Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

CsquaredCC

Boise State Has Filed Suit Against the MWC

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, nocoolnamejim said:

MWC agreed to accept, without an end date, an unequal share of revenue distribution as a condition of BSU's re-entry, then they kind of are stuck with i

I don’t think that was agreed upon. Link to that portion of the deal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, VandalPride97 said:

MWC thanksgiving dinner is going to be as awkward as a fart in church.

To be quite honest, most marriages in all of college sports have been marriages of convenience for quite some time now. Every program wants into that bigger, better conference. Every conference wants to move to the top of the heap. 

Idaho, for example, would probably absolutely LOVE the chance to step back into FBS if an opening in the MWC came available. Meanwhile every school CURRENTLY in the MWC would leap at a chance to step into an autobid conference with a huge pay bump. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be fine with Boise receiving (in-perpetuity) the 1.8M.   After time, that won't really be as much. (Which I guess is why Boise wants a %)

Getting them to restructure revenue distribution based on performance seems the only way.  After all, Boise is playing a risky game--if they get caught up on a scandal and go through a period of losing--what's going to stop the conference from saying "hey wait a minute..." and kick them out?  Even the best teams in a conference go through a rough decade or so eventually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, nocoolnamejim said:

I would simultaneously consider that the fairest and most just option, but that also that isn't how contracts work. 

If the MWC agreed to accept, without an end date, an unequal share of revenue distribution as a condition of BSU's re-entry, then they kind of are stuck with it. I think the wiggle room is that with a new TV contract the conference can make the argument that BSU isn't quite AS VALUABLE in driving the conference's revenue as it was the last time around and that's where the negotiating takes place on just how much of a premium BSU gets. 

That's why I think it'll end up being somewhere between the original $1.8M premium and the direct scaling upwards that BSU is seeking. I think it's hard to argue against BSU being the conference's most valuable property, but fairly easy to make a compelling argument that there's less distance between BSU and the rest of the conference in terms of value than there was when the two entities negotiated the program's re-entry.

Why fiddle around with the MWC, which you guys view as having football teams inferior to yourselves, when you can get more money by joining the AAC or Big 8?  

As far as I am concerned, you guys can have the $1.8 mil and can pound sand if you want more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, nocoolnamejim said:

To be quite honest, most marriages in all of college sports have been marriages of convenience for quite some time now. Every program wants into that bigger, better conference. Every conference wants to move to the top of the heap. 

Idaho, for example, would probably absolutely LOVE the chance to step back into FBS if an opening in the MWC came available. Meanwhile every school CURRENTLY in the MWC would leap at a chance to step into an autobid conference with a huge pay bump. 

The MWC was built on treachery, and almost every school in the conference backstabbed a conference mate or attempted to backstab a conference mate.  Who can blame Boise for looking after themselves?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, nocoolnamejim said:

I would simultaneously consider that the fairest and most just option, but that also that isn't how contracts work. 

If the MWC agreed to accept, without an end date, an unequal share of revenue distribution as a condition of BSU's re-entry, then they kind of are stuck with it. I think the wiggle room is that with a new TV contract the conference can make the argument that BSU isn't quite AS VALUABLE in driving the conference's revenue as it was the last time around and that's where the negotiating takes place on just how much of a premium BSU gets. 

That's why I think it'll end up being somewhere between the original $1.8M premium and the direct scaling upwards that BSU is seeking. I think it's hard to argue against BSU being the conference's most valuable property, but fairly easy to make a compelling argument that there's less distance between BSU and the rest of the conference in terms of value than there was when the two entities negotiated the program's re-entry.

the issue I see is that you don't see Bama requesting a greater share from the SEC for their value, or Ohio St. or USC.  I think the only example of special deals by other schools is Gonzaga and Texas.  I question that the $1.8M should be paid out indefinitely?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Rosegreen said:

I don’t think that was agreed upon. Link to that portion of the deal?

It's discussed somewhere in the first 10 pages of the thread that that's BSU's contention. Whether or not it is true or not...well, not a lawyer I guess. BSU is alleging it is true in the lawsuit and that's one of the main complaints is that they feel that the conference has no right to end that by a vote in 2026. Most of the people I've seen chiming in seem to agree that at the very least that the 1.8M has no expiration date and that's why I took that as a basic fact. 

Maybe one of our legal minds can help me out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Del Scorcho said:

the issue I see is that you don't see Bama requesting a greater share from the SEC for their value, or Ohio St. or USC.  I think the only example of special deals by other schools is Gonzaga and Texas.  I question that the $1.8M should be paid out indefinitely?

If fairness and justice were the conditions for such things, then it probably shouldn't. This is where I point back to how that's not necessarily how contracts work. BSU had a lot of leverage when they were discussing reentry into the conference. What is "right" and "just" is not what matters on legal matters. It's only what the two parties agreed to.

From my admittedly limited understanding, it seems like BSU used their leverage back then and got a favorable contract. Not necessarily a "fair" contract, but a favorable one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, nocoolnamejim said:

I would simultaneously consider that the fairest and most just option, but that also that isn't how contracts work. 

