sactowndog wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- retrofade wrote:

I think you're getting all worked up for no reason. This isn't a bad deal... it's a good deal for everyone in the conference, and a really good deal for Boise. Boise does not retain their own television rights. That much is very clear. Their television rights are packaged outside of the current MWC television deal with the revenue going back into the conference for equal distribution to all-sports members. Where Boise will get a bonus is for national games, of which all of theirs will more than likely fall into the bonus structure. We will also get a bonus for our games that fit the criteria, both for home and away games. 

Now stop freaking out.

---------------------------------------------
A I am not freaking out I am merely stating for Fresno it is a bad deal. Boise has locked in at a minimum 900k in revenue a year straight out of the MWC's pocket. If you don't think it is a bad deal for Fresno which is a good football school in a large market then I suggest you find a smart lawyer for any future deals you enter into.

sactowndog wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- portlandog wrote:

Congrats to Boise for being in a position to pull this off. They should pat themselves on the back for being the Texas of the MWC.

---------------------------------------------

Yep and the question facing Fresno is do we want to be Oklahoma or Texas A&M. I think we do have options.

Angularvelocity wrote: Basically Boise States take will be approximately two to three times that of the other MWC members. The other 10 members are going to get a little more and BSU is going to get a major wind fall.  The Bronco's are the saviors, ring leaders, bell cows, CEO's, royalty, etc. of the MWC and they will be compensated as such.....according to the agreement.  It's not a bad deal for Fresno State or any of the other MWC schools it's the deal that "had to be made."

the 10 MWC teams are going to pay all their exit fees
from the MWC distribution of the 2012/2013 conference revenue which Boise had previously forfeited....estimated to be APX $2.5 Mil.  So the conference will not get Boise's share, it will go to the buyout.  Hence, Boise is paying a big chunk of their own buyout.  Contract stated it is believed that the 2 (Big East and Big West) buyouts will cost the conference $3 mil.  General fund to pick up difference of 500K if numbers are to believed.....Fresno's share would be a paltry $50K to get Boise back.
 
the 10 MWC teams are giving up the BSU football games as part of "thier" TV deal
True, but the MWC still gets the revenue from the sale of these games.  If the Boise games were to be included in our originally agreed upon (new) CBS price, we wouldn't get ANY VALUE for them.  By allowing them to be on the open market, we get paid for new conference members' games, not included in the original CBS package.  I guarantee you this is why the contract with CBS was rework....bringing Boise and splitting $800K by 1 more mouth would have been LESS for each school.  Makes no sense.  Now we have a tool to get additional revenue for EACH NEW TEAM the MWC adds.  That is a good deal assuming it ends when the conference renegotiates its TV deal in 2016 (or whenever).

the 10 MWC teams are all going to renege on the uniform band (blue on the turf)
who cares.  Not a big deal.

The negotiations basically came down to this, we are in trouble without you, what will it take for you to save us.... and thats what's on the agreement sheet ... the price. The Bronco's could have gotten even more if they wanted it.....they probably just couldn't think of anything else they needed "at the moment."

Now what will it cost to get the Aztecs back!  They are withdrawing from two conferences as well... the BE exit will be free......the 10 members of the MWC will cover the cost of leaving the BW for SDSU! All "good things" come with a price, and conference stability in this day and age of college football is a "good thing." While Boise State is the football "super power", San Diego State is the top metro area of the puzzle that makes the "new" MWC conference work and complete. Big TV market,  destination city, So-Cal recruiting base, perfect for conference tournaments, 2012 football champions, top 25 rated basketball school, good baseball. Not a lot of bad with havig the Aztecs back. 

There's nothing like buying back things you already owned before!

sactowndog wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- retrofade wrote:

I think you're getting all worked up for no reason. This isn't a bad deal... it's a good deal for everyone in the conference, and a really good deal for Boise. Boise does not retain their own television rights. That much is very clear. Their television rights are packaged outside of the current MWC television deal with the revenue going back into the conference for equal distribution to all-sports members. Where Boise will get a bonus is for national games, of which all of theirs will more than likely fall into the bonus structure. We will also get a bonus for our games that fit the criteria, both for home and away games. 

