Aggie84025 wrote: ↑

January 24th, 2020, 8:57 am

Quite frankly I don't care about Boise. If they want to act like they are so much better than everyone else then let them go. I know it will hurt the conference and basically turn us into a MAC like conference, but I would rather play with that than continue to cower to their demands and give them an unequal playing field. At least it would make it fair and we would have equal opportunities to win versus now where it is rigged in Boise's favor. The AAC will not put up with their antics and quite frankly it they go there they will not be the top dog and I would guess would rarely win that conference and end up in less stellar bowls than going to the vegas bowl etc.

If it were just Boise, then fine. But none of this makes much sense if it were just Boise. 100% certain that BYU is mixed up in this, and about 50% certain a second MWC team is as well. The AAC is likely now in a position of having to re-negotiate their TV contract in the wake of UConn's defection and the AAC has landed the NY6 spot in four of the last five seasons. Trying to secure what are arguably the two most valuable brand names in the G5 would make a lot of sense.

Just think how much better our chances would be to win the Mountain division year in and year out without Boise. We would actually be able to make the conference championship.

Aggie84025 wrote:Quite frankly I don't care about Boise. If they want to act like they are so much better than everyone else then let them go. I know it will hurt the conference and basically turn us into a MAC like conference, but I would rather play with that than continue to cower to their demands and give them an unequal playing field. At least it would make it fair and we would have equal opportunities to win versus now where it is rigged in Boise's favor. The AAC will not put up with their antics and quite frankly it they go there they will not be the top dog and I would guess would rarely win that conference and end up in less stellar bowls than going to the vegas bowl etc.

But aren’t you cutting off your nose to spite your face ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

USU78 wrote:

2004AG wrote: ↑

January 24th, 2020, 8:48 am

USU78 wrote:

swordsman1989 wrote: ↑

January 24th, 2020, 8:07 am

New AAC alignment:

EAST
Cincinnati
ECU
UCF
USF
Navy
Temple
Memphis

WEST
Boise State
BYU
Colorado State
Houston
Tulane
SMU
Tulsa

that leaves us with nine all-sports schools and one football affiliate. I could live with that.

What do you think our tv contract would look like at that point ?

Dunno.

Peanuts


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If the MW caves, the Boise game essentially becomes a money game for everyone else that plays them in the conference. You've been paid for them to win. How we get the money is different than the LSU check, but not really.

Boise is not the program everyone makes them out to be. Yes, they are the best in the MW, but ever since Chris Petersen has left, they are not dominant. They don't always win the league or even the division. They average less than 35,000 per game, and season ticket sales are falling. The reason they are pushing for this is because they know they are falling off.

The MW needs honor its contracts, but they don't need to make big concessions to a school that is in the 100th largest TV market and only averages a few thousand more fans than the rest of the league.

Aggie84025 wrote: ↑

January 24th, 2020, 9:12 am

swordsman1989 wrote: ↑

January 24th, 2020, 9:09 am

Aggie84025 wrote: ↑

January 24th, 2020, 8:57 am

Quite frankly I don't care about Boise. If they want to act like they are so much better than everyone else then let them go. I know it will hurt the conference and basically turn us into a MAC like conference, but I would rather play with that than continue to cower to their demands and give them an unequal playing field. At least it would make it fair and we would have equal opportunities to win versus now where it is rigged in Boise's favor. The AAC will not put up with their antics and quite frankly it they go there they will not be the top dog and I would guess would rarely win that conference and end up in less stellar bowls than going to the vegas bowl etc.

If it were just Boise, then fine. But none of this makes much sense if it were just Boise. 100% certain that BYU is mixed up in this, and about 50% certain a second MWC team is as well. The AAC is likely now in a position of having to re-negotiate their TV contract in the wake of UConn's defection and the AAC has landed the NY6 spot in four of the last five seasons. Trying to secure what are arguably the two most valuable brand names in the G5 would make a lot of sense.

