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

2 minutes ago, Rosegreen said:

Why Air Force, I understand that  SDSU is looking for some payback. 

Calhouns comments about the conference a couple of months ago or so.   Could also have been UNM as they’re in a really bad spot financially. 

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

5 minutes ago, kingpotato said:

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

They all do it, but from a 3rd party observation it really alienates the whole conference when this happens.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, boisewitha-s said:

I agree. It’s time for bsu to move on. Bsu wants more than just being mediocre in football. It’s too bad because the mw fits bsu in a lot of ways but the inability of anyone else in the mw becoming relevant really sucks. 

It does seem to the be the consensus that BSU needs to move on.  The rest of your statement is just fukking stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, NorCalCoug said:

I also think Boise would also have a more difficult time than BYU when it comes to scheduling...  and it was tough for BYU (but looks pretty good now).

Almost without a doubt we would. Smaller stadium, smaller city, no national fanbase because not centered around a major religion...you could go on. 

I think BSU as a indy would suffer significantly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 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.

The original Big12 deal scaled the payments based on the amount of times a school showed up on TV (this was back in the day that not all games were shown).  So, contrary to your assertion, Texas (and Nebraska and OU) were most definitely looking to take a larger cut of their Tier 1 rights.  When the networks started offering the showing of all games, Texas changed their view so as to allow them have independent Tier 3 rights.  Hence the LHN.  Texas ain't no innocent here.  Does it "hurt" the conference?  Yeah, it makes it look more unstable and gives Texas more money, which isn't equal, but Texas is Texas (i.e., money-grubbing imperious prima donna d^ckheads) and they attract a lot of attention even with mediocre football records because of that and they might not if they were stuck in a completely equal revenue sharing conference.

Would TCU behave like Texas?  No way.  We are different than them (i.e., "holier").  Would we behave like Boise State and preen around for piddly amounts?  Probably not, but possibly.  We didn't when we were in the MWC or the WAC (or C-USA, the SWC, the TIAA or the Big East).  But we've seen Boise (and BYU) do it and arguably get away with it.  I'd like to believe we wouldn't, but I wouldn't put it past us.

59 pages??!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Chile_Ute said:

Fucsakes, that’s my point.  It should have been come back home and help develop a dominant G5 (hate the term but..) or find you f ucking way.

AW, c'mon Chili...granted, on a much more significant financial scale, one could say, why didn't Utah stay "home and help develop a dominant G5?"  

The Utah program itself experienced trying to create a dominant G5 conference with the likes of UNLV, CSU, Wyoming, New Mexico, etc.  When the programs with true aspirations (Utah, TCU and heck, even BYU) left, the writing was on the wall. 

Now add SJSU, Nevada and the non-dominant WAC conference former members to the mix...sorry but a dominant G5 isn't going to happen in the MWC no matter how much Boise State gives them back.  Only a very few programs are investing competitively in their football programs and it shows.  Yes, there are outlier seasons like this last one for the conference, but the MWC on a football power rating scale is stuck somewhere between CUSA and the AAC and trending more towards CUSA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, CaffeinatedCoog said:

Its pretty easy why.  Time matters.  The deal is set to start in a few months.  Here's how I see it.

Boise wanted to increase their bonus payout in proportion to the increase in the new deal (basically they wanted it to triple).   Their leverage to do that was based in their ability to hold up the TV deal until they gave their consent on Boise homes games (generally considered the most valuable part of the package).  The presidents had zero interest in increasing the bonus.  In fact, the presidents were ready to end the bonus all together.  The presidents also knew Boise would make 5.8 million a year under the current deal and that Boise would only make about 4.9 million as a football only member of the AAC.  Thus, the presidents opted to ignored the Boise deal, accepted the FOX/CBS proposal without Boise consent (eliminating Boise's only leverage to get a bonus increase)---and, knowing that any realistic Boise realignment option would pay less than the 5.8 in the current deal---dared Boise to object.  

