important Boise is to the MW, how the MW would go from being benchmarked vs the AAC to being benchmarked vs the Sun Belt. It's as if they want out of the contract so bad they are goading Boise to leave, which IMO would be cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Even if Boise hasn't brought in the dollars the others hoped for, their symbolic/brand value alone is much more significant to the MW than the members seem to realize. Dumb.

Agree. I suspect that Thompson's comments reflect the will of the membership. I also think the membership has no real ability to carry out that course of action due to the contractual language of the term sheet. My question would be---why deliver a message publicly? The same desire by the membership to phase out the special Boise deal has no doubt been discussed in face to face closed meetings among the membership (including Boise). So, if we can assume Boise is aware of the desire----why say it in public? Thats the real question.

To show the other schools fans that they are trying?

Thats all I could come up with as well. Of course, telling the fans "your trying" then force's Boise to tell its fans "Thats not happening".....and your back to square one....except now you've aired your disunity for all to see....Does that give a certain potential poacher reason to open a dialogue? It may make no difference in terms of realignment, but going public just seems ultimately counterproductive to me.

Has any conference gained by leaving ESPN ?
Boise is ESPN's baby and still finished 23 at 12-2 .
I imagine the same season might put them out of the top twenty five without their ESPN support.

(01-18-2020 06:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Bottom line is MW needs Boise more than Boise needs MW, but doesn't seem MW realizes that.

They need each other. The MWC needs Boise State football. That is recognized by their separate deal that generates an additional $1.8 million for Boise State. Boise State Olympic sports does not do much for the MWC. They are bringing back baseball after 40 years and they are investing a lot of money in the sport. They are building a new baseball stadium at about a cost of $10 million and their baseball budget will be around $1 million annually to start.

Boise State recruits California football well, better than a lot of Pac-12 schools. They have a recognizable brand and they play in the Mountain West. A move to the AAC for football only entails risk. Will the pipeline from California continue? Would they dominate the AAC the way they have the MWC? Craig "Hair" Thompson made a mistake by bringing this up.

Thompson: "This will be arguably the last contract we will negotiate Boise State separately, but their membership agreement when we named them the Mountain West Conference years ago was predicated on us negotiating their home games separately."

Thompson: "The world is certainly changing. Again, back to the emphasis of where this all might be five years from now, six years from now, I have no idea. Nobody does."

What does arguably mean? If you don't know what the football world is going to look like in five years, why bring this up now? Thompson has had a habit of making stupid statements in the past, such as letting it slip out that Gonzaga was considering a move to the MWC. The guy cannot keep his mouth shut.

The MW just signed a 6 year deal. For any team to leave the MW now would be a mistake unless it is for a P5 conference. There isn't enough money in any other conference outside of the P5 to truly make it worthwhile, when you factor in travel costs, and possibly dropping your other sports into a lower conference.

If the MW didn't let BYU keep their other sports in the MW when the went Indy, I seriously doubt Boise would get that option if they go elsewhere either Indy or AAC for football only. The MW and Boise both know this, so when it comes time to renegotiate the next media deal all parties will likely be on the same page. It is a bunch posturing by both sides that will ultimately be much ado about nothing.

If a BOR conference that is coast to coast does get created then all bets are off as teams will scramble to get in, but their has to be a true western portion with at least 4 teams. The BOR could happen if Texas and Oklahoma leave the B12 or the AAC decides to go west with 4 teams.

(01-19-2020 02:21 PM)CoastalVANDAL Wrote:  Has any conference gained by leaving ESPN ?
Boise is ESPN's baby and still finished 23 at 12-2 .
I imagine the same season might put them out of the top twenty five without their ESPN support.

Yes. The old MW almost became a BCS conference without ESPN.

(01-19-2020 01:33 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-19-2020 11:41 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-19-2020 02:07 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  Fair enough. Thanks for the assessment. To answer your question the MWC Presidents believed the Boise dollars would pay off when Boise made the access bowl. They have not made it for a number of years. I also speculate the Boise deal is hindering other schools ability to retain top coaches as other coaches don’t want to stay and play on an uneven playing field.

The net of the situation is Thompson has never been a Commissioner to make idle threats. If he is saying this 6 years are the last of Boise’s special treatment it’s because the Presidents want it that way. As some have stated, you can’t force people to stay in a contract forever.

I agree with you, I doubt Thompson just made this comment off-the-cuff independent of a push from the other members. Heck if he had, he would have had to quickly retract it. But we haven't gotten a retraction.

So given that his comment expressed the will of the membership, it amazes me that the membership doesn't realize how important Boise is to the MW, how the MW would go from being benchmarked vs the AAC to being benchmarked vs the Sun Belt. It's as if they want out of the contract so bad they are goading Boise to leave, which IMO would be cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Even if Boise hasn't brought in the dollars the others hoped for, their symbolic/brand value alone is much more significant to the MW than the members seem to realize. Dumb.

Agree. I suspect that Thompson's comments reflect the will of the membership. I also think the membership has no real ability to carry out that course of action due to the contractual language of the term sheet. My question would be---why deliver a message publicly? The same desire by the membership to phase out the special Boise deal has no doubt been discussed in face to face closed meetings among the membership (including Boise). So, if we can assume Boise is aware of the desire----why say it in public? Thats the real question.

The reason to deliver the message publicly would be to goad Boise in to leaving. The membership surely knows that they don't have the power to change the language of the contract, but if Boise chooses to exit themselves well then that ends the contract.

I am starting to suspect that the membership finds the deal so odious that they want Boise gone. Incrediblly dumb IMO, but that is the only thing that comports with the public comment.