Why would you care if BYU goes to the AAC? Let them go and they will be a middle of the pack AAC team. Sure if we lose CSU as well that would hurt in terms of losing the Denver TV market, but exactly what has CSU done over the last 5-6 years. I would argue our program has been better. I am just to the point where if people are so unhappy with their situation then let them go.

I don’t care if BYU goes. I care about what I see as a likely and sensible possibility and how that affects USU. BYU is part of the totality of what I think will happen, which involves Boise and likely CSU (or SDSU).

NowhereLandAggie wrote: ↑

January 24th, 2020, 9:41 am

Boise is not the program everyone makes them out to be. Yes, they are the best in the MW, but ever since Chris Petersen has left, they are not dominant. They don't always win the league or even the division. They average less than 35,000 per game, and season ticket sales are falling. The reason they are pushing for this is because they know they are falling off.

The MW needs honor its contracts, but they don't need to make big concessions to a school that is in the 100th largest TV market and only averages a few thousand more fans than the rest of the league.

And their five-year average would place them around seventh in the AAC.

I get that the AAC is probably looking to add a football team with UConn's departure. But geographically, logistically, and financially Boise just does not make that much sense. Tulsa would be the next closest school at 1,500 miles away and it is nearly 2,500 miles to Florida. And the AAC is probably in no real hurry to make a move. It has until until 2022 before it needs a 12th football team to keep its conference championship game.

The couple of million extra dollars per year under the last financial deal buys Boazy (assuming everything else is equal) 1.43 more league wins per season from 2013, and 1.43 non-league wins per season over USU. I just ran the numbers.

If that couple of million doubles, or even increases by only a single million, I suspect we'd see at very least a concomitant increase to > 2 more league wins and an additional > 2 more non-league wins (assuming everything else is equal. So, instead of us going 7-1/2 and 5-1/2 per season (5-3 in league), we'd be going something like 6-1/2 and 6-1/2 per season (4-4 in league) on average going forward. Tell me what that does to attendance and donor willingness to pay for budget shortfalls, deferred maintenance on facilities, and upgrades to facilities? How long before the program regresses to a 1980s-esque state?

2004AG wrote: ↑

January 24th, 2020, 8:23 am

Sl7vk wrote:Ya'll are coming at this from a scarcity mentality.

I get the scar tissues of the past, but we need to get over that.

Boise is bluffing, and we need to call it.
If they aren't they don't have as good a hand as they think they do.

Well that all depends if the AAC isn’t a viable option. What have you seen that would indicate that it isn’t?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Easy. Boise wants more money not less. The current conference deal would pay Boise about $5.4 million and the AAC would be about $5.6 million. The AAC is $7 million a year for all sports and 80% for football only. Production cost, travel cost, would all increase expenses as well. That doesn’t include any exit fee from the Mountain West, which I’m sure in a ugly divorce would be litigated. Billable hours win. Everyone else loses.

Full wrote: ↑

January 24th, 2020, 11:03 am

2004AG wrote: ↑

January 24th, 2020, 8:23 am

Sl7vk wrote:Ya'll are coming at this from a scarcity mentality.

I get the scar tissues of the past, but we need to get over that.

Boise is bluffing, and we need to call it.
If they aren't they don't have as good a hand as they think they do.

Well that all depends if the AAC isn’t a viable option. What have you seen that would indicate that it isn’t?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Easy. Boise wants more money not less. The current conference deal would pay Boise about $5.4 million and the AAC would be about $5.6 million. The AAC is $7 million a year for all sports and 80% for football only. Production cost, travel cost, would all increase expenses as well. That doesn’t include any exit fee from the Mountain West, which I’m sure in a ugly divorce would be litigated. Billable hours win. Everyone else loses.

The problem with your argument is that the AAC is in the position of ESPN having the right to re-negotiate the contract after the announcement that UConn is leaving, meaning your numbers for the AAC are speculative. This is why I think there are a lot of moving parts to this right now, and there are several parties involved. If ESPN and the AAC could pry Boise away from the MWC, along with another program, and get BYU to join them, you would get a re-worked deal worth significantly more money. I am guessing the AAC and Boise have already talked, and the lawsuit is laying the groundwork for a settlement which would reduce the MWC exit fee.

