(01-19-2020 03:02 PM)quo vadis 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.

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.

completely agree with you. Only thing that makes sense with it at all.

(01-19-2020 03:02 PM)quo vadis 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.

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.

Or its a bluff that they hope will result in Boise agreeing to further modification of the deal. The bottom line is MW pocketbooks are thicker with Boise in the fold. It's one thing if its a bluff---its another thing completely if they are truly attempting to push Boise into leaving. To quote John Grisham's "The Rain Maker", the latter option would just be "stupid stupid stupid".

(01-19-2020 03:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-19-2020 03:02 PM)quo vadis 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.

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.

Or its a bluff that they hope will result in Boise agreeing to further modification of the deal. The bottom line is MW pocketbooks are thicker with Boise in the fold. It's one thing if its a bluff---its another thing completely if they are truly attempting to push them into leaving. To quote John Grisham's "The Rain Maker", the latter option would just be "stupid stupid stupid".

I would say Boise's statement on Friday called the bluff.

(01-19-2020 03:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-19-2020 03:02 PM)quo vadis 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.

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.

Or its a bluff that they hope will result in Boise agreeing to further modification of the deal. The bottom line is MW pocketbooks are thicker with Boise in the fold. It's one thing if its a bluff---its another thing completely if they are truly attempting to push Boise into leaving. To quote John Grisham's "The Rain Maker", the latter option would just be "stupid stupid stupid".

Don’t think it’s a bluff at all. Sure BSU brings some extra coin....but it’s not like they are Texas that brings the B12-2 100 million extra for the schools. The MW schools can get by with $1 million less if needed.

Besides, the MW has been accommodating to BSU to see that they get their extra cut when if the MW followed word for word the term sheet, nobody would get a bonus because the past few years no MW controlled game met the minimum 90 million households threshold to qualify to get the bonus.

(01-19-2020 03:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-19-2020 03:02 PM)quo vadis 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.

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.

Or its a bluff that they hope will result in Boise agreeing to further modification of the deal. The bottom line is MW pocketbooks are thicker with Boise in the fold. It's one thing if its a bluff---its another thing completely if they are truly attempting to push Boise into leaving. To quote John Grisham's "The Rain Maker", the latter option would just be "stupid stupid stupid".

It shows that none of what the MWC has done makes sense!

Let’s say that the MWC actually *is* trying to get Boise State to leave. Not only would that be stupid... the fact that the MWC is breaching its contract with Boise State means that Boise State could likely leave without paying any exit fees.

So, the MWC would rather make less money AND let Boise State exit for free because of some wounded pride over Boise State getting a bonus that barely covers the salary of a head coach? I guess that could happen when satisfying egos means more than even money... but WOW would that be stupid.

(01-19-2020 03:51 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-19-2020 03:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-19-2020 03:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

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

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

Or its a bluff that they hope will result in Boise agreeing to further modification of the deal. The bottom line is MW pocketbooks are thicker with Boise in the fold. It's one thing if its a bluff---its another thing completely if they are truly attempting to push Boise into leaving. To quote John Grisham's "The Rain Maker", the latter option would just be "stupid stupid stupid".

It shows that none of what the MWC has done makes sense!

Let’s say that the MWC actually *is* trying to get Boise State to leave. Not only would that be stupid... the fact that the MWC is breaching its contract with Boise State means that Boise State could likely leave without paying any exit fees.

So, the MWC would rather make less money AND let Boise State exit for free because of some wounded pride over Boise State getting a bonus that barely covers the salary of a head coach? I guess that could happen when satisfying egos means more than even money... but WOW would that be stupid.

The MW does not have to give a bonus to anyone because in order to get a bonus the game must be on a network that is in at least 90 million households. ESPN and others are below that for the past few years.

(01-19-2020 03:59 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-19-2020 03:51 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-19-2020 03:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-19-2020 03:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

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

Or its a bluff that they hope will result in Boise agreeing to further modification of the deal. The bottom line is MW pocketbooks are thicker with Boise in the fold. It's one thing if its a bluff---its another thing completely if they are truly attempting to push Boise into leaving. To quote John Grisham's "The Rain Maker", the latter option would just be "stupid stupid stupid".

It shows that none of what the MWC has done makes sense!

Let’s say that the MWC actually *is* trying to get Boise State to leave. Not only would that be stupid... the fact that the MWC is breaching its contract with Boise State means that Boise State could likely leave without paying any exit fees.

So, the MWC would rather make less money AND let Boise State exit for free because of some wounded pride over Boise State getting a bonus that barely covers the salary of a head coach? I guess that could happen when satisfying egos means more than even money... but WOW would that be stupid.