Boise called the MW bluff by filing suit, which reinstates the leverage Boise needs to negotiate a bigger bonus.  In the end, Boise will get a bigger bonus (though less than they are seeking) and they will get a signed declaration indicating that their special deal  can only be altered or ended by mutual agreement of both parties.  Boise is not going anywhere.   The only wild card would be if the presidents are so adamantly against the continuation of the Boise deal that they dont care if Boise leaves.  I dont think they are there....but who knows?  

 

Well I've seen lots of partnerships/businesses with co-owners end up in lawsuits.  I don't believe that I have personally seen a case where the ultimate settlement deal or decision wasn't for the partners to go their own ways with the assets being split among the various factions.  I'm sure it has happened but a lawsuit among partners usually means the end of the partnership. 

That is the nice thing about US law.  Because of our anti indentured servitude laws no one can typically be forced to maintain a working relationship with anyone (simply the court can award damages but typically cannot require a relationship to be maintained). 

Personally and when the dust settles, I'll wish Boise the best of luck in its future endeavors but would hope Wyoming won't be scheduling them once they are no longer a part of the same conference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SalinasSpartan said:

Boise’s best chance at an access bowl year in year out without question comes as a member of the MWC, and they know that. This clearly seems to be a money issue, and the most money would be in going indy, not the AAC. Between increased travel costs and exit and entrance fees it would be years before moving to the AAC for football was profitable. 
 

I just don’t see it. 

One thing I would say is that this seems like a repeat of back when BSU was in the WAC. 

At that time, the MWC was trying to make an argument that they deserved power (autobid) conference status based on the performance of teams like Utah, TCU, BYU and Air Force. BSU was trying to make the argument that adding them gets them closer to that goal.

Now the AAC is trying to make an argument that they deserve power conference status. How much closer would adding BSU to the conference get them to that goal? Hard to say. Unlike the old BCS, there is not, to my knowledge, criteria that establishes what being a "power" conference means.

But I do suspect that the AAC + BSU becomes a de facto autobid conference because I think the conference will be perceived as, by far, the strongest G5 conference so whomever wins the conference gets the G5 NY6 invite every year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, SparkysDad said:

AW, c'mon Chili...granted, on a much more significant financial scale, one could say, why didn't Utah stay "home and help develop a dominant G5?"  

The Utah program itself experienced trying to create a dominant G5 conference with the likes of UNLV, CSU, Wyoming, New Mexico, etc.  When the programs with true aspirations (Utah, TCU and heck, even BYU) left, the writing was on the wall. 

Now add SJSU, Nevada and the non-dominant WAC conference former members to the mix...sorry but a dominant G5 isn't going to happen in the MWC no matter how much Boise State gives them back.  Only a very few programs are investing competitively in their football programs and it shows.  Yes, there are outlier seasons like this last one for the conference, but the MWC on a football power rating scale is stuck somewhere between CUSA and the AAC and trending more towards CUSA.

TCU really really tried to promote the MWC to be a BCS/AQ conference.  We were the leaders in promoting the "appeal" to the BCS Oversight Committee based on their alleged criteria because the MWC, at that time, was on a par with both the Big East and the ACC.  Adding BSU (without losing Utah) might have done it.  Utah was with us and even BYU was sorta kinda with us for awhile, and everyone else was with us, but in stepped the Pac12 and then BYU couldn't take Utah being elevated without doing something similar themselves and that was that.  Sorry...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SparkysDad said:

AW, c'mon Chili...granted, on a much more significant financial scale, one could say, why didn't Utah stay "home and help develop a dominant G5?"  

The Utah program itself experienced trying to create a dominant G5 conference with the likes of UNLV, CSU, Wyoming, New Mexico, etc.  When the programs with true aspirations (Utah, TCU and heck, even BYU) left, the writing was on the wall. 

Now add SJSU, Nevada and the non-dominant WAC conference former members to the mix...sorry but a dominant G5 isn't going to happen in the MWC no matter how much Boise State gives them back.  Only a very few programs are investing competitively in their football programs and it shows.  Yes, there are outlier seasons like this last one for the conference, but the MWC on a football power rating scale is stuck somewhere between CUSA and the AAC and trending more towards CUSA.