Now stop freaking out.

---------------------------------------------
A I am not freaking out I am merely stating for Fresno it is a bad deal. Boise has locked in at a minimum 900k in revenue a year straight out of the MWC's pocket. If you don't think it is a bad deal for Fresno which is a good football school in a large market then I suggest you find a smart lawyer for any future deals you enter into.

sactowndog wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- portlandog wrote:

Congrats to Boise for being in a position to pull this off. They should pat themselves on the back for being the Texas of the MWC.

---------------------------------------------

Yep and the question facing Fresno is do we want to be Oklahoma or Texas A&M. I think we do have options.

sactowndog wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- AZWildcat24 wrote:

This deal is good for long term viability of the MWC.  The same strategy could lead to BYU coming back in fold.  As retro said they do not retain their rights.  Rather the MWC gets to sell them separately and the conference AS A WHOLE splits that amount.   Think of it this way; the conference is getting their TV money as agreed upon after CBS redid the contract, any new teams coming on board,  the MWC gets to bid out those games on the open market, with the conference splitting the revenue with ALL schools.

It will be interesting to see the agreement after the CBS contract expires.  I'd assume ALL the conference games packaged together would lead to the greatest media contract value.

PS
Anyone notice 5e?  SDSU will be offered back in at MWC terms after which SDSu has until 1/31/13 to say yes or no.  Interesting that made it into the Boise Term Sheet.
5c?  12 teams or more and the MWC WILL have a conference championship game.  More TV money for the conference AND those 2 schools participating.
4c?  All bowl money will be split 50/50 (not just BCS type bowl participation).  Teams that don't go bowling will see less money and teams that go bowling will see more.

---------------------------------------------
Did you notice the part that says Boise gets paid off the top before any money goes to the conference?

It is kind of a big deal when Boise has control of where things go.

retrofade wrote:

sactowndog wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- AZWildcat24 wrote:

This deal is good for long term viability of the MWC.  The same strategy could lead to BYU coming back in fold.  As retro said they do not retain their rights.  Rather the MWC gets to sell them separately and the conference AS A WHOLE splits that amount.   Think of it this way; the conference is getting their TV money as agreed upon after CBS redid the contract, any new teams coming on board,  the MWC gets to bid out those games on the open market, with the conference splitting the revenue with ALL schools.

It will be interesting to see the agreement after the CBS contract expires.  I'd assume ALL the conference games packaged together would lead to the greatest media contract value.

PS
Anyone notice 5e?  SDSU will be offered back in at MWC terms after which SDSu has until 1/31/13 to say yes or no.  Interesting that made it into the Boise Term Sheet.
5c?  12 teams or more and the MWC WILL have a conference championship game.  More TV money for the conference AND those 2 schools participating.
4c?  All bowl money will be split 50/50 (not just BCS type bowl participation).  Teams that don't go bowling will see less money and teams that go bowling will see more.

---------------------------------------------
Did you notice the part that says Boise gets paid off the top before any money goes to the conference?

It is kind of a big deal when Boise has control of where things go.

Where? The national exposure payments are independent of the television contract payments. That goes for all schools, not just Boise. You have a wholesale lack of objectivity. You've decided that Boise is screwing us over and are unwilling to accept the fact that we're in a better position with this deal than we were in without it.

BS I am just reading the term sheet which you seem incapable of doing.  It says specifically...

"National Exposure bonus payments are calculated and paid as a higher priority and prior to the per member division of conference revenue"

that means if ESPN wants a game and wants to only pay 500K for that game they can do so and know that Boise will be reimbursed first and financially incented to direct the business to ESPN.  Boise has that power per the following language of the contract...

