It seems Boise State is starting to annoy their current and (maybe) future conference partners.  BSU is trying to negotiate a deal with either the MWC or BE under which they would be members, but retain their own TV rights.  This would be unprecedented.  No other conference allows what BSU is demanding.  As a result, they're starting to get a bad name; one source told ESPN:

"Boise reminds me of the teenage recruit who is starting to believe he's the biggest star in town...It might be a pretty big letdown when all is said and done. Actually the sentiment of 'who do they think they are' is starting to seep into conversations with folks across college football.  Let's remember this isn't Alabama, or even Texas Tech, we're talking about. This sorry episode is starting to make it seem like Boise is one of the power assets in college football. In reality their value is relative to the conference they belong to."  link


We've had a pretty good dose of the BSU fanbase's arrogance here in recent weeks, so perhaps it's no surprise that their Administration thinks more highly of the school's value than others do.  Frankly, it wouldn't bother me at all if both the MWC and BE left them out in the cold, where they could sink into complete irrelevance.

Doesn't Texas have a deal similar to the one this article references?

How much would this really make BSU?  Sure, their marquee matchups with high-ranked teams will draw a lot of attention nationwide, but how many of those are left in the Big East and how much will a BSU-Tulane football game really be worth?  If I was a BSU fan I'd be worried that the administration was creating a lot of negativity towards the school (from its prospective future conference homes) over a comparably small payday.

Also, I find it hilarious that BSU is trying to do use its strong bargaining position (its recent football success v the instability of the Big East and to a lesser extent the MW) to act like Texas on steroids.  I'm sure that will work out well for them in the long run.

Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch...

Boise has no leverage. They don't bring a TV market. They don't bring a large national following. They don't bring a huge alumni fanbase. When it comes down to it, they can take whatever deal from either the Big 12 or the Pac 12 they can get, or they can be on the outside looking in while beating up on a pissant conference schedule.

They should be so lucky to get an invite to a conference that has a chance to be relevant in the future. TCU found out what life is like in a legit BCS conference this year. Boise needs to beg, not dictate, for terms to be admitted to a conference that matters. Then they have a shot at relevance.

Here is the non-ESPiN version of the story.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/213 78913/boise-state-holds-the-ke...ts-shaky-future

"Big East credibility has been damaged but no matter what happens, Boise is going to be OK. At the BCS level, conference brands sell. At the mid-tier level, individual schools give value to a conference.

CBSSports.com has learned that there was interest from a rights-holder in televising Boise State's home games only, similar to Notre Dame. That's not to say Boise would go independent, but it is a sign that the football program alone has television value no matter where it ends up."

That's where it came from.

The local rag reported a while back via twitter that BSU hired an external company to research options, and BSU's #1 option was the BEast. It's second best option was to start a new conference with remnants of the BEast and the MWC (with/without BYU).

I assume that's where this guys "sources" are coming from.

firstdownBSU wrote: Here is the non-ESPiN version of the story.

Still hanging around, I see.

Your link took me to the CBS columns page, not to a story.  Here's one that will work.  Also, here's CBS's other two articles on the subject, just for anyone interested.

The important questions here are still (1) how much they would get for a max of seven games, only a fraction of them interesting on a national level and several of them guaranteed to be against poor teams, games that will not have the advantage of a significant fanbase to drive ratings, and (2) what this does to BSU's relationship with the conference it ends up in and how it affects BSU's odds of being invited to a major conference down the road.

Again, I don't see the wisdom in acting like Texas when you don't have Texas's bargaining power behind you.  I would worry that it might come back to bite BSU.  And saying that a provider was interested in a deal that would resemble Notre Dame's really doesn't mean much.  Notre Dame can make it work because of their fanbase.  Their massive fanbase.  BSU can't compete with that and I can't believe the money would be there.  Remember that we're talking in the future, too.  A dip in on-field performance, which is inevitable (it happens to everybody), would be killer for BSU compared to Notre Dame.  Contracts need to be renewed and renegotiated, and BSU would be very vulnerable to poor ratings, especially if they were forced to go back to their conference asking to be made a full member because they got dropped from their own deal.

firstdownBSU wrote: Here is the non-ESPiN version of the story.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/213 78913/boise-state-holds-the-ke...ts-shaky-future

"Big East credibility has been damaged but no matter what happens, Boise is going to be OK. At the BCS level, conference brands sell. At the mid-tier level, individual schools give value to a conference.

CBSSports.com has learned that there was interest from a rights-holder in televising Boise State's home games only, similar to Notre Dame. That's not to say Boise would go independent, but it is a sign that the football program alone has television value no matter where it ends up."

That's where it came from.

The local rag reported a while back via twitter that BSU hired an external company to research options, and BSU's #1 option was the BEast. It's second best option was to start a new conference with remnants of the BEast and the MWC (with/without BYU).

I assume that's where this guys "sources" are coming from.