The MW does not have to give a bonus to anyone because in order to get a bonus the game must be on a network that is in at least 90 million households. ESPN and others are below that for the past few years.

CBS will be airing at least 3 MWC games per year on broadcast TV, and Fox can also air games on its broadcast channel. A Fox exec said at the MWC press conference that they want Florida State at Boise State on Fox OTA in 2020.

https://themw.com/documents/2019/12/6//A...df?id=5085

Here is section of the bylaws. The whole handbook is available to view.
Little section regarding any agreement for distribution will be on file at the conference office. Whether the original term sheet is there or any revisions to it would be there.

https://www.idahostatesman.com/sports/co...35634.html

Forgot the bonus was changed. BSU gets 1.8 million and the rest of the ESPN money is split evenly.

So the new contract honors that. So if the MW says that BSU home games won’t be a separate package, it doesn’t mean that they would not get the extra amount the next contract.

(01-19-2020 03:51 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-19-2020 03:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-19-2020 03:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

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

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

Or its a bluff that they hope will result in Boise agreeing to further modification of the deal. The bottom line is MW pocketbooks are thicker with Boise in the fold. It's one thing if its a bluff---its another thing completely if they are truly attempting to push Boise into leaving. To quote John Grisham's "The Rain Maker", the latter option would just be "stupid stupid stupid".

It shows that none of what the MWC has done makes sense!

Let’s say that the MWC actually *is* trying to get Boise State to leave. Not only would that be stupid... the fact that the MWC is breaching its contract with Boise State means that Boise State could likely leave without paying any exit fees.

So, the MWC would rather make less money AND let Boise State exit for free because of some wounded pride over Boise State getting a bonus that barely covers the salary of a head coach? I guess that could happen when satisfying egos means more than even money... but WOW would that be stupid.

After thinking about it---I did think if one other option that might be left for the MW members. Maybe it's not a threat to kick out Boise. Maybe its a shot across the bow by other key members of the MW---as in---renegotiate the deal or WE will leave the conference. Thats a threat that can be carried out by a small group of members and actually result in the exiting members being better off than they are now.

(01-19-2020 04:40 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  https://www.idahostatesman.com/sports/co...35634.html

Forgot the bonus was changed. BSU gets 1.8 million and the rest of the ESPN money is split evenly.

So the new contract honors that. So if the MW says that BSU home games won’t be a separate package, it doesn’t mean that they would not get the extra amount the next contract.

I think they want to have control over where their content is aired as much as they want the extra money.

(01-19-2020 06:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-19-2020 03:51 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-19-2020 03:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-19-2020 03:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

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

Or its a bluff that they hope will result in Boise agreeing to further modification of the deal. The bottom line is MW pocketbooks are thicker with Boise in the fold. It's one thing if its a bluff---its another thing completely if they are truly attempting to push Boise into leaving. To quote John Grisham's "The Rain Maker", the latter option would just be "stupid stupid stupid".

It shows that none of what the MWC has done makes sense!

Let’s say that the MWC actually *is* trying to get Boise State to leave. Not only would that be stupid... the fact that the MWC is breaching its contract with Boise State means that Boise State could likely leave without paying any exit fees.

So, the MWC would rather make less money AND let Boise State exit for free because of some wounded pride over Boise State getting a bonus that barely covers the salary of a head coach? I guess that could happen when satisfying egos means more than even money... but WOW would that be stupid.

After thinking about it---I did think if one other option that might be left for the MW members. Maybe it's not a threat to kick out Boise. Maybe its a shot across the bow by other key members of the MW---as in---renegotiate the deal or WE will leave the conference. Thats a threat that can be carried out by a small group of members and actually result in the exiting members being better off than they are now.

Let’s say your hypothetical group is Fresno State, San Diego State, and UNLV. There is no place they could threaten to go that (a) would invite them and (b) would be a better situation for them.

(01-19-2020 06:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-19-2020 04:40 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  https://www.idahostatesman.com/sports/co...35634.html

Forgot the bonus was changed. BSU gets 1.8 million and the rest of the ESPN money is split evenly.

So the new contract honors that. So if the MW says that BSU home games won’t be a separate package, it doesn’t mean that they would not get the extra amount the next contract.

I think they want to have control over where their content is aired as much as they want the extra money.

Think so also, but this is the first time that the MW had to renegotiate with a new TV contract with BSU home games. I think when it came time to go to market it was a mess to have to do 2 deals. It’s probably why it took so long to get a deal done.
I don’t think the rest of the members want to go through that again in 5 years.

(01-19-2020 06:40 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-19-2020 06:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-19-2020 04:40 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  https://www.idahostatesman.com/sports/co...35634.html

Forgot the bonus was changed. BSU gets 1.8 million and the rest of the ESPN money is split evenly.