It is not a parallel situation.  BSU was not denied access to MWC those years because there was not an available spot.  Utah was fortunate for an invite and took it, then same for TCU.  BYU did what they did, but their situation is a bit different given the church angle.  Not the same.  BSU is trying to leverage a situation that isn’t there....aside from BYU, UU and TCU moves because it was offered.

I also think you discount the ability of the conference to work together for a long term goal.  But BSU’s path has been one of promotion, problem is you’re not ready for a plateau or even decline.  Your leadership and base are going to lose their f-ing minds.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Jared said:

.... "holier"...

TCU fanbase was very "holy" in San Diego. Phoenix, not so much.  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, nocoolnamejim said:

Almost without a doubt we would. Smaller stadium, smaller city, no national fanbase because not centered around a major religion...you could go on. 

I think BSU as a indy would suffer significantly.

I don't think Boise St would schedule that same as BYU, I could see Boise St using their same scheduling model: 2 maybe 3 power schools, BYU, 1 FCS school, and rest from the non powers.  I couldn't see Boise St ever going with more than 3 power schools on their schedule.  Giving them a chance to go 12-0 or 11-1 or 10-2 in most years.  It's just finding a good spot to place their other sports.  Say the Big Sky is the place, right now Boise St has  higher NET ranking than any of the Big Sky schools.  I could see Boise St chance at making the NCAA for basketball likely in increase in the Big Sky.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BSUFan said:

TCU fanbase was very "holy" in San Diego. Phoenix, not so much.  :)

All-time it's 2-2.  We won in San Diego and on the blue.  That 2011 MWC trophy looks great in our trophy box and we still have won at least as many MWC championships as anyone (4).

60!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, e-zone99 said:

I don't think Boise St would schedule that same as BYU, I could see Boise St using their same scheduling model: 2 maybe 3 power schools, BYU, 1 FCS school, and rest from the non powers.  I couldn't see Boise St ever going with more than 3 power schools on their schedule.  Giving them a chance to go 12-0 or 11-1 or 10-2 in most years.  It's just finding a good spot to place their other sports.  Say the Big Sky is the place, right now Boise St has  higher NET ranking than any of the Big Sky schools.  I could see Boise St chance at making the NCAA for basketball likely in increase in the Big Sky.

 

 

You could be right, but I think the scheduling math would have to change a bit as an indy for BSU.

The possibility of a NY6 bowl would be pretty much non-existent under this scenario. So without that goal to shoot for, I think BSU would probably opt for a spicier schedule like BYU has to try and keep fans and recruits engaged and interested.

I could be wrong, but I could see BSU at least TRYING to schedule a lot tougher. Whether or not they would succeed....tough question. I think BYU has some intrinsic advantages over BSU in terms of their abilities to sign deals with P5 opponents so BSU might not be able to get deals that BYU has managed to swing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going indy would be monumentally stupid. No access to NY6 and good luck getting MWC teams to play us. No thanks,

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. 
         ---Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, teappotts said:

Going indy would be monumentally stupid. No access to NY6 and good luck getting MWC teams to play us. No thanks,

Not to mention it’s a huge slap in the face of non-FB sports.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mugtang said:

Just a thought, but if resources and exposure were shared equally amongst the conference members it may be easier for them to not suck.  
 

But, honestly what more does BSU want. We beat more P5 schools OOC than any other conference.  There were 4 10 win teams, 2 teams finished in the top 25 with a 3rd getting votes not that far out of the top 25.   The conference had 8 bowl teams.  I mean what more can the conference do? 

I'm both going to drop you a like for this (because it's true IMHO that the conference had a good year) AND give you an answer to your rhetorical question.

In this case, I would suggest that "what more" the conference could have done is what Harsin suggested...make all the arguments that you just made in favor of BSU getting a NY6 bowl invite. (Which tbf we probably would have wasted given the egg we laid against Washington) But we didn't really see a lot of Hair making the arguments about the conference performance that you made in this very post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner

While I think BYU would love to have Boise in the WCC, I don't see it happening (other schools probably wouldn't agree).

Boise really has very little leverage if that's the case.   Where can they park their other sports?   WAC (yes, but do they want that?)  Big West (not sure if they want to expand).

Since Boise has few options, can they really force the MWC's hand on this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...