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, boisewitha-s said:

Six years ago and when UConn announced leaving. There is a reason they haven’t offered any of the schools you mentioned. They would love for bsu football to fill their 12th spot. It’s an open invitation until they are forced to add someone. 

What do you see as the upside to moving football to the AAC and basketball to some other conference?

Boise gets a 1.8 million dollar bonus in the MW and depending how the litigation flows possibly considerably more.  

The get to keep their olympic sports in a solid mid major conference and won't have to pay subsidies which would seem likely if you go to the Big West.

Again, based upon how the suit goes you could be on the hook for fairly substantial exit fees from the MW.  Will the AAC let you have a separate deal with ESPN for your home games?

 

I do think there is some upside to be gleaned, though.

4 conference football games back east will give you more exposure to the east coast press.

At the top the AAC has some really good football programs who should remain really good for awhile.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, nvspuds said:

What do you see as the upside to moving football to the AAC and basketball to some other conference?

Boise gets a 1.8 million dollar bonus in the MW and depending how the litigation flows possibly considerably more.  

The get to keep their olympic sports in a solid mid major conference and won't have to pay subsidies which would seem likely if you go to the Big West.

Again, based upon how the suit goes you could be on the hook for fairly substantial exit fees from the MW.  Will the AAC let you have a separate deal with ESPN for your home games?

 

I do think there is some upside to be gleaned, though.

4 conference football games back east will give you more exposure to the east coast press.

At the top the AAC has some really good football programs who should remain really good for awhile.

I would rather bsu stay but this shit going on now will probably change things with the admin. Bsu said no thanks when UConn announced they were leaving but that was before the mw decided to break the tv contract. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, boisewitha-s said:

I would rather bsu stay but this shit going on now will probably change things with the admin. Bsu said no thanks when UConn announced they were leaving but that was before the mw decided to break the tv contract. 

It should be noted that demanding more than 1.8 million is also breaking a contract

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, nvspuds said:

It should be noted that demanding more than 1.8 million is also breaking a contract

It should be noted that wanting to negotiate something isn’t the same as voting to end a contract. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, RSF said:

Doesnt matter how open he's been.  What he wants is what the Big 12 wanted.  Which was rejected. When the Big 10 proposed the restrictions, that's when the measure passed.  He might get the support of the Big 12, but he would need 3-4 of the P5 conferences to get it passed.

 

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/11321551/ncaa-board-votes-allow-autonomy-five-power-conferences

A new 80-member voting panel, which will include 15 current players, will determine autonomous policies for the five leagues. The power conferences will also carry more voting power on general NCAA matters. Athletic directors will have a much larger representation than before, when presidents mostly controlled the system. Rice's Leebron called the new governance structure a "shift of responsibility" and a "huge vote of confidence" in the athletic directors and players.

Major conferences will still have to agree on issues; to pass a rule requires either a 60 percent majority of the 80-member panel plus three of the five power conferences or a simple majority plus four of the five leagues.

The Big10 has talked openly about eliminating divisions since that vote---so its unlikely their stance is exactly the same as it was in 2016.  The ACC always wanted more flexibility in the CCG process (they actually prefer complete deregulation).  The Big10 would probably not vote against it---and the Pac12 would have little reason to oppose it.  I suspect a rule change allowing conferences (of 10 or more members) a reasonable path to a divisionless CCG has a high probability of passing--especially if the rule's structure is crafted as a colaborative effort with 3 or more P5's.    

That said, the AAC has indicated it would prefer to add another member and stay with its 2 division format---IF a quality #12 was available.  

 

Big10 Considering Eliminating Divisions 

https://www.si.com/college/2018/12/06/jim-delany-big-ten-divisions-realignment-playoff

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, there is one thing that I have learned from reading the terrible legal insight and advice from some of you - - there is absolutely value to a law degree and legal experience.  I guess that is why good lawyers can command the money that they do :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, boisewitha-s said:

It should be noted that wanting to negotiate something isn’t the same as voting to end a contract. 

The re-entry contact gives Boise 1.8 million per year in a bonus

To get more than that Boise and the MW would have to agree to re=open the existing contract to make the change.  That would void the previous agreement.  It would be a new contract.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, nvspuds said:

The re-entry contact gives Boise 1.8 million per year in a bonus

To get more than that Boise and the MW would have to agree to re=open the existing contract to make the change.  That would void the previous agreement.  It would be a new contract.