"Boise State and MWC must mutally agree to whom such Boise State home football game rites are liscensed and to the material terms of such liscense." 

you will see collusion between Boise and ESPN to increase the value of games going to Boise at the expense of the MWC.  If you think it won't happen then your foolish.  ESPN can easily underbid a Boise home game to make it profitable for them and Boise at the expense of the MWC.

sactowndog wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- 1IvyDog wrote:

Sactown chill, we're going to be okay. I had my wife look at the PDF, which is not the actual contract but a synopsis, she is an attorney. The new nugget she found is that all league games on national TV, including Boise will get the bonus, which means both teams will get it. In OOC home games the MW team will get the bonus. This will Benefit all teams that are successful. She also stated that she would have to see the actual contract to make a more definitive analysis.

---------------------------------------------

Did your wife look at the point that determines order of payment?

sactowndog wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- retrofade wrote:

sactowndog wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- portlandog wrote:

Congrats to Boise for being in a position to pull this off. They should pat themselves on the back for being the Texas of the MWC.

---------------------------------------------

Yep and the question facing Fresno is do we want to be Oklahoma or Texas A&M. I think we do have options.

But we aren't A&M... we're not even close. We don't have an SEC to go to where we'll be getting even more money.

---------------------------------------------

And Boise isn't Texas. We may have a big East option and currently neither you or I know how it compares.

sactowndog wrote: 

BS I am just reading the term sheet which you seem incapable of doing.  It says specifically...

"National Exposure bonus payments are calculated and paid as a higher priority and prior to the per member division of conference revenue"

that means if ESPN wants a game and wants to only pay 500K for that game they can do so and know that Boise will be reimbursed first and financially incented to direct the business to ESPN.  Boise has that power per the following language of the contract...

"Boise State and MWC must mutally agree to whom such Boise State home football game rites are liscensed and to the material terms of such liscense." 

you will see collusion between Boise and ESPN to increase the value of games going to Boise at the expense of the MWC.  If you think it won't happen then your foolish.  ESPN can easily underbid a Boise home game to make it profitable for them and Boise at the expense of the MWC.

sactowndog wrote:

retrofade wrote:

sactowndog wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- AZWildcat24 wrote:

This deal is good for long term viability of the MWC.  The same strategy could lead to BYU coming back in fold.  As retro said they do not retain their rights.  Rather the MWC gets to sell them separately and the conference AS A WHOLE splits that amount.   Think of it this way; the conference is getting their TV money as agreed upon after CBS redid the contract, any new teams coming on board,  the MWC gets to bid out those games on the open market, with the conference splitting the revenue with ALL schools.

It will be interesting to see the agreement after the CBS contract expires.  I'd assume ALL the conference games packaged together would lead to the greatest media contract value.

PS
Anyone notice 5e?  SDSU will be offered back in at MWC terms after which SDSu has until 1/31/13 to say yes or no.  Interesting that made it into the Boise Term Sheet.
5c?  12 teams or more and the MWC WILL have a conference championship game.  More TV money for the conference AND those 2 schools participating.
4c?  All bowl money will be split 50/50 (not just BCS type bowl participation).  Teams that don't go bowling will see less money and teams that go bowling will see more.

---------------------------------------------
Did you notice the part that says Boise gets paid off the top before any money goes to the conference?

It is kind of a big deal when Boise has control of where things go.

Where? The national exposure payments are independent of the television contract payments. That goes for all schools, not just Boise. You have a wholesale lack of objectivity. You've decided that Boise is screwing us over and are unwilling to accept the fact that we're in a better position with this deal than we were in without it.

BS I am just reading the term sheet which you seem incapable of doing.  It says specifically...

"National Exposure bonus payments are calculated and paid as a higher priority and prior to the per member division of conference revenue"

that means if ESPN wants a game and wants to only pay 500K for that game they can do so and know that Boise will be reimbursed first and financially incented to direct the business to ESPN.  Boise has that power per the following language of the contract...

