Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

WAC_FAN

Question for Boise and/or other MWC Fans...

Recommended Posts

You're in the Conference Presidents' meeting. You're asking CSU and AFA what it would take them to stay.

CSU gives off a list of things that piss them off (Hair, the way the vote went down for the shortened season, etc.)

When they get to the Boise 'sweetheart' deal.  They mention they want all conference members to be treated equal OR for them to now get a similar sweetheart deal (since they too are now desired by someone else)

If you're Boise, do you relent, knowing it could become an issue resulting one or more members leaving your conference?

If you're the MWC, do you vote to give CSU/AFA more money?  (I.e. the AAC is willing to pay XXX extra for them, this is what their perceived worth is etc)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, baileyake said:

Boise should give up the sweetheart deal for solidarity 

It’s a bone of contention.  Phase it out.  Let’s all play on equal terms and keep growing this conference into a Power conference. There is room enough for two far western conferences if we fight hard enough for it.

Fight On For Dear Old San Jose State;

Fight On For Victory!

We Are With You In Every Way.

No Matter What The Price May Be!

 

Onward For Sparta Noble And True,

Fight Hard In Everything You Do!

And So We'll Fight! (Rah!) Win! (Rah!)

March Onward Down the Field

And We Will Win The Day!

 

S...J...S...U,  S-J-S-U,  San Jose State!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would bring firing Thompson up for vote immediately and phase out the sweetheart deal. Let’s creative and come up with some sort of a school bonus structure for top 25 finishes, and that is the new sweetheart deal. No more perceived worth, pay for results that make the conference look good. 

tetons1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see why Boise would give it up.  They have their eyes on the Big 12 and I don't believe they are in this conference for the long term.  They need all the money they can get their hands on to look as good as possible for a promotion

As to more money for CSU and AF.  +++++ no!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, SLCPoke said:

I would bring firing Thompson up for vote immediately and phase out the sweetheart deal. Let’s creative and come up with some sort of a school bonus structure for top 25 finishes, and that is the new sweetheart deal. No more perceived worth, pay for results that make the conference look good. 

I agree.  Keeping good coaches in conference is a must.  I would create a performance bonus structure and require teams to build performance incentives into their coaches contracts.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Wyobraska said:

I don't see why Boise would give it up.  They have their eyes on the Big 12 and I don't believe they are in this conference for the long term.  They need all the money they can get their hands on to look as good as possible for a promotion

As to more money for CSU and AF.  +++++ no!

They won’t.  If they would CSU and AFA would likely be here.  It’s the problem having Boise in the conference.  They are a short term player who is destabilizing to the conference.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phase out the Boise sweethart deals except them getting a larger cut if we're selling their home games as a package in itself. They deserve 50% there at least, I could see more. Maybe put something on the books for making the playoffs or NY6 bowl gets a larger cut for the next 3 years, and that stacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, baileyake said:

Boise should give up the sweetheart deal for solidarity 

I think the best solution if for them to agree to give it up starting the next tv deal. However I think it should be replaced with a performance bonus pot instead. That way teams that play well on the field get rewarded. Honestly BSU should do fairly well in that situation also as it seems EVERY year they are the favorite to win the Mountain and most years the whole conference. 

edit- I know we had a tv bonus pot before but to me performance pot is far superior. This helps a "surprise" team (SJSU last year so far Fresno/USU this year) get rewarded. It also helps a team like SDSU from getting screwed (they always seem to have a ton of CBSSN games which didn't qualify for the bonus). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, thedude15 said:

I think the best solution if for them to agree to give it up starting the next tv deal. However I think it should be replaced with a performance bonus pot instead. That way teams that play well on the field get rewarded. Honestly BSU should do fairly well in that situation also as it seems EVERY year they are the favorite to win the Mountain and most years the whole conference. 

edit- I know we had a tv bonus pot before but to me performance pot is far superior. This helps a "surprise" team (SJSU last year so far Fresno/USU this year) get rewarded. It also helps a team like SDSU from getting screwed (they always seem to have a ton of CBSSN games which didn't qualify for the bonus). 

We did not have a performance bonus before.  We have never had a performance bonus.

The structure of the deal was Boise had a performance bonus.  Other top performers, especially if they were in a large market like Denver or San Diego, were certain to be picked in CBS Sports and thus never got the bonus.  The deal was in fact a negative performance bonus for every other team.   The only ones who thought it was a “performance bonus” were those dumb enough to believe Thompson’s bullshit.   He should be fired outright for the terms of that deal.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, SLCPoke said:

I would bring firing Thompson up for vote immediately and phase out the sweetheart deal. Let’s creative and come up with some sort of a school bonus structure for top 25 finishes, and that is the new sweetheart deal. No more perceived worth, pay for results that make the conference look good. 

