USUFans.com

It’s going to be interesting to see how this all plays out and what Boise decides to do. I just hope the MW doesn’t give in.

Boise is officially suing the MWC. Here's the filing:

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-conte ... otball.pdf

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Big 12 is the only better option for them right? That isn't going to happen.

The road of independence is not an easy one Donkeys.

Sl7vk wrote:Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Big 12 is the only better option for them right? That isn't going to happen.

The road of independence is not an easy one Donkeys.

ACC could be an option but I really don’t see it happening. Travel for them would be crazy.

I have read the contract with the MWC and BSU it would appear that the conference will most likely lose, so I expect a settlement to be made out of court. If BSU were to join the AAC we would lose up to $2 million per year on the new T.V. contract. I would doubt they even need to pay a exit fee if they were to leave after the current T.V. contact expires.

The biggest fear for me is if there is another Airport meeting with BSU building a new best of the rest conference USU could very well be left out of that conference.

heck if we can get it down to a million that helps.

I'm not an attorney, but I've read the lawsuit though and I think Boise wins.

oleblu111 wrote: ↑

January 22nd, 2020, 12:58 pm

I have read the contract with the MWC and BSU it would appear that the conference will most likely lose, so I expect a settlement to be made out of court. If BSU were to join the AAC we would lose up to $2 million per year on the new T.V. contract. I would doubt they even need to pay a exit fee if they were to leave after the current T.V. contact expires.

The biggest fear for me is if there is another Airport meeting with BSU building a new best of the rest conference USU could very well be left out of that conference.

Who would be considered for the "best of the rest conference"? At least at this point in time, we have shown that we are better than at least half our conference peers over the last 10 years. So unless they manage to pull 75% of the PAC-12 or form a 5 or 6 team conference, I think we've FINALLY earned our spot. But after decades of Utah State getting the shaft, I understand the paranoia.

The problem is T.V. market if a best of the rest conference is formed with BSU and BYU, then you have the T.V. market covered in Utah. A best of the rest could include BYU, BSU, SDS, UNLV, FSU, CSU, AFA, UNM, Houston and SMU. That conference would be a very good conference as far as T.V. goes, and on the field.

Good. I hope they reach a settlement that ends with Boise leaving. I generally favor having them in the conference, but not at the expense of unequal revenue distribution.

aggies22 wrote: ↑

January 22nd, 2020, 1:27 pm

oleblu111 wrote: ↑

January 22nd, 2020, 12:58 pm

I have read the contract with the MWC and BSU it would appear that the conference will most likely lose, so I expect a settlement to be made out of court. If BSU were to join the AAC we would lose up to $2 million per year on the new T.V. contract. I would doubt they even need to pay a exit fee if they were to leave after the current T.V. contact expires.

The biggest fear for me is if there is another Airport meeting with BSU building a new best of the rest conference USU could very well be left out of that conference.

Who would be considered for the "best of the rest conference"? At least at this point in time, we have shown that we are better than at least half our conference peers over the last 10 years. So unless they manage to pull 75% of the PAC-12 or form a 5 or 6 team conference, I think we've FINALLY earned our spot. But after decades of Utah State getting the shaft, I understand the paranoia.

Better on the field does not mean better for a new conference.

Here are the two options I hear discussed most often:

1. Create a new conference that pulls the best options from the MWC and the best options from the AAC West, to provide for some control over travel. The teams most likely to be a part of that are:

Boise, BYU, SDSU, Fresno, UNLV, CSU, Houston, Tulsa, SMU, and Memphis (tack on UNM and Wyoming for 12 teams)

2. Create a P6 conference with the best options from the AAC and MWC. Those most likely candidates are:

Boise, BYU, SDSU, CSU, UNLV, Houston, SMU, Memphis, UCF, and Cincy (tack on Temple and Fresno for 12 teams)

We are not the 13th or 14th option for either of those scenarios, in all likelihood. BYU delivers whatever market we think we could offer, and our revenues are not worth discussing compared to those bigger schools.

We would likely be scrambling to replace teams in the MWC (so, for our purposes it would likely be easier if the P6 conference was created). The MWC or whatever new entity we have would probably look like this:

USU, Nevada, SJSU, Hawaii, UNM, WYO, Tulsa, Tulane, and probably two Texas schools we convince to leave CUSA. Rice and UTSA would be best for recruiting, but idk how it would shake out. NMSU would also be fighting tooth and nail to get into that conference.

Tater Zoobs gotta zoob.

I have serious doubts that at this point BYU and BSU have enough clout to just snap their fingers and have all those schools jump to their magical new conference. BYU and others may have had that clout 20 years ago, but by and large, I think most everyone is happy where they are.

