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, AGapBlitz said:

Oh, I don't know

CSU won the WAC 1994, 1995, 1997. MWC 1999, 2000, 2002

AF won the WAC in 1995, 1998

FSU won the WAC 1992, 1993, 1999. MWC 2013, 2018

I'd argue that those WAC championships by these schools in the early 90's was a much harder schedule than anything faced by current members since 2012.

But in the end I guess it all depends on your definition of "extended".

To make me change my mind, I'd have to see records against other conferences.  G5 conference championships are meaningless as a comparative measuring stick against the "haves" of college football, as evidence by Boise State's display against Washington in the LV Bowl.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Wyobraska said:

Still wouldn't be P5 in my opinion and not much closer.  TV contracts show that and TV isn't going to pay that conference $20M-50M per team a year like true P5s. They would probably win the Access Bowl bid most years but they would still be the little kid conference that people hate to play because there is zero upside.  

The P5 universities aren't going to share their wealth with anymore conferences then they have to.  

Ironically, actually not that different than the argument made against adding BSU to the conference pre-Utah departure. Basically the argument back then was that adding BSU would get the MWC closer but not CLOSE ENOUGH to achieve auto bid status to BCS bowls, and then the increased strength of the conference would cannibalize each other. So there was no benefit to adding Boise.

Basically the AAC's argument currently. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, jdgaucho said:

 

Boise would be upgrading in some sports, notably volleyball and baseball, if they went to the WCC.  That is anything but a slap in the face.

@#1Stunner , care to reply to your Ute brethren?

 

At this point most sports are an upgrade in the WCC.  A few years back I wouldn’t have included basketball in that statement but the WCC is consistently outranking the MWC there lately too.  

v0icAvfW.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Wyobraska said:

Which is why you shouldn't have unequal revenue sharing.  It creates conflict of interest within the conference

Both a fair point...and also not really our fault. Contracts aren't based on what is fair (or the MWC would not have banned blue uniforms on blue turf when BSU joined when they were fine with Colorado State having green uniforms on green turf) but rather contracts are based on leverage and how it's applied during negotiations.

The MWC decided they needed BSU (and by extension SDSU) back in the conference badly enough to agree to the unequal revenue sharing. Now they are trying to unagree.

BSU is objecting to the unagreement. Can't realistically expect them (us) to simply go along with said "unagreement" without a fight over it. Just not how legal matters (not to mention life in general) works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, UofNPackFan said:

Prove uneven distribution doesn't have an affect. 

If we're talking 10s of millions of dollars, sure. But we're not. 

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, nocoolnamejim said:

Both a fair point...and also not really our fault. Contracts aren't based on what is fair (or the MWC would not have banned blue uniforms on blue turf when BSU joined when they were fine with Colorado State having green uniforms on green turf) but rather contracts are based on leverage and how it's applied during negotiations.

The MWC decided they needed BSU (and by extension SDSU) back in the conference badly enough to agree to the unequal revenue sharing. Now they are trying to unagree.

BSU is objecting to the unagreement. Can't realistically expect them (us) to simply go along with said "unagreement" without a fight over it. Just not how legal matters (not to mention life in general) works.

Where do you think that contract came from? Fell out of the sky? You insisted on the bonus and at the time Craig and the Presidents were desperate enough to agree to it.

"Its not our fault you let us bend you over the barrel and make you give us more"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, ShoichiKUN808 said:

Due to Hawaii's deal with the MW. We found that Football is valued at 80% of the contract, with 20% covering non-fb (basketball).

Taking that into consideration, the $270m deal that was made is estimated to be valued at $54m over 6 years or about $9m a year for non-fb sports. So football alone is valued at $216m over 6 years or $36m per year.

So that really points out how there is no way Boise St value is worth $5 million per MWC road game.  I don't see the MWC TV contract dropping much less than maybe a few million a year then.  I could see Boise St signing an independent deal with ESPN that averaged around $7 million per year (it would likely be back loaded that's why I say average).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chile_Ute said:

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

Fair point and this is the obvious tradeoff.

BSU HAS leverage right now and it using it. Whether that works out LONG term...well, not sure tbh. It could. It could not. But it clearly doesn't make us the popular kid in the room for maximizing our leverage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, SparkysDad said:

To make me change my mind, I'd have to see records against other conferences.  G5 conference championships are meaningless as a comparative measuring stick against the "haves" of college football, as evidence by Boise State's display against Washington in the LV Bowl.

I'm not looking to change your mind but the info is out there if you were so inclined. Guessing you're not though. Does lend some credence to the notion that BSU fans view that CFB didn't come into existence until 1997.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, tspoke said:

Where do you think that contract came from? Fell out of the sky? You insisted on the bonus and at the time Craig and the Presidents were desperate enough to agree to it.

"Its not our fault you let us bend you over the barrel and make you give us more"

My point being is that when people have leverage that they use it. Just like when the first time BSU wanted to enter the MWC, they were desperate to agree to things that they didn't like such as the no all-blue uniforms during home games.

Complaining about BSU using leverage now when the conference has used it in the past when the shoe was on the other foot is hypocritical is my point.

In contracts, and in life, when somebody has leverage in a negotiation they use it. Don't declare BSU as some sort of mustache twisting villain because, when the positions were reversed, you used your leverage. The MWC is not operating from sort of higher moral ground here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, UofNPackFan said:

That could be coordinater money. That could be strength and conditioning money, that could lead to better production  on the field. Raising conference profile

Start a gofundme for those peanuts.

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, nocoolnamejim said:

My point being is that when people have leverage that they use it. Just like when the first time BSU wanted to enter the MWC, they were desperate to agree to things that they didn't like such as the no all-blue uniforms during home games.

Complaining about BSU using leverage now when the conference has used it in the past when the shoe was on the other foot is hypocritical is my point.

In contracts, and in life, when somebody has leverage in a negotiation they use it. Don't declare BSU as some sort of mustache twisting villain because, when the positions were reversed, you used your leverage. The MWC is not operating from sort of higher moral ground here.

I think you're overestimating Boise's leverage.  They have some, but not as much as many here are claiming.

In fact, I think the conference has more leverage than Boise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, RSF said:

Our next opening is in 2031.

Not necessarily.  We still haven't re-upped the annual games against SMU, and if timed right, we could wait one year before re-commencing that and instead play a BSU (or someone else) that year.  Or, we could just not play a FCS team that one year.  Especially if Jerry ponied up a few million $. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, nvspuds said:

I don't mind BSU applying leverage..I am not down with threatening to sue your partners..That does not seem like using leverage to me..

I'm not sure what else you would call it? TBF, I know you've mostly been trolling BSU fans in the thread, so I'm not certain you're serious in what you're saying, but using the courts to enforce what you consider your legal rights is basically the definition of applying leverage IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, jdgaucho said:

 

Boise would be upgrading in some sports, notably volleyball and baseball, if they went to the WCC.  That is anything but a slap in the face.

@#1Stunner , care to reply to your Ute brethren?

 

Women's soccer, softball, and likely both cross country teams (BYU's men finish #1 and their women finished #2 in the nation in 2019).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...