So yes, I am calling it right now, this will end up with Boise, BYU, and one other program (my bet is on Colorado State or San Diego State) joining the AAC and a re-worked deal with ESPN.

I’m confused as to why Colorado State should get to go to a bigger conference. What have they done in the past years that Utah State hasn’t? Is it simply based on facilities?

TrueBlueAggie123 wrote: ↑

January 24th, 2020, 11:41 am

I’m confused as to why Colorado State should get to go to a bigger conference. What have they done in the past years that Utah State hasn’t? Is it simply based on facilities?

I posted this not too long ago. CSU gets an undeserved amount of love for some reason. USU has a better overall record, better head to head record, more top 25 seasons, more bowl appearances, and more bowl wins than CSU over the past 15 years. But CSU has a bigger market, bigger and newer stadium, draws more fans, and has a significantly higher football budget. CSU is one of those programs where if they win 7 games, the national media trips all over themselves to sing their praises. I don't think CSU deserves to go to a bigger conference based on what they have done, but I think they will be part of this because of their market, their geographic location, and their history with both BYU and Boise State.

swordsman1989 wrote: ↑

January 24th, 2020, 11:24 am

The problem with your argument is that the AAC is in the position of ESPN having the right to re-negotiate the contract after the announcement that UConn is leaving, meaning your numbers for the AAC are speculative. This is why I think there are a lot of moving parts to this right now, and there are several parties involved. If ESPN and the AAC could pry Boise away from the MWC, along with another program, and get BYU to join them, you would get a re-worked deal worth significantly more money. I am guessing the AAC and Boise have already talked, and the lawsuit is laying the groundwork for a settlement which would reduce the MWC exit fee.

So yes, I am calling it right now, this will end up with Boise, BYU, and one other program (my bet is on Colorado State or San Diego State) joining the AAC and a re-worked deal with ESPN.

Two points. 1) BYU is not joining the AAC. 2) The $7 million number was negotiated to begin the 2020 season. Sure there might be a change, but that number isn’t going to change materially.

TrueBlueAggie123 wrote: ↑

January 24th, 2020, 11:41 am

I’m confused as to why Colorado State should get to go to a bigger conference. What have they done in the past years that Utah State hasn’t? Is it simply based on facilities?

I would think Air Force is more likely to leave with Boise.

LarryTheAggie wrote: ↑

January 24th, 2020, 1:26 pm

TrueBlueAggie123 wrote: ↑

January 24th, 2020, 11:41 am

I’m confused as to why Colorado State should get to go to a bigger conference. What have they done in the past years that Utah State hasn’t? Is it simply based on facilities?

I would think Air Force is more likely to leave with Boise.

I would think that makes sense too. Wasn't it the AFA coach that said they don't fit in the MW? Plus, if Navy is involved, that's another tie in for them and rivalries.

Aggie84025 wrote: ↑

January 24th, 2020, 1:11 pm

2004AG wrote: ↑

January 24th, 2020, 9:27 am

Aggie84025 wrote:Quite frankly I don't care about Boise. If they want to act like they are so much better than everyone else then let them go. I know it will hurt the conference and basically turn us into a MAC like conference, but I would rather play with that than continue to cower to their demands and give them an unequal playing field. At least it would make it fair and we would have equal opportunities to win versus now where it is rigged in Boise's favor. The AAC will not put up with their antics and quite frankly it they go there they will not be the top dog and I would guess would rarely win that conference and end up in less stellar bowls than going to the vegas bowl etc.

But aren’t you cutting off your nose to spite your face ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe, but at this point I quite frankly don't care. With them in the conference and having an unfair advantage in terms of media rights in not like our situation will change that much. I realize without them the tv contract will be lower, but at least everyone is on the same playing field. With them at an unfair advantage we will more than likely not be winning conference championships.