So the new contract honors that. So if the MW says that BSU home games won’t be a separate package, it doesn’t mean that they would not get the extra amount the next contract.

I think they want to have control over where their content is aired as much as they want the extra money.

Think so also, but this is the first time that the MW had to renegotiate with a new TV contract with BSU home games. I think when it came time to go to market it was a mess to have to do 2 deals. It’s probably why it took so long to get a deal done.
I don’t think the rest of the members want to go through that again in 5 years.

This is what makes sense.

Boise insisting on a separate negotiation probably costs everyone money, in addition to the complications. There can be allocation of money based on appearances to benefit stronger programs.

Sounds like its just Boise being a prima dona. Despite all the high and mighty pronunciations on this board, Boise cannot force them to include them in their conference forever. Every contract can be broken. There is compensation for broken contracts, but compensation does not include slavery.

(01-19-2020 06:36 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-19-2020 06:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-19-2020 03:51 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-19-2020 03:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-19-2020 03:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  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.

Or its a bluff that they hope will result in Boise agreeing to further modification of the deal. The bottom line is MW pocketbooks are thicker with Boise in the fold. It's one thing if its a bluff---its another thing completely if they are truly attempting to push Boise into leaving. To quote John Grisham's "The Rain Maker", the latter option would just be "stupid stupid stupid".

It shows that none of what the MWC has done makes sense!

Let’s say that the MWC actually *is* trying to get Boise State to leave. Not only would that be stupid... the fact that the MWC is breaching its contract with Boise State means that Boise State could likely leave without paying any exit fees.

So, the MWC would rather make less money AND let Boise State exit for free because of some wounded pride over Boise State getting a bonus that barely covers the salary of a head coach? I guess that could happen when satisfying egos means more than even money... but WOW would that be stupid.

After thinking about it---I did think if one other option that might be left for the MW members. Maybe it's not a threat to kick out Boise. Maybe its a shot across the bow by other key members of the MW---as in---renegotiate the deal or WE will leave the conference. Thats a threat that can be carried out by a small group of members and actually result in the exiting members being better off than they are now.

Let’s say your hypothetical group is Fresno State, San Diego State, and UNLV. There is no place they could threaten to go that (a) would invite them and (b) would be a better situation for them.

AAC?

Travel is a little worse, but the TV $$ goes up to cover it and then some. Competitively, the AAC would have a nice mix of programs that would give national recruiting exposure to those teams.

It's not a slam dunk at all, but you could turn it into a double.

Institutions don't like sweeping change.

(01-19-2020 08:42 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(01-19-2020 06:36 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-19-2020 06:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-19-2020 03:51 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-19-2020 03:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Or its a bluff that they hope will result in Boise agreeing to further modification of the deal. The bottom line is MW pocketbooks are thicker with Boise in the fold. It's one thing if its a bluff---its another thing completely if they are truly attempting to push Boise into leaving. To quote John Grisham's "The Rain Maker", the latter option would just be "stupid stupid stupid".

It shows that none of what the MWC has done makes sense!

Let’s say that the MWC actually *is* trying to get Boise State to leave. Not only would that be stupid... the fact that the MWC is breaching its contract with Boise State means that Boise State could likely leave without paying any exit fees.

So, the MWC would rather make less money AND let Boise State exit for free because of some wounded pride over Boise State getting a bonus that barely covers the salary of a head coach? I guess that could happen when satisfying egos means more than even money... but WOW would that be stupid.

After thinking about it---I did think if one other option that might be left for the MW members. Maybe it's not a threat to kick out Boise. Maybe its a shot across the bow by other key members of the MW---as in---renegotiate the deal or WE will leave the conference. Thats a threat that can be carried out by a small group of members and actually result in the exiting members being better off than they are now.

Let’s say your hypothetical group is Fresno State, San Diego State, and UNLV. There is no place they could threaten to go that (a) would invite them and (b) would be a better situation for them.

AAC?

Travel is a little worse, but the TV $$ goes up to cover it and then some. Competitively, the AAC would have a nice mix of programs that would give national recruiting exposure to those teams.

It's not a slam dunk at all, but you could turn it into a double.

Institutions don't like sweeping change.

Maybe as football-only? Would be an interesting independents group with a scheduling deal allowing 7-8 other games. Easier to do than 12 as an independent.

(01-19-2020 08:42 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(01-19-2020 06:36 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-19-2020 06:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-19-2020 03:51 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-19-2020 03:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Or its a bluff that they hope will result in Boise agreeing to further modification of the deal. The bottom line is MW pocketbooks are thicker with Boise in the fold. It's one thing if its a bluff---its another thing completely if they are truly attempting to push Boise into leaving. To quote John Grisham's "The Rain Maker", the latter option would just be "stupid stupid stupid".

