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

1 minute ago, nocoolnamejim said:

Clearing this point up. The Board is composed of all 12 presidents as I understand it, but that does not tell us exactly how each president voted on this. We don't know if BSU is alone on their viewpoint, we only know that a majority of the board voted against it. 

The exact breakdown of the vote and who voted what way is not information that we presently have unless someone has posted it and I haven't seen it.

It could be 11-1 against BSU. It could be 7-5. Thompson's comments that they (Board) want a more germane and equal partnership simply means that some majority of presidents have that viewpoint. It doesn't tell us how big the majority is. I view this as kind of a key point. 

BSU's position on all of this is a lot weaker if it's 11-1 than if it's 7-5 for example.

I could see the other MWC Presidents just voting Boise St out of the MWC...   Which could be exactly what Boise St really wants, no exit fee and able to work their own deal with ESPN.   I really think they would rather be on ESPN!   So I could see Boise St actually trying to find a landing spot for their other sports (Big Sky or WCC).  There is 3 more independent teams (BYU, New Mexico St, & Liberty) now than when BYU went independent.  BYU kind of blazed a model with ESPN, that could be an easier path for Boise St & ESPN to follow now.  I can kind of see ESPN's fingers all over this thing. 

As a BYU fan I was pretty happy when the MWC did not resign with ESPN, because it made BYU content more valuable to ESPN (got to fill those MST & PST time slots).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, kingpotato said:

Uh, he also called out Boise State in that same statement. Besides, coaches don't make those decisions 

But they sure can stir the pot with leadership and boosters.  Just an observation.  Personally, I think he is just positioning himself for security at BSU or another gig higher up.

Nothing to really say here.....except GO MWC!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Wyobraska said:

No NY6 bowl chance. November games will be tougher to schedule, but they could probably schedule the Indy schools but that front loads the schedule more with P5 schools.  

For the record, I think Indy would be bad for BSU.

I don't think it's done BYU any favors since they've tried doing it and I think if BYU has suffered as an independent (and I think, money aside, that they have) then I don't think BSU could pull it off. I think it would be the AAC if BSU were to leave, possibly by negotiating bringing some teams with them and setting up a true western division.

The reason why BSU backed out of joining the Big East/AAC the last time around was basically that they reneged on forming a true western division for BSU and SDSU. If they were to fix that, and the incentive would be there to do so because then they could not only get the best MWC football schools but also kill their biggest rival in the process, then I could definitely see BSU and some other current MWC schools being interested in it.

BSU, SDSU, Fresno State, Air Force and one other, for example, would make an interesting 16 team conference when combined with the current AAC. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, e-zone99 said:

I could see the other MWC Presidents just voting Boise St out of the MWC...   Which could be exactly what Boise St really wants, no exit fee and able to work their own deal with ESPN.   I really think they would rather be on ESPN!   So I could see Boise St actually trying to find a landing spot for their other sports (Big Sky or WCC).  There is 3 more independent teams (BYU, New Mexico St, & Liberty) now than when BYU went independent.  BYU kind of blazed a model with ESPN, that could be an easier path for Boise St & ESPN to follow now.  I can kind of see ESPN's fingers all over this thing. 

As a BYU fan I was pretty happy when the MWC did not resign with ESPN, because it made BYU content more valuable to ESPN (got to fill those MST & PST time slots).

 

I don't seen BSU affiliated with the WCC.  The WCC has a certain profile and BSU does not meet it (nor are they trying to).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the conference would be running so much more smoothly if it was just allowed that schools could keep their tier 2/3 rights. Thinking about it the Boise and Hawaii's exemptions aren't all that different. Just that one just cuts into their conference tv money owed while the other builds on top of it. We both have mostly rights to our home games through packages but just difference of priority in network selection.

Boise could keep their share, sell their home games to any network under "tier 3" and make more.

Hawaii could keep their 80% share, while continuing with our own tier 3 rights deal with Spectrum. Instead of the current solution of Spectrum + 80% of difference

Every other member school can either pool together if they don't think they can find a good deal, or sell their remaining games separately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, nocoolnamejim said:

Clearing this point up. The Board is composed of all 12 presidents as I understand it, but that does not tell us exactly how each president voted on this. We don't know if BSU is alone on their viewpoint, we only know that a majority of the board voted against it. 

The exact breakdown of the vote and who voted what way is not information that we presently have unless someone has posted it and I haven't seen it.

It could be 11-1 against BSU. It could be 7-5. Thompson's comments that they (Board) want a more germane and equal partnership simply means that some majority of presidents have that viewpoint. It doesn't tell us how big the majority is. I view this as kind of a key point. 

BSU's position on all of this is a lot weaker if it's 11-1 than if it's 7-5 for example.

I believe the votes have to be 3/4 to pass.  Not sure Hawaii even gets a vote as they aren’t a full member.

So the worst for it to pass is 8-3 which doesn’t give BSU any additional leverage.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, nocoolnamejim said:

Clearing this point up. The Board is composed of all 12 presidents as I understand it, but that does not tell us exactly how each president voted on this. We don't know if BSU is alone on their viewpoint, we only know that a majority of the board voted against it. 

The exact breakdown of the vote and who voted what way is not information that we presently have unless someone has posted it and I haven't seen it.

