MWC?

Big Blue's House is intended for general sports talk, sharing ideas, announcements, etc.
User avatar
ShowMeAggie
Posts: 784
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 9:43 am
Has thanked: 111 times
Been thanked: 130 times

Re: MWC?

Post by ShowMeAggie » January 31st, 2020, 11:35 pm

oleblu111 wrote:The original contract signed by the MWC and BSU calls for a $1.8 million dollars extra to be paid to BSU, if we do not do that then we are not honoring that agreement .

The need for more revenue does exist because you are not just playing MWC schools we have bowl games with CUSA schools and Mac schools as well as BYU and Washington St. coming up do we really want to leave $2 million off the table when we play theses people ? We also compete with other conferences for coach's etc. are we better off with less money to do that ? The extra $2 million will help all sports not just football.
But we've agreed to pay the $1.8 million more... For the next six years...even though this is a new TV contract. Bsu is suing A) for MORE than $1.8 million and B) to make sure their sweetheart deal lasts forever. I've never seen any language ANYWHERE that shows that the MWC agreed to pay bsu more than everyone else FOREVER. Image

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk




User avatar
Mr. Sneelock
Posts: 5784
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 10:09 am
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 345 times

Re: MWC?

Post by Mr. Sneelock » February 1st, 2020, 1:09 pm

News flash: We aren't competing for a national championship. Not now, not ever. Thus, the only thing that really matters is a conference championship and some bragging rights against other schools outside of our conference. All conference schools should be on equal footing. If Boise requires more money than the rest of us to grace us with their presence, screw 'em. We can compete for a conference championship without them.
These users thanked the author Mr. Sneelock for the post (total 2):
Aggie19vegasaggie


Formerly TulsAGGIE

oleblu111
Posts: 1858
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 4:34 pm
Has thanked: 921 times
Been thanked: 355 times

Re: MWC?

Post by oleblu111 » February 1st, 2020, 1:38 pm

I have read the complaint, and it appears that the $1.8 forever, however I have now been led to believe they want more than that so it becomes what is it worth to have them in the conference.

I believe BSU may be working on a way to leave without paying a exit fee. I think there are other things in the works with this.
These users thanked the author oleblu111 for the post:
USU78



pilotaggie
Posts: 766
Joined: November 13th, 2010, 6:53 pm
Has thanked: 38 times
Been thanked: 69 times

Re: MWC?

Post by pilotaggie » February 1st, 2020, 3:09 pm

I think BSU does want to leave without paying an exit fee. Last time they left they never played a game and got 2 mill a year for it. Why wouldn't they do it again.


This post is likely straight up poor sarcasm and cannot be taken seriously.

blueblood
Posts: 387
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 8:52 am
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 50 times

Re: MWC?

Post by blueblood » February 1st, 2020, 3:22 pm

My brother lives in Boise. He was saying that BSU and BYU are trying to package themselves as football only schools to the PAC-12, BIG -12, or the AAC.

I think that their only real option is the AAC. Maybe a very small chance the BIG12 would take them. The problem for Trucker St, is all of their Olympic sports take a huge hit, because their only real options would be Big Sky or WAC.

The more I think about it , the more I say let them go. From what I have read and heard the if they stay we are stuck with the $1.8 in perpetuity.

Alabama doesn’t get more $ than Vandy; USC doesn’t get more than Oregon St. So I don’t see how we should give BSU any extra going forward.
These users thanked the author blueblood for the post (total 2):
oleblu111Aggie19



pilotaggie
Posts: 766
Joined: November 13th, 2010, 6:53 pm
Has thanked: 38 times
Been thanked: 69 times

Re: MWC?

Post by pilotaggie » February 1st, 2020, 3:28 pm

That can't be true independence has been great for BYU. Look at their schedule why would they need a conference.


This post is likely straight up poor sarcasm and cannot be taken seriously.

oleblu111
Posts: 1858
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 4:34 pm
Has thanked: 921 times
Been thanked: 355 times

Re: MWC?

Post by oleblu111 » February 1st, 2020, 4:36 pm

blueblood wrote:
February 1st, 2020, 3:22 pm
My brother lives in Boise. He was saying that BSU and BYU are trying to package themselves as football only schools to the PAC-12, BIG -12, or the AAC.

I think that their only real option is the AAC. Maybe a very small chance the BIG12 would take them. The problem for Trucker St, is all of their Olympic sports take a huge hit, because their only real options would be Big Sky or WAC.