And what makes anyone think that the P5 is going to recognize their new conference as P6?

Mr. Sneelock wrote: ↑

January 22nd, 2020, 2:04 pm

I have serious doubts that at this point BYU and BSU have enough clout to just snap their fingers and have all those schools jump to their magical new conference. BYU and others may have had that clout 20 years ago, but by and large, I think most everyone is happy where they are.

And what makes anyone think that the P5 is going to recognize their new conference as P6?

Didn't the NCAA change the rules a few years ago that make establishing a new conference very difficult?

How is Boise's claim even ripe? The conference has agreed to pay the extra money for the term of this tv agreement. I could see the lawsuit failing for lack of any current damages or as attorneys say ripeness. What say ye 78 and other attorneys on the board?

Roy McAvoy wrote: ↑

January 22nd, 2020, 1:08 pm

I'm not an attorney, but I've read the lawsuit though and I think Boise wins.

I’m interested in why you think that.

Keep in mind the MW hasn’t breeched any agreement to pay Boise State. They owe them $1.8 million plus an equal distribution and Boise State has been paid that. The Mountain West may stop paying that in 6 years, but as of today Boise State hasn’t been damaged.

Also keep in mind that Boise State agreed to the TV contract changes. The lawsuit alleges the Boise State representatives didn’t have all the information and so it wasn’t “informed consent”, but they provide no proof that Boise State didn’t have people in the room as the contract was being negotiated. If Boise State was there then Boise State was informed and Boise State’s consent stands.

I see this as a shake down. Boise State agreed to the new TV contract, and likes the new contract. They just want to negotiate up their bonus payment and make sure it is forever. If I’m reading the lawsuit correctly, Boise State wants an increase in their bonus payment from the existing $1.8 million to around $7.2 million plus equal distribution of ~$4 million for a total payment of $11.2 million per year. TV revenue is about 4 times higher than it was before and Boise State wants their bonus to also go to 4 times higher than it was before.

Al-O-Meter wrote: ↑

January 22nd, 2020, 2:23 pm

Roy McAvoy wrote: ↑

January 22nd, 2020, 1:08 pm

I'm not an attorney, but I've read the lawsuit though and I think Boise wins.

I’m interested in why you think that.

Keep in mind the MW hasn’t breeched any agreement to pay Boise State. They owe them $1.8 million plus an equal distribution and Boise State has been paid that. The Mountain West may stop paying that in 6 years, but as of today Boise State hasn’t been damaged.

Also keep in mind that Boise State agreed to the TV contract changes. The lawsuit alleges the Boise State representatives didn’t have all the information and so it wasn’t “informed consent”, but they provide no proof that Boise State didn’t have people in the room as the contract was being negotiated. If Boise State was there then Boise State was informed and Boise State’s consent stands.

I see this as a shake down. Boise State agreed to the new TV contract, and likes the new contract. They just want to negotiate up their bonus payment and make sure it is forever. If I’m reading the lawsuit correctly, Boise State wants an increase in their bonus payment from the existing $1.8 million to around $7.2 million plus equal distribution of ~$4 million for a total payment of $11.2 million per year. TV revenue is about 4 times higher than it was before and Boise State wants their bonus to also go to 4 times higher than it was before.

Quadruple their bonus payout? Two words. One starts with F. The other word is that.

aggies22 wrote: ↑

January 22nd, 2020, 2:29 pm

Al-O-Meter wrote: ↑

January 22nd, 2020, 2:23 pm

Roy McAvoy wrote: ↑

January 22nd, 2020, 1:08 pm

I'm not an attorney, but I've read the lawsuit though and I think Boise wins.

I’m interested in why you think that.

Keep in mind the MW hasn’t breeched any agreement to pay Boise State. They owe them $1.8 million plus an equal distribution and Boise State has been paid that. The Mountain West may stop paying that in 6 years, but as of today Boise State hasn’t been damaged.

Also keep in mind that Boise State agreed to the TV contract changes. The lawsuit alleges the Boise State representatives didn’t have all the information and so it wasn’t “informed consent”, but they provide no proof that Boise State didn’t have people in the room as the contract was being negotiated. If Boise State was there then Boise State was informed and Boise State’s consent stands.

I see this as a shake down. Boise State agreed to the new TV contract, and likes the new contract. They just want to negotiate up their bonus payment and make sure it is forever. If I’m reading the lawsuit correctly, Boise State wants an increase in their bonus payment from the existing $1.8 million to around $7.2 million plus equal distribution of ~$4 million for a total payment of $11.2 million per year. TV revenue is about 4 times higher than it was before and Boise State wants their bonus to also go to 4 times higher than it was before.