To each their own, but I want the best possible situation for Utah State. The current setup isn't great and I wish it weren't so, but I'd rather be in a B+ situation with Boise than a C- situation making peanuts on a television contract and having zero conference respect and being in a conference that has zero chance at a NY6 bowl.

2004AG wrote: ↑

January 24th, 2020, 8:06 am

swordsman1989 wrote:

2004AG wrote: ↑

January 24th, 2020, 7:55 am

Sl7vk wrote:What are the odds BYU takes Boise's vacated spot if the spuds leave?
Who else would be a decent addition? New Mexico State.... isn't....

Zero.

BYU isn’t going to join without Boise State.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What do you bet that BYU and Boise are in joint talks with the AAC? BYU and Boise would make the AAC the undisputed top G5 conference, and likely ensure that they will always get the G5's NY6 spot. The AAC will never be a "P6" in the truest sense, but they will essentially be that. I would not be surprised if another MWC school was also secretly in the mix (Colorado State?) to bring the AAC to 14. The MWC losing Boise and Colorado State would definitely destroy our media deal, and likely serve as the impetus for Hawaii going independent, leaving the MWC as a nine school conference with virtually zero media exposure.

Yep. Exactly. And at that point we were better off just giving Boise the money.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oh, hell no. I would rather Boise leave. And if CSU or someone else wants to grab onto their coattails and continue to get pushed around by a glorified JC, then good riddance. An unequal deal is not in any of the schools' best interest but Boise's.

Also, I don't think that Boise is as valuable of a TV commodity as they think they are, or they once were. Everyone here is so damn intimidated by them. Not many college football fans nationwide are making a point to tune into the Boise games that wouldn't tune in to watch other decent teams regardless. Their games aren't exactly appointment television. They don't have a nation-wide fanbase, and they aren't that cute little upstart that busts the BCS running trick plays anymore. I honestly don't think they have the same brand name they used to. Frankly, I don't think anyone outside Idaho really cares much about Boise. The people watching Boise play at midnight ET would probably tune into just about any game. The MWC TV deal is about programming filler.

Mr. Sneelock wrote:

2004AG wrote: ↑

January 24th, 2020, 8:06 am

swordsman1989 wrote:

2004AG wrote: ↑

January 24th, 2020, 7:55 am

Sl7vk wrote:What are the odds BYU takes Boise's vacated spot if the spuds leave?
Who else would be a decent addition? New Mexico State.... isn't....

Zero.

BYU isn’t going to join without Boise State.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What do you bet that BYU and Boise are in joint talks with the AAC? BYU and Boise would make the AAC the undisputed top G5 conference, and likely ensure that they will always get the G5's NY6 spot. The AAC will never be a "P6" in the truest sense, but they will essentially be that. I would not be surprised if another MWC school was also secretly in the mix (Colorado State?) to bring the AAC to 14. The MWC losing Boise and Colorado State would definitely destroy our media deal, and likely serve as the impetus for Hawaii going independent, leaving the MWC as a nine school conference with virtually zero media exposure.

Yep. Exactly. And at that point we were better off just giving Boise the money.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oh, hell no. I would rather Boise leave. And if CSU or someone else wants to grab onto their coattails, then good riddance. An unequal deal is not in any of the schools' best interest.

Nobody is making the argument that the current situation is good, it’s clearly not. But I hope you guys are right and I’m wrong. I just don’t have a good feeling about this. You guys are ignoring the fact this situation could spiral to something worse than giving Boise more money. (Which obviously sucks). It might be the lesser of two evils.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mr. Sneelock wrote: ↑

January 24th, 2020, 2:53 pm

Also, I don't think that Boise is as valuable of a TV commodity as they think they are, or they once were. Everyone here is so damn intimidated by them. Not many college football fans nationwide are making a point to tune into the Boise games that wouldn't tune in to watch other decent teams regardless. Their games aren't exactly appointment television. They don't have a nation-wide fanbase, and they aren't that cute little upstart that busts the BCS running trick plays anymore. I honestly don't think they have the same brand name they used to. Frankly, I don't think anyone outside Idaho really cares much about Boise. The people watching Boise play at midnight ET would probably tune into just about any game. The MWC TV deal is about programming filler.