It shows that none of what the MWC has done makes sense!

Let’s say that the MWC actually *is* trying to get Boise State to leave. Not only would that be stupid... the fact that the MWC is breaching its contract with Boise State means that Boise State could likely leave without paying any exit fees.

So, the MWC would rather make less money AND let Boise State exit for free because of some wounded pride over Boise State getting a bonus that barely covers the salary of a head coach? I guess that could happen when satisfying egos means more than even money... but WOW would that be stupid.

After thinking about it---I did think if one other option that might be left for the MW members. Maybe it's not a threat to kick out Boise. Maybe its a shot across the bow by other key members of the MW---as in---renegotiate the deal or WE will leave the conference. Thats a threat that can be carried out by a small group of members and actually result in the exiting members being better off than they are now.

Let’s say your hypothetical group is Fresno State, San Diego State, and UNLV. There is no place they could threaten to go that (a) would invite them and (b) would be a better situation for them.

AAC?

Travel is a little worse, but the TV $$ goes up to cover it and then some. Competitively, the AAC would have a nice mix of programs that would give national recruiting exposure to those teams.

It's not a slam dunk at all, but you could turn it into a double.

Institutions don't like sweeping change.

That doesn’t pass (a). There’s no reason for the AAC to do that. Those teams don’t have Boise State’s football value. Adding them would dilute the current shares of conference revenue.

(01-19-2020 07:48 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-19-2020 06:40 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-19-2020 06:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-19-2020 04:40 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  https://www.idahostatesman.com/sports/co...35634.html

Forgot the bonus was changed. BSU gets 1.8 million and the rest of the ESPN money is split evenly.

So the new contract honors that. So if the MW says that BSU home games won’t be a separate package, it doesn’t mean that they would not get the extra amount the next contract.

I think they want to have control over where their content is aired as much as they want the extra money.

Think so also, but this is the first time that the MW had to renegotiate with a new TV contract with BSU home games. I think when it came time to go to market it was a mess to have to do 2 deals. It’s probably why it took so long to get a deal done.
I don’t think the rest of the members want to go through that again in 5 years.

This is what makes sense.

Boise insisting on a separate negotiation probably costs everyone money, in addition to the complications. There can be allocation of money based on appearances to benefit stronger programs.

Sounds like its just Boise being a prima dona. Despite all the high and mighty pronunciations on this board, Boise cannot force them to include them in their conference forever. Every contract can be broken. There is compensation for broken contracts, but compensation does not include slavery.

If what really irks the rest is the process of separate negotiations then maybe a solution, assuming Boise maintains their current market status, is to have just one megotiation but Boise gets proportionately more like they do now.

Boise State really shouldn't do anything until it's known what happens within the P group six years from now. If they jump now and then their new conference suffers defections then they may end up being exposed. Cool their jets for the time being.

(01-19-2020 09:56 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-19-2020 08:42 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(01-19-2020 06:36 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-19-2020 06:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-19-2020 03:51 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  It shows that none of what the MWC has done makes sense!

Let’s say that the MWC actually *is* trying to get Boise State to leave. Not only would that be stupid... the fact that the MWC is breaching its contract with Boise State means that Boise State could likely leave without paying any exit fees.

So, the MWC would rather make less money AND let Boise State exit for free because of some wounded pride over Boise State getting a bonus that barely covers the salary of a head coach? I guess that could happen when satisfying egos means more than even money... but WOW would that be stupid.

After thinking about it---I did think if one other option that might be left for the MW members. Maybe it's not a threat to kick out Boise. Maybe its a shot across the bow by other key members of the MW---as in---renegotiate the deal or WE will leave the conference. Thats a threat that can be carried out by a small group of members and actually result in the exiting members being better off than they are now.

Let’s say your hypothetical group is Fresno State, San Diego State, and UNLV. There is no place they could threaten to go that (a) would invite them and (b) would be a better situation for them.

AAC?

Travel is a little worse, but the TV $$ goes up to cover it and then some. Competitively, the AAC would have a nice mix of programs that would give national recruiting exposure to those teams.

It's not a slam dunk at all, but you could turn it into a double.

Institutions don't like sweeping change.

That doesn’t pass (a). There’s no reason for the AAC to do that. Those teams don’t have Boise State’s football value. Adding them would dilute the current shares of conference revenue.

SDSU certainly has value, maybe not as much as Boise, but they definitely bring some value to the AAC, although obviously they’re not going to come by themselves.