"Boise State and MWC must mutally agree to whom such Boise State home football game rites are liscensed and to the material terms of such liscense." 

you will see collusion between Boise and ESPN to increase the value of games going to Boise at the expense of the MWC.  If you think it won't happen then your foolish.  ESPN can easily underbid a Boise home game to make it profitable for them and Boise at the expense of the MWC.

thedude15 wrote: "national exposure bonus"

does that count for games that are NOT controlled by the MW? 


ie Fresno plays @ USC in 2014. Say that game is on ESPN on a Saturday. Would Fresno get a $500k bonus even though the MW does not own the rights to the game?

The contract does not state the game has to be controlled by the MW (ie a home game).

OldFigBBJ2 wrote: I read it.  The MW's signature blocks are conspicuously empty.  Do you have information that it was signed, at least in counterpart, by MW's representatives?  I assume you wouldn't present the sheet unless there is information that it is (or fairly represents) the final version of the term sheet approved by the MW.  I think we are also assuming that the term sheet fairly represents the terms of the MW-Boise contract, which is not provided. 

Where are you getting the figure of $900,000?  Are you assuming three non-Saturday Boise home games will be broadcasted nationally (or 3 X $300,000 = $900,000)?   Or are you assuming something else?  Not criticizing, just trying to understand.  The figure of $900,000 appears nowhere in the sheet you have presented.

sactowndog wrote:

"Boise State and MWC must mutally agree to whom such Boise State home football game rites are liscensed and to the material terms of such liscense." 

you will see collusion between Boise and ESPN to increase the value of games going to Boise at the expense of the MWC.  If you think it won't happen then your foolish.  ESPN can easily underbid a Boise home game to make it profitable for them and Boise at the expense of the MWC.

sactowndog wrote:

OldFigBBJ2 wrote: I read it.  The MW's signature blocks are conspicuously empty.  Do you have information that it was signed, at least in counterpart, by MW's representatives?  I assume you wouldn't present the sheet unless there is information that it is (or fairly represents) the final version of the term sheet approved by the MW.  I think we are also assuming that the term sheet fairly represents the terms of the MW-Boise contract, which is not provided. 

Where are you getting the figure of $900,000?  Are you assuming three non-Saturday Boise home games will be broadcasted nationally (or 3 X $300,000 = $900,000)?   Or are you assuming something else?  Not criticizing, just trying to understand.  The figure of $900,000 appears nowhere in the sheet you have presented.

I am assuming that even if Peterson leaves and Boise sucks they will hold out for a minumum of 3 games on ESPN no matter what ESPN offers or 2 Saturday games.  Either way that is 900K minimum.  The money comes off the top and no where does it say the MWC must make a certain percentage or even break even. 

If I am Boise, and they drive a harder bargin than I would, I don't agree to any schedule unless I make a minimum of 900K.  We will be lucky if they agree to split it in half and only take that.  

It is basically a life long guarentee of revenue at the expense of the conference.

OldFigBBJ2 wrote: I read it.  The MW's signature blocks are conspicuously empty.  Do you have information that it was signed, at least in counterpart, by MW's representatives?  I assume you wouldn't present the sheet unless there is information that it is (or fairly represents) the final version of the term sheet approved by the MW.  I think we are also assuming that the term sheet fairly represents the terms of the MW-Boise contract, which is not provided. 

Where are you getting the figure of $900,000?  Are you assuming three non-Saturday Boise home games will be broadcasted nationally (or 3 X $300,000 = $900,000)?   Or are you assuming something else?  Not criticizing, just trying to understand.  The figure of $900,000 appears nowhere in the sheet you have presented.

sactowndog wrote:

OldFigBBJ2 wrote: I read it.  The MW's signature blocks are conspicuously empty.  Do you have information that it was signed, at least in counterpart, by MW's representatives?  I assume you wouldn't present the sheet unless there is information that it is (or fairly represents) the final version of the term sheet approved by the MW.  I think we are also assuming that the term sheet fairly represents the terms of the MW-Boise contract, which is not provided. 

Where are you getting the figure of $900,000?  Are you assuming three non-Saturday Boise home games will be broadcasted nationally (or 3 X $300,000 = $900,000)?   Or are you assuming something else?  Not criticizing, just trying to understand.  The figure of $900,000 appears nowhere in the sheet you have presented.