Quadruple their bonus payout? Two words. One starts with F. The other word is that.

The exact language in the lawsuit is:

"...increasing that bonus amount in proportion to the amount the revenue generated from the CBS/Fox agreement increased in comparison to the prior CBS/ESPN agreement."

Al-O-Meter wrote: ↑

January 22nd, 2020, 2:23 pm

Roy McAvoy wrote: ↑

January 22nd, 2020, 1:08 pm

I'm not an attorney, but I've read the lawsuit though and I think Boise wins.

I’m interested in why you think that.

Keep in mind the MW hasn’t breeched any agreement to pay Boise State. They owe them $1.8 million plus an equal distribution and Boise State has been paid that. The Mountain West may stop paying that in 6 years, but as of today Boise State hasn’t been damaged.

Also keep in mind that Boise State agreed to the TV contract changes. The lawsuit alleges the Boise State representatives didn’t have all the information and so it wasn’t “informed consent”, but they provide no proof that Boise State didn’t have people in the room as the contract was being negotiated. If Boise State was there then Boise State was informed and Boise State’s consent stands.

I see this as a shake down. Boise State agreed to the new TV contract, and likes the new contract. They just want to negotiate up their bonus payment and make sure it is forever. If I’m reading the lawsuit correctly, Boise State wants an increase in their bonus payment from the existing $1.8 million to around $7.2 million plus equal distribution of ~$4 million for a total payment of $11.2 million per year. TV revenue is about 4 times higher than it was before and Boise State wants their bonus to also go to 4 times higher than it was before.

Don't let the door hit you in the rear on your way out, ya blue smurf turf (I can't express myself without swearing) clowns

Yeah remember that this is Boise's complaint. It's supposed to be very biased towards Boise's position. It'll be interesting to see what other facts come out from this.

Boise has evidence to justify their point of view, but the Mountain West has the one thing Boise needs... membership. Boise can’t go Indy and the AAC isn’t a reliable option.

Boise loses this one in the long run... I’m sure the MW presidents are ready to take this one to the next level.

GUS wrote: ↑

January 22nd, 2020, 2:19 pm

How is Boise's claim even ripe? The conference has agreed to pay the extra money for the term of this tv agreement. I could see the lawsuit failing for lack of any current damages or as attorneys say ripeness. What say ye 78 and other attorneys on the board?

Anticipatory damages on anticipatory breach. How's that supposed to work again? Is this an Idaho law thing? Speculative and, if the assigned judge happens to be one that suffers fools poorly, I don't want to be the guy in court on the hearing on the motion to dismiss.

Puzzling over how much water Boise really draws beyond the immediate Rocky Mountain West. Certainly they have a recently storied football history, and it is remarkable that a football program has attached itself to a university.

The balance of the MWC must certainly be keen to level the financial playing field. BSU and SDSU left once before and that upstart conference then disintegrated. Both renegade schools then played the remaining MWC like a drum and were readmitted to the MWC. I suspect this time things may be more hostile, more contested, and more brutal. It's increasingly expensive to fly sports teams across the country, perhaps the non revenue teams would even be financial insanity.

Of note is that Di Football is now tilting toward adding another three (3) bowl games and that just about sucks up all the eligible schools, so leverage once perceived is unlikely to continue this time around. I suspect there will be some sort of uneasy and shorter term compromise between Boise and the League... that's where it is today as I see things.

FOR CERTAIN, THE ONLY FOLKS TO BENEFIT HERE ARE THE LEGAL TEAMS. Both the MWC and Boise must have considered the likelihood of litigation with ongoing contracts. Interesting to this writing is that SDSU is not listed as a partner with BSU. Where will that shoe drop, if it even drops? How much money is honestly left for intercollegiate football with the T V revenue thing approaching what must be a terminal event.

Yeah.... not gonna touch this one.

USU78 wrote:

GUS wrote: ↑

January 22nd, 2020, 2:19 pm

How is Boise's claim even ripe? The conference has agreed to pay the extra money for the term of this tv agreement. I could see the lawsuit failing for lack of any current damages or as attorneys say ripeness. What say ye 78 and other attorneys on the board?

Anticipatory damages on anticipatory breach. How's that supposed to work again? Is this an Idaho law thing? Speculative and, if the assigned judge happens to be one that suffers fools poorly, I don't want to be the guy in court on the hearing on the motion to dismiss.

BSU is known for their law school.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

USU78 wrote:Tater Zoobs gotta zoob.