It could be 11-1 against BSU. It could be 7-5. Thompson's comments that they (Board) want a more germane and equal partnership simply means that some majority of presidents have that viewpoint. It doesn't tell us how big the majority is. I view this as kind of a key point. 

BSU's position on all of this is a lot weaker if it's 11-1 than if it's 7-5 for example.

We don’t know if Boise’s President went along with it either, which given the initial statement on the tv deal, it’s likely. Also the board has to be nearly unanimous to pass or approve large ticket items. So it wasn’t 7-5. 
 

Another point, Boise claiming they were lied to or that the MWC reneged on the deal doesn’t make any sense given they were involved in the discussion the whole way. They knew that the MWC wanted to sunset the Boise deal after the 6 year tv deal. They were in the room. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, MWC Tex said:

I believe the votes have to be 3/4 to pass.  Not sure Hawaii even gets a vote as they aren’t a full member.

So the worst for it to pass is 8-3 which doesn’t give BSU any leverage.  

Not entirely sure but I believe that Hawaii does get a vote regarding football-related matters. So things like that Gonzaga decision, etc. the school wouldn't have a say in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, TheJackel said:

At this point I think almost everyone is ok with the haircut we’d take when Boise leaves.  The rest of the conference has suffered because of the disparity this deal has created- Instead of using all conference resources (that, yes, Boise could mostly be responsible for) to try and improve all teams so that there are multiple NY6 contenders and that conference play matters nationally, we are essentially committing them to one team in the hopes that they go undefeated and get to a NY6 bowl.

The Boise experiment hasn’t worked out for the MW.  I think the rest of the conference would rather soldier on as equals and let Boise go wherever it is they want to go.   

I think it's a bit more nuanced than what you're saying here.

Do I think that the other presidents are unhappy with BSU getting an uneven share? Yes. I can agree to that. 

Do I think their preference is making less money each year overall and the reputation of the conference going down with their best football program departing...possibly to their biggest rival? No, I don't think that's their preference. 

Do I think that we'd have multiple NY6 bowl candidates annually if not for BSU taking an unequal share? No. I believe that to be a load of crap tbh. An extra $1.8M is not making the difference between the conference having one NY6 candidate and multiple ones each year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, MWC Tex said:

I believe the votes have to be 3/4 to pass.  Not sure Hawaii even gets a vote as they aren’t a full member.

So the worst for it to pass is 8-3 which doesn’t give BSU any leverage.  

We know that 2 presidents voted/or wanted to immediately terminate the Boise deal with this tv contract. My guess is Wyoming and Nevada. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rosegreen said:

We know that 2 presidents voted/or wanted to immediately terminate the Boise deal with this tv contract. My guess is Wyoming and Nevada. 

I doubt it was us.  My guess is SDSU and Air Force. 

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, BSUTOP25 said:

When you think about it, ~90% of the schools receive federal money. Then they operate a major revenue generator (sports) with inequalities in access and distribution. And distribution doesn’t always depend on performance but rather affiliation. 

I have to admit, I'm highly amused watching you arguing for more regulation and socialism while I'm defending BSU's uneven revenue share. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Chile_Ute said:

But they sure can stir the pot with leadership and boosters.  Just an observation.  Personally, I think he is just positioning himself for security at BSU or another gig higher up.

Bingo, coaches do that all the time. It was specifically meant to create leverage for himself. Whether that be a future job, budget increase, facilities upgrade, salary upgrades. He's not captaining the entire ship, he's captaining his own little boat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, BYUcougfan said:

I don't seen BSU affiliated with the WCC.  The WCC has a certain profile and BSU does not meet it (nor are they trying to).

I'm not sure what chance they would have with the WCC either, but it was tweeted that was one of the 2 conferences Boise St has reportedly approached.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, nocoolnamejim said:

I have to admit, I'm highly amused watching you arguing for more regulation and socialism while I'm defending BSU's uneven revenue share. :)

Tradsies for a day? :) 

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, tspoke said:

I don't think they would. Most the other schools in this conference(or at least the original core) have history together. We enjoy being in a conference with each other. Hell we formed a new conference when that history was threatened by not being able to play each other every year. I get that Boise doesn't have a shared history with anyone. You've been looking out for yourselves and no one else from the beginning. That's cool I guess but not every school is like that. As someone else upthread said Utah and TCU didn't demand more of our revenue before they got the promotion and they were worlds better than BSU is today. I don't blame them for jumping at the chance to join the big show but when they were here they were good conference mates.  Also you don't see the big dog in other conferences trying to pull this shit. Even Texas was just looking for their 3rd tier rights which was more valuable than other schools they weren't looking to take a larger cut of the tier 1 rights. It hurts the conference which hurts itself.

The presidents signed a dumb deal and now boise gets 1.8 mil more. Fine. Now they have 6 years to see if they can figure something out satisfactory to all parties. But if they try to take more than the 1.8 that was agreed upon then can kick rocks.

I know the history of Wyoming and the other schools clear back to the WAC.  At least, when I went to Wyoming, they were good in both football and basketball.  Boise State has been DI since 1996 and has had opportunities to move up, so yes, in a way they are looking out for themselves.  We don't have the history of the other schools, even being a university.  I was there when Brandenburg left one of the best basketball teams in the nation, to go to SUDS.  Is that being a "good conference mate"???

 

 

 

 

down in a hole.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...