If the MWC agreed to accept, without an end date, an unequal share of revenue distribution as a condition of BSU's re-entry, then they kind of are stuck with it. I think the wiggle room is that with a new TV contract the conference can make the argument that BSU isn't quite AS VALUABLE in driving the conference's revenue as it was the last time around and that's where the negotiating takes place on just how much of a premium BSU gets. 

That's why I think it'll end up being somewhere between the original $1.8M premium and the direct scaling upwards that BSU is seeking. I think it's hard to argue against BSU being the conference's most valuable property, but fairly easy to make a compelling argument that there's less distance between BSU and the rest of the conference in terms of value than there was when the two entities negotiated the program's re-entry.

I believe that Boise wants the Fox/CBS contract voided because they say the MW can't enter into any tv deal without Boise approval.  They do not approve and that is the basis of their potential lawsuit..There doesn't appear to be any compromise available..Either Boise gives its approval or the don't.  Either the MW excepts the voiding of the new deal or they don't.  I don't believe this marriage can be saved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SharkTanked said:

Not to mention the homeless fans of a certain Indy school.

 

Another OT, but fun fact.  UNLV spent an equal amount of time with Goletastanis (UC Santa Barbara)...

2037927884_1988UCSBBrianShawatUNLV.png.e5b2a0de7817865772cb09501f4b0473.png

 

...and Provostanis

11545001_web1_BKC-UNLV-DEC16-18_RB_2538.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, nvspuds said:

I believe that Boise wants the Fox/CBS contract voided because they say the MW can't enter into any tv deal without Boise approval.  They do not approve and that is the basis of their potential lawsuit..There doesn't appear to be any compromise available..Either Boise gives its approval or the don't.  Either the MW excepts the voiding of the new deal or they don't.  I don't believe this marriage can be saved.

I hope that you're incorrect. I like BSU where it currently is barring some sort of unlikely elevation to the Big-12 or, even better, the Pac-12. 

I also think that at the moment, both sides really need each other. BSU is the biggest draw for the MWC. The MWC is the best possible current geographical fit for BSU. Both sides need each other and that's why I think some sort of compromise will eventually be reached.

Whether I'm right or not...I guess we'll see? My thinking is that when both sides NEED the other, then eventually a middle ground of some kind is usually found.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, nocoolnamejim said:

To be quite honest, most marriages in all of college sports have been marriages of convenience for quite some time now. Every program wants into that bigger, better conference. Every conference wants to move to the top of the heap. 

Idaho, for example, would probably absolutely LOVE the chance to step back into FBS if an opening in the MWC came available. Meanwhile every school CURRENTLY in the MWC would leap at a chance to step into an autobid conference with a huge pay bump. 

Sounds great.  Boise to the AAC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, WAC_FAN said:

The MWC was built on treachery, and almost every school in the conference backstabbed a conference mate or attempted to backstab a conference mate.  Who can blame Boise for looking after themselves?

 

Hawaii backstabbed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, VandalPride97 said:

Sounds great.  Boise to the AAC.

If it happens, then best of luck with Idaho to the MWC. :) It's a decent fit geographically after all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, nocoolnamejim said:

It's discussed somewhere in the first 10 pages of the thread that that's BSU's contention. Whether or not it is true or not...well, not a lawyer I guess. BSU is alleging it is true in the lawsuit and that's one of the main complaints is that they feel that the conference has no right to end that by a vote in 2026. Most of the people I've seen chiming in seem to agree that at the very least that the 1.8M has no expiration date and that's why I took that as a basic fact. 

Maybe one of our legal minds can help me out?

I have not seen that anywhere. Unless expressly written in the contract goes in perpetuity, which I believe it isn’t but something Boise wants in perpetuity now. 
 

They are probably headed to the AAC regardless because I don’t see the MWC doing that deal in perpetuity, most college presidents are all about equality these days. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner
10 minutes ago, Del Scorcho said:

the issue I see is that you don't see Bama requesting a greater share from the SEC for their value, or Ohio St. or USC.  I think the only example of special deals by other schools is Gonzaga and Texas.  I question that the $1.8M should be paid out indefinitely?

To be clear, Gonzaga and Texas (I don't think) even get "special deals".

WCC deal is that TV rights sold to ESPN are shared evenly, and then each school gets to own and sell their own tier 3 rights.  Then each school gets to keep a higher share of whatever they earn in the NCAA tourney (from tourney credits).  Technically, the same opportunity is there for everyone.

Texas gets to keep and own its tier 3 rights (again same opportunity is there for everyone).

 

In contrast, Boise gets a higher share of the Conference TV money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, nvspuds said:

I believe that Boise wants the Fox/CBS contract voided because they say the MW can't enter into any tv deal without Boise approval.  They do not approve and that is the basis of their potential lawsuit..There doesn't appear to be any compromise available..Either Boise gives its approval or the don't.  Either the MW excepts the voiding of the new deal or they don't.  I don't believe this marriage can be saved.

Agreed. BYU tried the same thing and no compromise to be had and they left.
 

I don’t see the MWC presidents signing off on a deal that gives Boise more money in perpetuity. Not gonna happen.  Same thing with the AAC, their Commish has publicly stated he isn’t going to do preferential deals to acquire another program to the conference. 
 

MWC should start looking for a replacement member. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...