Did the MWC violate the contract when they came to Boise in 2016 to negotiate that amount?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CaffeinatedCoog said:

The Big10 has talked openly about eliminating divisions since that vote---so its unlikely their stance is exactly the same as it was in 2016.  The ACC always wanted more flexibility in the CCG process (they actually prefer complete deregulation).  The Big10 would probably not vote against it---and the Pac12 would have little reason to oppose it.  I suspect a rule change allowing conferences (of 10 or more members) a reasonable path to a divisionless CCG has a high probability of passing--especially if the rule's structure is crafted as a colaborative effort with 3 or more P5's.    

That said, the AAC has indicated it would prefer to add another member and stay with its 2 division format---IF a quality #12 was available.  

 

Big10 Considering Eliminating Divisions 

https://www.si.com/college/2018/12/06/jim-delany-big-ten-divisions-realignment-playoff

No, they didnt.  They talked openly about eliminating East and West.  They are considering realigning the divisions (and continue to), which they have done before. 

 

The Pac 12 (got them mixed up with the ACC for some reason) was already against it, as was the SEC. The current restrictions got them and the Big 10 on board.  That's enough to block it.

 

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/sports/college/big-ten/2019/07/19/big-ten-division-realignment-talk-picks-up-steam-amid-easts-dominance/1776640001/

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, OrediggerPoke said:

Well, there is one thing that I have learned from reading the terrible legal insight and advice from some of you - - there is absolutely value to a law degree and legal experience.  I guess that is why good lawyers can command the money that they do :lol:

Most here are attorneys who dabble in athletic administration and/or are executives from major cable companies. On the side they find time to mow their parents lawn when they exit the basement in the summer months. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Did the MWC violate the contract when they came to Boise in 2016 to negotiate that amount?

To void the contract both sides would have to agree.  Boise wants to void the current re-entry agreement but the MW does not.  Hence the law suit by Boise..

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, nvspuds said:

To void the contract both sides would have to agree.  Boise wants to void the current re-entry agreement but the MW does not.  Hence the law suit by Boise..

Boise wanted it discussed, a discussion voids nothing.  The MWC presidents were so appalled at it being discussed they voted to void the current re-entry agreement.  Hence the law suit by Boise.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Boise wanted it discussed, a discussion voids nothing.  The MWC presidents were so appalled at it being discussed they voted to void the current re-entry agreement.  Hence the law suit by Boise.

Boise is still getting the 1.8..The original re entry agreement is in place

However, I do think Boise has an excellent case for breach of contract on the clause that says they must formally agree to any new tv deal.  I think they win that.  In which case, CBS and Fox might end up out of the picture and some new deal, that Boise does approve would have to be negotiated.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, nvspuds said:

Boise is still getting the 1.8..The original re entry agreement is in place

However, I do think Boise has an excellent case for breach of contract on the clause that says they must formally agree to any new tv deal.  I think they win that.  In which case, CBS and Fox might end up out of the picture and some new deal, that Boise does approve would have to be negotiated.  

Voting to put an end date on it in 6 years is violating the agreement.  Or rather making it clear you intend to violate it.  You are correct though that the MWC is also screwed as Boise did not vote to agree to the selling of a package that included their home games.  Pretty sure whatever damages Boise asks for will be awarded.  No exit fee plus damages of 20 mil?  Seems pretty reasonable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, nvspuds said:

The re-entry contact gives Boise 1.8 million per year in a bonus

To get more than that Boise and the MW would have to agree to re=open the existing contract to make the change.  That would void the previous agreement.  It would be a new contract.

The MWC’s leaving ESPN (and then publicly speaking about ending Boise’s “deal”), has left an opening for Boise to grab a significant amount of ESPN exposure for themselves.

They ARE the proverbial recruiting Debo with that added heft.

751B0A25-BEED-407A-9C01-17C6331F80BA.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, nvspuds said:

Like I said..You have a good chance at winning your lawsuit..Should one occur.  

Every MWC team will be forced, legally, to paint the color of their field their Schools primary color, and then pay Boise an extra 500k a year to do so.

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, nvspuds said:

The re-entry contact gives Boise 1.8 million per year in a bonus

To get more than that Boise and the MW would have to agree to re=open the existing contract to make the change.  That would void the previous agreement.  It would be a new contract.

Yea - - contract law is not your specialty.  I can recommend a few decent hornbooks if you would like.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...