This is an important note. While in negotiations the driver of revenue was teams playing when other teams are not. So late kickoffs, Thursday and Friday night games allow for increased revenue. I recognize Boise has good TV ratings and is a TV draw, I personally don’t like watching games played on blue turf.

Craig Thompson is a jackwagon. I wish the ADs fired him immediately for that deal. Boise and SDSU came crawling back and he basically wet his pants and begged Boise to come back I’m shocked anyone else agreed to it.

2004AG wrote: ↑

January 24th, 2020, 3:17 pm

Mr. Sneelock wrote:

2004AG wrote: ↑

January 24th, 2020, 8:06 am

swordsman1989 wrote:

2004AG wrote: ↑

January 24th, 2020, 7:55 am

Sl7vk wrote:What are the odds BYU takes Boise's vacated spot if the spuds leave?
Who else would be a decent addition? New Mexico State.... isn't....

Zero.

BYU isn’t going to join without Boise State.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What do you bet that BYU and Boise are in joint talks with the AAC? BYU and Boise would make the AAC the undisputed top G5 conference, and likely ensure that they will always get the G5's NY6 spot. The AAC will never be a "P6" in the truest sense, but they will essentially be that. I would not be surprised if another MWC school was also secretly in the mix (Colorado State?) to bring the AAC to 14. The MWC losing Boise and Colorado State would definitely destroy our media deal, and likely serve as the impetus for Hawaii going independent, leaving the MWC as a nine school conference with virtually zero media exposure.

Yep. Exactly. And at that point we were better off just giving Boise the money.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oh, hell no. I would rather Boise leave. And if CSU or someone else wants to grab onto their coattails, then good riddance. An unequal deal is not in any of the schools' best interest.

Nobody is making the argument that the current situation is good, it’s clearly not. But I hope you guys are right and I’m wrong. I just don’t have a good feeling about this. You guys are ignoring the fact this situation could spiral to something worse than giving Boise more money. (Which obviously sucks). It might be the lesser of two evils.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well said. No one like the deal Boise is getting except Boise. But them leaving could make things a lot worse for us. I hope not.

Imakeitrain wrote: ↑

January 25th, 2020, 5:56 am

Craig Thompson is a jackwagon. I wish the ADs fired him immediately for that deal. Boise and SDSU came crawling back and he basically wet his pants and begged Boise to come back I’m shocked anyone else agreed to it.

A huge mistake by the MWC and it likely wasn't all on Thompson. Remember back when the "PROJECT" was still in play for the WAC and then a couple of schools got cold feet and said PROJECT disintegrated? Thompson was hailed as the great and visionary leader?

The MWC stained itself by allowing BSU and SDSU back into the conference when the conference had virtually all the leverage needed to jam a tough reentry arrangement across the negotiation table. The consideration extended to Boise had to ruffle feathers across the MWC, their institutional boosters and fans, and plant the seeds of discontent throughout the league.

It's a tough reality to accept that we, along with other MWC schools, actually agreed to support Boise to the detriment of the rest of the conference.

NavyBlueAggie wrote: ↑

January 25th, 2020, 9:58 am

Imakeitrain wrote: ↑

January 25th, 2020, 5:56 am

Craig Thompson is a jackwagon. I wish the ADs fired him immediately for that deal. Boise and SDSU came crawling back and he basically wet his pants and begged Boise to come back I’m shocked anyone else agreed to it.

A huge mistake by the MWC and it likely wasn't all on Thompson. Remember back when the "PROJECT" was still in play for the WAC and then a couple of schools got cold feet and said PROJECT disintegrated? Thompson was hailed as the great and visionary leader?

The MWC stained itself by allowing BSU and SDSU back into the conference when the conference had virtually all the leverage needed to jam a tough reentry arrangement across the negotiation table. The consideration extended to Boise had to ruffle feathers across the MWC, their institutional boosters and fans, and plant the seeds of discontent throughout the league.