I am assuming that even if Peterson leaves and Boise sucks they will hold out for a minumum of 3 games on ESPN no matter what ESPN offers or 2 Saturday games.  Either way that is 900K minimum.  The money comes off the top and no where does it say the MWC must make a certain percentage or even break even. 

If I am Boise, and they drive a harder bargin than I would, I don't agree to any schedule unless I make a minimum of 900K.  We will be lucky if they agree to split it in half and only take that.  

It is basically a life long guarentee of revenue at the expense of the conference.

dog85 wrote:

sactowndog wrote:

OldFigBBJ2 wrote: I read it.  The MW's signature blocks are conspicuously empty.  Do you have information that it was signed, at least in counterpart, by MW's representatives?  I assume you wouldn't present the sheet unless there is information that it is (or fairly represents) the final version of the term sheet approved by the MW.  I think we are also assuming that the term sheet fairly represents the terms of the MW-Boise contract, which is not provided. 

Where are you getting the figure of $900,000?  Are you assuming three non-Saturday Boise home games will be broadcasted nationally (or 3 X $300,000 = $900,000)?   Or are you assuming something else?  Not criticizing, just trying to understand.  The figure of $900,000 appears nowhere in the sheet you have presented.

I am assuming that even if Peterson leaves and Boise sucks they will hold out for a minumum of 3 games on ESPN no matter what ESPN offers or 2 Saturday games.  Either way that is 900K minimum.  The money comes off the top and no where does it say the MWC must make a certain percentage or even break even. 

If I am Boise, and they drive a harder bargin than I would, I don't agree to any schedule unless I make a minimum of 900K.  We will be lucky if they agree to split it in half and only take that.  

It is basically a life long guarentee of revenue at the expense of the conference.

But the conference is negotiating the broadcast deals, not Boise.  This contract ensures that the added value of Boise State home games is not just incorporated into the existing deal with CBS.  By making this deal, the conference is recognizing that Boise State home games are an additional source of revenue for everybody in the conference.  Boise hasn't asked for anything here that they are not willing to let other members have if they tank and somebody else succeeds.

sactowndog wrote:

OldFigBBJ2 wrote: I read it.  The MW's signature blocks are conspicuously empty.  Do you have information that it was signed, at least in counterpart, by MW's representatives?  I assume you wouldn't present the sheet unless there is information that it is (or fairly represents) the final version of the term sheet approved by the MW.  I think we are also assuming that the term sheet fairly represents the terms of the MW-Boise contract, which is not provided. 

Where are you getting the figure of $900,000?  Are you assuming three non-Saturday Boise home games will be broadcasted nationally (or 3 X $300,000 = $900,000)?   Or are you assuming something else?  Not criticizing, just trying to understand.  The figure of $900,000 appears nowhere in the sheet you have presented.

The worst case scenario (and I am not saying it will happen but it could) is Boise sucks and we have 2 marginal teams. 

ESPN bids $1 for the two Boise versus X games on a Friday and Boise versus AQ game on a Saturday netting Boise say 1.1M.  Boise refuses to sign unless the MWC agrees to the deal.  That means the MWC now owes 1.7M and has gotten $1 in revenue.

No one else wants any of the other conference games and doesn't bid anything on top of the CBS deal.  That means the conference has pony up $1.7M from the $11M conference deal.  Assuming the three games we one AQ game and 2 conference games.  The two conference partners who get the $300M only net ~150K, Boise nets ~1M and the rest of the conference pays ~150K per school for the right to be in the conference with Boise. 

It is basically written as a guarentee for Boise with no protection for the MWC schools.  They assume the risk that Boise will be a top tier team for life.