How about pay based on TV viewership, since that's where the money's coming from anyway?  But that would probably make the sweetheart deal even better for Boise.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, baileyake said:

Boise should give up the sweetheart deal for solidarity 

I like your idea but I think they're Big 12 bound, eventually. If the Broncos want out, then so be it. Goodbye and good luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WOW................talk about a completely USELESS conversation.  F.Y.I. Boise State has a contract with the Mtn West which spells out exactly what and how Boise State will be paid.   And the last time Thompson (and several of the MWC school presidents - including Utah State) tried to illegally re-work the terms of that contract Boise State threatened to SUE THEM (and would have won easily).   Does ANY part of this REALITY ring any bells for you "what if' speculators.   Good LORD.

Secondly - as was announced earlier today Air Force and CSU are both staying in the MWC and have no interest in moving to the AAC.  Neither does Boise State and San Diego State.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bronco7454 said:

WOW................talk about a completely USELESS conversation.  F.Y.I. Boise State has a contract with the Mtn West which spells out exactly what and how Boise State will be paid.   And the last time Thompson (and several of the MWC school presidents - including Utah State) tried to illegally re-work the terms of that contract Boise State threatened to SUE THEM (and would have won easily).   Does ANY part of this REALITY ring any bells for you "what if' speculators.   Good LORD.

Secondly - as was announced earlier today Air Force and CSU are both staying in the MWC and have no interest in moving to the AAC.  Neither does Boise State and San Diego State.

The question is not whether Boise has any legal right to their special deal in perpetuity--they do.  It's whether or not they would give it up to keep conference harmony.  It's always one of the things that comes up whenever anyone has any options...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, thedude15 said:

I think the best solution if for them to agree to give it up starting the next tv deal. However I think it should be replaced with a performance bonus pot instead. That way teams that play well on the field get rewarded. Honestly BSU should do fairly well in that situation also as it seems EVERY year they are the favorite to win the Mountain and most years the whole conference. 

edit- I know we had a tv bonus pot before but to me performance pot is far superior. This helps a "surprise" team (SJSU last year so far Fresno/USU this year) get rewarded. It also helps a team like SDSU from getting screwed (they always seem to have a ton of CBSSN games which didn't qualify for the bonus). 

If a team draws high tv numbers, they should keep a larger share of the tv money as compared to a team which has very little tv eyes.

Teams that go to Bowl Games should keep all the revenue for that game. Sharing it with Conference members who don't go bowling is Socialism at its finest.

"We don't have evidence but, we have lot's of theories."

Americans Mayor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, crixus said:

I like your idea but I think they're Big 12 bound, eventually. If the Broncos want out, then so be it. Goodbye and good luck.

They are only Big 12 bound if they perform the way the have under Petersen as P5 killers and access bowl regulars. They are still the cream of the MWC but the best P5 wins since 2015 are a 7-6 Oregon, 6-7 FSU, 7-6 Washington, 4-8 Virginia. I wished Nevada had that record but the Boise market is not that big and people tune in to watch Boise beat the big boys. As it is, the MWC is lucky to keep Boise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bsu_alum9 said:

How about pay based on TV viewership, since that's where the money's coming from anyway?  But that would probably make the sweetheart deal even better for Boise.

 

Except you don’t want coaches doing strange things to impact viewership.   You want a performance bonus structure tied to winning that increases as the TV revenue increases.   That keeps coaches focused on building winning teams but also encourages them to build to total conference TV value.  
 

like any sales compensation package you have to make sure it is not at cross purposes with the goals of the conference.  Something Hair failed miserably at doing with the Boise term sheet.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Spaztecs said:

If a team draws high tv numbers, they should keep a larger share of the tv money as compared to a team which has very little tv eyes.

Teams that go to Bowl Games should keep all the revenue for that game. Sharing it with Conference members who don't go bowling is Socialism at its finest.

There are other factors to high tv numbers, such as your time slot, your opponent etc.  It could potentially cause other problems, but there is probably a good formula to work it out.

The lower end bowl games don't make any money, that's the problem.  So the conference basically has to subsidize teams.  Last year, bowls basically were paying little or no money out, so as a Hawaii fan, I'm thankful the MWC was able to subsidize us (for once) to go to New Mexico.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...