It's a tough reality to accept that we, along with other MWC schools, actually agreed to support Boise to the detriment of the rest of the conference.

I read a report either yesterday or the day before that said most of the current MWC presidents were not in their current positions when Boise came back and was given their special deal. I think it was Thompson that was saying the current MWC board of directors (the respective presidents) do not like the deal and were not in favor of continuing it.

Good catch swordsman1989, and just why we continue to tolerate a fine football program that is attached to a pedestrian academic institution does cause me pause. I also acknowledge there are likely unintended consequences if the Broncos leave the MWC, but there is a point of diminishing returns. Just look at the current fortunes of the school in Provo and some wisdom can be approached.

I have been to a couple Boise St games played on the east coast. @VT, @Virginia and @Georgia and each of those games I couldn’t believe how many blue shirts could been seen in the stands. Especially the VT and Virginia games. FedEx field for the VT game was easily 75-80% Boise St fans. I was in a suite at FedEx and many of the suites were filled with Boise St fans in each of the directions from what I could see from our suite. Now I couldn’t tell you how many of those were actually alumni but they were all wearing Boise st gear and cheering. FWIW I think there is a bigger Boise Fan base than you think. It has probably shrunk but I think there are many fans who were teenagers and young adults when Boise St won the Fiesta Bowl and endeared themselves to kids and won “fans” for a generation because of that.

DCAggie24 wrote: ↑

January 26th, 2020, 5:11 pm

I have been to a couple Boise St games played on the east coast. @VT, @Virginia and @Georgia and each of those games I couldn’t believe how many blue shirts could been seen in the stands. Especially the VT and Virginia games. FedEx field for the VT game was easily 75-80% Boise St fans. I was in a suite at FedEx and many of the suites were filled with Boise St fans in each of the directions from what I could see from our suite. Now I couldn’t tell you how many of those were actually alumni but they were all wearing Boise st gear and cheering. FWIW I think there is a bigger Boise Fan base than you think. It has probably shrunk but I think there are many fans who were teenagers and young adults when Boise St won the Fiesta Bowl and endeared themselves to kids and won “fans” for a generation because of that.

DC is a tourist destination that fans fly into. There aren't very many Boise State fans that live in the DC area. Although there are some Boise transplants. it happens to every pro team in DC. DC residents who are VT fans know that FedEx is a pain in the rear to get to and is a terrible place to watch a game. They'll watch VT vs WVU but may be less enthused about Boise.

I just looked up pictures of that Boise St Va Tech game and from what I saw of those google pics, while the BSU contingency looked like a good turnout, it is a far cry from 75% blue. They rarely fill their own stadium let alone packing the house of Fed Ex field. Again, BSU has good support, but we have got to stop treating them like they are giants....they are not. The only people making them such are their own fans and schools such as ourselves who blindly put them on the pedestal as well. Very very few people outside of Idaho cares about BSU beyond casually catching a late game of theirs simply because it’s the only thing on. They aren’t seeking out their games. Call their bluff and let BSU go.

Never underestimate how well the alumni of a trucker school will travel to support their football team.

Slim80 wrote: ↑

January 26th, 2020, 9:38 pm

I just looked up pictures of that Boise St Va Tech game and from what I saw of those google pics, while the BSU contingency looked like a good turnout, it is a far cry from 75% blue. They rarely fill their own stadium let alone packing the house of Fed Ex field. Again, BSU has good support, but we have got to stop treating them like they are giants....they are not. The only people making them such are their own fans and schools such as ourselves who blindly put them on the pedestal as well. Very very few people outside of Idaho cares about BSU beyond casually catching a late game of theirs simply because it’s the only thing on. They aren’t seeking out their games. Call their bluff and let BSU go.

This is true. Also living in big 12 country, Boise is not on the radar and def do not fit in their footprint.

Let's be honest, Wyoming traveled better to Logan this year than Boise did.

hipsterdoofus21 wrote: ↑

January 26th, 2020, 10:18 pm

Never underestimate how well the alumni of a trucker school will travel to support their football team.