OldFigBBJ2 wrote: No offense, but I think that's your first questionable assumption.  If Boise sucks in the future, ESPN will not be a willing participant in national broadcasts from Boise.  Boise would settle harmlessly to the bottom just like we did.  We lead non-BCS schools in national/regional TV appearances in the early-middle of the 2000 decade, and from there we plummeted to one national/regional game in, I believe, 2007 or 2008.  Following a hypothetical 4-win season in 2014, nobody anywhere is going to care to watch Boise football in 2015.  ESPN gets this.

sactowndog wrote:

OldFigBBJ2 wrote: I read it.  The MW's signature blocks are conspicuously empty.  Do you have information that it was signed, at least in counterpart, by MW's representatives?  I assume you wouldn't present the sheet unless there is information that it is (or fairly represents) the final version of the term sheet approved by the MW.  I think we are also assuming that the term sheet fairly represents the terms of the MW-Boise contract, which is not provided. 

Where are you getting the figure of $900,000?  Are you assuming three non-Saturday Boise home games will be broadcasted nationally (or 3 X $300,000 = $900,000)?   Or are you assuming something else?  Not criticizing, just trying to understand.  The figure of $900,000 appears nowhere in the sheet you have presented.

I am assuming that even if Peterson leaves and Boise sucks they will hold out for a minumum of 3 games on ESPN no matter what ESPN offers or 2 Saturday games.  Either way that is 900K minimum.  The money comes off the top and no where does it say the MWC must make a certain percentage or even break even. 

If I am Boise, and they drive a harder bargin than I would, I don't agree to any schedule unless I make a minimum of 900K.  We will be lucky if they agree to split it in half and only take that.  

It is basically a life long guarentee of revenue at the expense of the conference.

sactowndog wrote:

dog85 wrote:

sactowndog wrote:

OldFigBBJ2 wrote: I read it.  The MW's signature blocks are conspicuously empty.  Do you have information that it was signed, at least in counterpart, by MW's representatives?  I assume you wouldn't present the sheet unless there is information that it is (or fairly represents) the final version of the term sheet approved by the MW.  I think we are also assuming that the term sheet fairly represents the terms of the MW-Boise contract, which is not provided. 

Where are you getting the figure of $900,000?  Are you assuming three non-Saturday Boise home games will be broadcasted nationally (or 3 X $300,000 = $900,000)?   Or are you assuming something else?  Not criticizing, just trying to understand.  The figure of $900,000 appears nowhere in the sheet you have presented.

I am assuming that even if Peterson leaves and Boise sucks they will hold out for a minumum of 3 games on ESPN no matter what ESPN offers or 2 Saturday games.  Either way that is 900K minimum.  The money comes off the top and no where does it say the MWC must make a certain percentage or even break even. 

If I am Boise, and they drive a harder bargin than I would, I don't agree to any schedule unless I make a minimum of 900K.  We will be lucky if they agree to split it in half and only take that.  

It is basically a life long guarentee of revenue at the expense of the conference.

But the conference is negotiating the broadcast deals, not Boise.  This contract ensures that the added value of Boise State home games is not just incorporated into the existing deal with CBS.  By making this deal, the conference is recognizing that Boise State home games are an additional source of revenue for everybody in the conference.  Boise hasn't asked for anything here that they are not willing to let other members have if they tank and somebody else succeeds.

No the deals are jointly negotiated with Boise and the conference.  Basically they can't finish a schedule without Boise's approval.  Because it applies to even conference games Boise can hold them over a barrel and prevent them from finishing a conference TV deal.

Granted the worst case scenario is unlikey to occur because the MWC has to approve also and they would be better to walk away but I used it to illustrate the problem.

OldFigBBJ2 wrote: No offense, but I think that's your first questionable assumption.  If Boise sucks in the future, ESPN will not be a willing participant in national broadcasts from Boise.  Boise would settle harmlessly to the bottom just like we did.  We lead non-BCS schools in national/regional TV appearances in the early-middle of the 2000 decade, and from there we plummeted to one national/regional game in, I believe, 2007 or 2008.  Following a hypothetical 4-win season in 2014, nobody anywhere is going to care to watch Boise football in 2015.  ESPN gets this.