The more I think about it , the more I say let them go. From what I have read and heard the if they stay we are stuck with the $1.8 in perpetuity.

Alabama doesn’t get more $ than Vandy; USC doesn’t get more than Oregon St. So I don’t see how we should give BSU any extra going forward.
The Pac-12 wont have any interest in either BSU or BYU they both do not fit the profile that that conference demands. The Big 12 plays it's conference championship on Sunday so that remove BYU, plus BSU is small potatoes as far as facilities goes. The only chance would be football only in the ACC which will reduce football victories for BSU,. BYU has a bigger Media deal than what the ACC got so they would lose money going that route.



Aggie84025
Posts: 3573
Joined: September 12th, 2018, 2:01 pm
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 1249 times

Re: MWC?

Post by Aggie84025 » February 1st, 2020, 4:51 pm

Mr. Sneelock wrote:
February 1st, 2020, 1:09 pm
News flash: We aren't competing for a national championship. Not now, not ever. Thus, the only thing that really matters is a conference championship and some bragging rights against other schools outside of our conference. All conference schools should be on equal footing. If Boise requires more money than the rest of us to grace us with their presence, screw 'em. We can compete for a conference championship without them.
This is my feeling on this situation as well we are never competing for national championships in basketball or football. I do think we can compete for conference championships in football and basketball but giving them a sweetheart deal makes it almost impossible for us to do that in football we should all be on an equal playing field goal if they don't want to be on that plane field then let them go I know the conference will take a hit in terms of money and recognition but at least everybody would be on the same playing field.
These users thanked the author Aggie84025 for the post (total 2):
Aggie19Mr. Sneelock



User avatar
Mr. Sneelock
Posts: 5784
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 10:09 am
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 345 times

Re: MWC?

Post by Mr. Sneelock » February 1st, 2020, 6:28 pm

Aggie84025 wrote:
February 1st, 2020, 4:51 pm
Mr. Sneelock wrote:
February 1st, 2020, 1:09 pm
News flash: We aren't competing for a national championship. Not now, not ever. Thus, the only thing that really matters is a conference championship and some bragging rights against other schools outside of our conference. All conference schools should be on equal footing. If Boise requires more money than the rest of us to grace us with their presence, screw 'em. We can compete for a conference championship without them.
This is my feeling on this situation as well we are never competing for national championships in basketball or football. I do think we can compete for conference championships in football and basketball but giving them a sweetheart deal makes it almost impossible for us to do that in football we should all be on an equal playing field goal if they don't want to be on that plane field then let them go I know the conference will take a hit in terms of money and recognition but at least everybody would be on the same playing field.
Right. At this point the money disparity between the P5 and everyone else is so great that the potential money hit from losing Boise almost makes no difference. Having Boise in the conference doesn't get us any closer to the big boys, and if we are making less than Boise, it makes it harder to compete for a conference championship. As long as we are in a conference with like-minded regional schools, and we are competing for conference championships regularly, then we are doing well. Conference championships should be our goal.
These users thanked the author Mr. Sneelock for the post (total 2):
vegasaggieOKAggie


Formerly TulsAGGIE

Full
Posts: 1861
Joined: April 27th, 2011, 11:07 am
Location: Davis County
Has thanked: 230 times
Been thanked: 98 times

Re: MWC?

Post by Full » February 2nd, 2020, 5:32 pm

oleblu111 wrote:
January 31st, 2020, 5:23 pm
The original contract signed by the MWC and BSU calls for a $1.8 million dollars extra to be paid to BSU, if we do not do that then we are not honoring that agreement .

The need for more revenue does exist because you are not just playing MWC schools we have bowl games with CUSA schools and Mac schools as well as BYU and Washington St. coming up do we really want to leave $2 million off the table when we play theses people ? We also compete with other conferences for coach's etc. are we better off with less money to do that ? The extra $2 million will help all sports not just football.
3 things

1) Contracts are living documents and are subject to change. Six years is fair warning when one of the parties request a change (Boise wanted more $$$).

2) The SEC announced it will distribute $44 million to each team. We rely on having a coaching position to attract candidates, we are a feeder program for P5 coaching positions.

3) Where are you getting $2 million. Is this what you guess USU will lose annually if Boise leaves?



User avatar
OKAggie
Posts: 2565
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 8:32 am
Location: Tulsa, OK
Has thanked: 116 times
Been thanked: 348 times

Re: MWC?