I was waiting for someone to draw the obvious comparison here!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

WAaggieFan wrote: ↑

January 22nd, 2020, 7:35 pm

USU78 wrote:

GUS wrote: ↑

January 22nd, 2020, 2:19 pm

How is Boise's claim even ripe? The conference has agreed to pay the extra money for the term of this tv agreement. I could see the lawsuit failing for lack of any current damages or as attorneys say ripeness. What say ye 78 and other attorneys on the board?

Anticipatory damages on anticipatory breach. How's that supposed to work again? Is this an Idaho law thing? Speculative and, if the assigned judge happens to be one that suffers fools poorly, I don't want to be the guy in court on the hearing on the motion to dismiss.

BSU is known for their law school.

Notice the venue statement. Home court. State court.

The rest of the mountain west just have to beat Boise at football for a couple of years and all their leverage/attraction is gone. They won't have anything. Beat them on the football field and they will be just like the rest of us. Easier said than done though.

Anticipatory breach and damages aren't going to work very well in most courts.

Blitz79 wrote:The rest of the mountain west just have to beat Boise at football for a couple of years and all their leverage/attraction is gone. They won't have anything. Beat them on the football field and they will be just like the rest of us. Easier said than done though.

Especially when they get 4 times more revenue from the conference than any other school....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

WAaggieFan wrote: ↑

January 22nd, 2020, 8:42 pm

Blitz79 wrote:The rest of the mountain west just have to beat Boise at football for a couple of years and all their leverage/attraction is gone. They won't have anything. Beat them on the football field and they will be just like the rest of us. Easier said than done though.

Especially when they get 4 times more revenue from the conference than any other school....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yup, that's right, the rest of the conference is paying Boise to kick our collective arses every year. And we give them more so they can continue to be top dog, year after year. What a great set up for them. "Please stay in our conference, we'll let ya come in first every year"

Boise got their deal because they brought BCS busting money and ability to the conference. Now the American Conference has demonstrated their teams will be selected over Boise. The rest of the Mountain West looked at the $10+ million it gave Boise and saw three loss Cincinnati jump Boise in the final rankings along with five total G5 teams. Boise got mad that they had been passed over and called out the Mountain West. While calling out the conference, Boise further expects an increase in the amount it received before the balance of the new media revenue is split among all members. I see why members decided they would eventually need to put an end date on Boise’s deal.

Cooler head will eventually end up prevailing because they have six years to figure it out. I don’t know what that looks like, but Boise is going to the AAC or Independent would be a mistake for them and everyone knows it.

I doubt a court will much entertain a declaratory judgment request on an anticipatory breach that may occur six years down the road. At this point it is likely too speculative.

I also doubt there is any real remedy on the alleged Thompson snub of supporting a greater guaranteed payout to Boise. Such a deal most likely requires member approval and there is no reality in the other schools approving that. Back when that deal was originally done Boise had some leverage. Assuming Boise's representation of Thompson supporting the increase is accurate, my guess is that idea was privately floated to other schools and was quickly shot down so there was no reason to bring it up at the meeting.

Two other quick thoughts on the lawsuit itself. First, if I am the MWC my first reaction to this is to probably seek removal to federal court based on diversity of jurisdiction. Second, courts generally disfavor perpetual contracts, especially when the perpetual nature is not explicitly contained in the four corners of the contract. Boise trying to argue the guaranteed payout goes on forever will be an uphill argument to win.

If I am another MWC member, I am daring Boise to try and go elsewhere for a better deal. Besides the football team, Boise athletics does little to move the needle. In football alone, Boise would be marginally beneficial for either the PAC12 or the Big12. No other athletic conference would make sense given the time and travel costs. Academically, which does matter some to at least the PAC12, adding Boise is a non-starter. And with Boise claiming it is entitled to special treatment, would current MWC members really want to make the jump with Boise to start a new conference since Boise will likely want that special treatment to continue?

I quickly skimmed the fan boards for the rest of the conference. The general consensus is "screw Boise."

A decade ago I could see how they warranted special treatment, but things have changed. I don't think they deserve it any more and any leverage they had is largely gone.

Assuming the courts rule in the favor of the MWC I say call their bluff. Where will they go? We're the only G5 conference that makes sense. I don't see any P5 wanting them either, though I think their football would be middle of the pack in the PAC-12. I don't think they could sustain Independence and if they do I think the MWC should blackball them. I don't see them successfully making a new conference either.

I like having teams that are good- like bsu and byu- in our conference. I do not like the entitlement they sometimes have and I do not think it a should be tolerated.

I would hate to lose Boise from the conference truth be told. I think that Boise actually could make it as an independent. It would be fun watching them fill out their schedule. It will look very similar to BYU's.