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 hours ago, Ibanez said:

Our buddy @UofMTigers is talking about ESPN courting Fox and CBS to get AF and Colorado State to the AAC over on the AAC Board right now. He tells me It's logical based on the facts.

 

no, I said being consistent in presenting a solution that fits the available facts seems logical to me. I also said teams like CSU and AF (football only)...we only need one, I simply gave two potential options.

mem skyline sig.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ibanez said:

To be fair I think he said one or the other.

It would have to be AFA.  I'd assume that the boosters at CSU have more say in the program than those at AFA.  I'm not saying that CSU wouldn't consider membership in a true BOR conference, but there would be zero traction among the CSU fan base for leaving the MWC and going to the east coast all by themselves.  Just won't happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, CV147 said:

He let the presidents mess up everything.

He let the presidents believe they could steamroll Boise and their stupid bluff got called. He should have been a voice of reason instead of a "yes" man.

That's a confusing take.  Boise wanted to up the ransom, the presidents said no.  Boise threatened to sue, and the presidents said no.  Boise backed down.  If denying Boise's demands is steamrolling Boise, then they steamrolled Boise.  No "bluff" involved. 

There should be some sort of resolution in a year or three, but I doubt anyone will consider it truly resolved.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, UofMTigers said:

I simply mentioned CSU as a potential all-sports addition while if we went the AF route (with their approval of course) it would be a football only deal...so yes, one or the other.

So AFA.  CSU says no thanks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah it always plays like that.  A guy who gets hired by a bunch of presidents tells them what to do..I don't know how things work in your town but generally the folks that sign the checks decide stuff..

But, I have exactly no problem firing Thompson.  I neither support or oppose him..I don't think he is the key piece one way or the other.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Headbutt said:

That's a confusing take.  Boise wanted to up the ransom, the presidents said no.  Boise threatened to sue, and the presidents said no.  Boise backed down.  If denying Boise's demands is steamrolling Boise, then they steamrolled Boise.  No "bluff" involved. 

There should be some sort of resolution in a year or three, but I doubt anyone will consider it truly resolved.

 

Did you miss where the only two options were to either end Boise's re-entry deal now or in six years? They voted to end Boise's deal in six years. Two presidents voted to end it immediately.

That's where they tried to steamroll Boise. Now, according to the San Diego paper they've voted to not end it in six years, under the condition that Boise stops the lawsuit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ibanez said:

Air Force says no too. In fact, they already did. Air Force  has problems with the MWC but it's problems you have by being in a conference. If AF does anything it will be going independent.

True.  Calhoun's big gripe was travel.  The AAC won't improve that situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, CV147 said:

Did you miss where the only two options were to either end Boise's re-entry deal now or in six years? They voted to end Boise's deal in six years. Two presidents voted to end it immediately.

That's where they tried to steamroll Boise. Now, according to the San Diego paper they've voted to not end it in six years, under the condition that Boise stops the lawsuit.

The only thing I've read from a MWC official was Hair saying that this was likely the last time that Boise would negotiate their deal separately.  That would imply that they did do so this time.  That and Boise asked for more money and was told no.  The rest is stuff that somebody heard from some guys girlfriend, who's mom works in an AD somewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Ibanez said:

People are not giving the MWC AD's enough credit for the TV deal either. About $4 million a piece for 6 years, none of it on a streaming network. And they have more they are in the process on making a deal on. It may not be as much money up front but it is the smarter contract to be in. In six years the MWC will sign another 6-8 year media deal and most likely it will be more than the AAC deal now.

I thought Thompson negotiates the tv deals by himself..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ibanez said:

People are not giving the MWC AD's enough credit for the TV deal either. About $4 million a piece for 6 years, none of it on a streaming network. And they have more they are in the process on making a deal on. It may not be as much money up front but it is the smarter contract to be in. In six years the MWC will sign another 6-8 year media deal and most likely it will be more than the AAC deal now.

the past 90 days shows the kind of drama that comes with an unbalanced revenue distribution. I'm totally happy with Memphis getting 6.94 million from ESPN. 66% of AAC football games will appear on ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU/ABC while 34% of AAC basketball games will appear on ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU/ABC or CBSSN those are the games folks want to watch. I'm fine with giving games like ECU vs Tulsa football, USF vs Tulane basketball, AAC baseball, or AAC women's basketball, etc to ESPN+ so they can grow inventory and viewership. 

with that said, Memphis came from CUSA where we made 1.1 million per year from our weak TV deal, no team ever made a BCS or Access Bowl, Memphis hoops would disappear from TV once we got into conference play...we never dreamed we would play for Liberty or Cotton Bowls while getting ~7 million to play on ESPN/ABC

I'm sure a team like Cincy who got accustomed to that Big East money would see it different.

mem skyline sig.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Headbutt said:

That's a confusing take.  Boise wanted to up the ransom, the presidents said no.  Boise threatened to sue, and the presidents said no.  Boise backed down.  If denying Boise's demands is steamrolling Boise, then they steamrolled Boise.  No "bluff" involved. 

There should be some sort of resolution in a year or three, but I doubt anyone will consider it truly resolved.

 

That is not at all what transpired.  Boise asked to negotiate, Thompson said he would bring it up for discusion and advocate on Boise's behalf.  At the "discussion" the presidents decided to hold a vote to end the Boise deal in 6 years.  Tromp then shoved her dick down each of their throats, the presidents backed down and agreed the deal would be for the duration of Boise's time in the MWC, moving forward, and it is not done yet.  More to come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

That is not at all what transpired.  Boise asked to negotiate, Thompson said he would bring it up for discusion and advocate on Boise's behalf.  At the "discussion" the presidents decided to hold a vote to end the Boise deal in 6 years.  Tromp then shoved her dick down each of their throats, the presidents backed down and agreed the deal would be for the duration of Boise's time in the MWC, moving forward, and it is not done yet.  More to come.

Sure.  OK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Headbutt said:

Sure.  OK.

I mean, that is exactly how it played out.  Boise wanted to negotiate, the MWC said no.  The MWC presidents voted to end the Boise deal in 6 years.  Boise said no, filed a suit and exercised their legally negotiated veto until the MWC presidents caved and voted 10-2 to honor the clearly outlined terms of the re-entry fee, that being it lasts for the duration of the partnership.  That is not me trolling, that is simply the facts of how it played out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

I mean, that is exactly how it played out.  Boise wanted to negotiate, the MWC said no.  The MWC presidents voted to end the Boise deal in 6 years.  Boise said no, filed a suit and exercised their legally negotiated veto until the MWC presidents caved and voted 10-2 to honor the clearly outlined terms of the re-entry fee, that being it lasts for the duration of the partnership.  That is not me trolling, that is simply the facts of how it played out.

OK.  Not how I read it, but OK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...