Post by OKAggie » February 3rd, 2020, 9:52 am

Full wrote:
February 2nd, 2020, 5:32 pm
oleblu111 wrote:
January 31st, 2020, 5:23 pm
The original contract signed by the MWC and BSU calls for a $1.8 million dollars extra to be paid to BSU, if we do not do that then we are not honoring that agreement .

The need for more revenue does exist because you are not just playing MWC schools we have bowl games with CUSA schools and Mac schools as well as BYU and Washington St. coming up do we really want to leave $2 million off the table when we play theses people ? We also compete with other conferences for coach's etc. are we better off with less money to do that ? The extra $2 million will help all sports not just football.
3 things

1) Contracts are living documents and are subject to change. Six years is fair warning when one of the parties request a change (Boise wanted more $$$).
* * *
Contracts are not living documents. They may be subject to renegotiation by both parties or breach by either. But they can be in force for decades, according to their terms. Try reducing the principal or payment or term of your mortgage by explaining to your lender that your contract is a living document subject to change. You will not succeed.


Nobody here knows anything.

Full
Posts: 1861
Joined: April 27th, 2011, 11:07 am
Location: Davis County
Has thanked: 230 times
Been thanked: 98 times

Re: MWC?

Post by Full » February 3rd, 2020, 9:26 pm

OKAggie wrote:
February 3rd, 2020, 9:52 am
Full wrote:
February 2nd, 2020, 5:32 pm
oleblu111 wrote:
January 31st, 2020, 5:23 pm
The original contract signed by the MWC and BSU calls for a $1.8 million dollars extra to be paid to BSU, if we do not do that then we are not honoring that agreement .

The need for more revenue does exist because you are not just playing MWC schools we have bowl games with CUSA schools and Mac schools as well as BYU and Washington St. coming up do we really want to leave $2 million off the table when we play theses people ? We also compete with other conferences for coach's etc. are we better off with less money to do that ? The extra $2 million will help all sports not just football.
3 things

1) Contracts are living documents and are subject to change. Six years is fair warning when one of the parties request a change (Boise wanted more $$$).
* * *
Contracts are not living documents. They may be subject to renegotiation by both parties or breach by either. But they can be in force for decades, according to their terms. Try reducing the principal or payment or term of your mortgage by explaining to your lender that your contract is a living document subject to change. You will not succeed.
A mortgage is one of the most common contracts and nothing like an seven year old amended entry agreement between one of twelve members of an association of college sports teams and the association. Still, I knew several people who managed to explain their circumstances and changed the terms on their mortgage to reduce their principal around a decade ago. I know more who were unsuccessful in the same attempt. For some their bankruptcy reduced the deficient principal amount due in the original contract.

My point is that when circumstances change, there is often a change to a contract such as an amendment from a formula based media bonus to a flat $1.8 million because the original contract was not working due to something unforeseen. I don’t know what happened, but the re-entry agreement was not working as originally intended. I don’t know if Boise wasn’t fulfilling its end by not making NY 6 bowls, I don’t know if the latest media contract was complicated or delayed by negotiating Boise separately from the rest of the conference. I don’t know if other members were mad because Boise wanted double the media money they were entitled to. Contracts don’t exist in a vacuum and are amended based on what circumstances. Just because Boise wants it’s special agreement forever, doesn’t mean it will happen.

So... UConn is paying the AAC $17 million dollars. Boise can leave, they can stay, they can amend their re-entry agreement, throw it away, or they can adjudicate their contract that obviously is not interpreted by all the parties in the same way. Their may be change in the exit fee, and none of it will matter in a decade because circumstances will eventually change again.



User avatar
dyedblue
Posts: 7942
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 4:21 pm
Has thanked: 21 times
Been thanked: 459 times

Re: MWC?

Post by dyedblue » February 4th, 2020, 7:09 am

Is Duryea’s attorney, or his wife, representing Boise State here. Six years is more than enough notice to change a contract. It’s not that the old one is invalid, it’s just that a new one is going to be put in place.

If Boise doesn’t like it they can leave. Perhaps we put a clause in there that they get the bonus if they make a NY6 bowl every third year... or maybe even if they win their bowl games instead of losing in embarrassing fashion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


“The winning team has a dedication. It will have a core of veteran players who set the standards. They will not accept defeat.” --Merlin Olsen

Locked Previous topicNext topic