Congrats on staying in the mid-tier and on the outside looking in to the big show. May you reap the rewards of many future mid-December trips to **** bowls.

firstdownBSU wrote: Here is the non-ESPiN version of the story.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/213 78913/boise-state-holds-the-ke...ts-shaky-future

"Big East credibility has been damaged but no matter what happens, Boise is going to be OK. At the BCS level, conference brands sell. At the mid-tier level, individual schools give value to a conference.

CBSSports.com has learned that there was interest from a rights-holder in televising Boise State's home games only, similar to Notre Dame. That's not to say Boise would go independent, but it is a sign that the football program alone has television value no matter where it ends up."

That's where it came from.

The local rag reported a while back via twitter that BSU hired an external company to research options, and BSU's #1 option was the BEast. It's second best option was to start a new conference with remnants of the BEast and the MWC (with/without BYU).

I assume that's where this guys "sources" are coming from.

It's Boise State.

It's in Idaho.

A few years ago, nobody cared.

A few years from now, no one will care. Again.

I'm withholding judgement until I hear what Matt Hayes has to say.

CloudsOfDust wrote: I'm withholding judgement until I hear what Matt Hayes has to say.

Now this is humor.  Well played sir.

Dimven1 wrote:

It's Boise State.

It's in Idaho.

A few years ago, nobody cared.

A few years from now, no one will care. Again.

I think this gets it just about right.  The charm of Boise State has been it playing the David role against various Goliaths.  The amazing bowl game against Oklahoma, the player proposing to the cheerleader....all great stuff.  None of that has staying power, though if BSU goes into the Big East or any other major conference.  They'll just be another team - sort of like Cincinnati or TCU.  Good team, like lots of other good teams - ho hum.  Add in ugly uniforms and the blue rug (both hard on the eyes - really hard on the eyes when together) and there's no long-term following or TV market for BSU, other than their own fans.

Expect Petersen to be announced today.

That's funny.

CloudsOfDust wrote: I'm withholding judgement until I hear what Matt Hayes has to say.

TerraceChair wrote: Expect Petersen to be announced today.

As volleyball coach.

Seriously though, neither conference is a viable product with or without Boise State, so why would either care enough to be held hostage?

Trying to watch a Boise St home game is atrocious. I'll stomach it if they are playing a highly ranked team (like Oregon a few years ago)....but a conference game? Good luck with that TV contract and national appeal.

The blue turf might be liked by BSU fans but the rest of the CF world hates it.

My enjoyment of Boise State football is forever bastardized by their fans. It sucks.

They're one of my favorite teams to watch. Ironically, TCU was my favorite non-Wisconsin team before 1/1/11 as well.

D3Badger wrote: Doesn't Texas have a deal similar to the one this article references?

Yes.

Wouldn't be surprised to see Boise go independent in football.  Neither the Beast or the MWC will have any votes or teams in the BCS bowls in a couple years.  Both would pull the "powerhouse" broncos down, lower that they are now.

You cant rilly compare this to Texas becuse the Long-horn Network doesnt have right's to all Texas home game

bwlc2011 wrote: You cant rilly compare this to Texas becuse the Long-horn Network doesnt have right's to all Texas home game

Oh my god, you made an intelligent post.  Spelling notwithstanding.

While you're correct that they're not exactly the same, we're not comparing Texas getting its own network with BSU getting a package for its home football games.  The two schools are comparable because they each have tried or are trying to leverage their popularity to get more favorable deals within their conference.  Texas is the Big 12.  As they go, the conference goes.  BSU will be the big name (for now) in whichever conference they end up in (again, for now), but they do not have the population base and staying power that Texas does.  That's why it could backfire on BSU much worse than on Texas.

komacki wrote:

bwlc2011 wrote: You cant rilly compare this to Texas becuse the Long-horn Network doesnt have right's to all Texas home game

Oh my god, you made an intelligent post.  Spelling notwithstanding.

While you're correct that they're not exactly the same, we're not comparing Texas getting its own network with BSU getting a package for its home football games.  The two schools are comparable because they each have tried or are trying to leverage their popularity to get more favorable deals within their conference.  Texas is the Big 12.  As they go, the conference goes.  BSU will be the big name (for now) in whichever conference they end up in (again, for now), but they do not have the population base and staying power that Texas does.  That's why it could backfire on BSU much worse than on Texas.

The difference is that the Big 12 would have ceased to exist immediately if Texas left. They are the linchpin of the conference. Texas leaving would have immediately created a Pac-16, a likely SEC or Big Ten expansion, and teams like Kansas and Kansas State left scrambling for the Mountain West or Conference USA.

Boise State isn't in the same world as Texas. Texas can be down for 10 or 20 straight years and still spend tons of money on new coaches until they hit on one and jump straight back to the top of college football (like Alabama). Boise State had a 5-6 year run of glory that's already on the downside, and they have a relatively small fan base. Realignment is all about money, and Boise State doesn't bring money. If both the Big East and Mountain West call their bluff, they're in trouble. They're running a very serious risk playing this game.

jeffwax1 wrote:

komacki wrote:

bwlc2011 wrote: You cant rilly compare this to Texas becuse the Long-horn Network doesnt have right's to all Texas home game

Oh my god, you made an intelligent post.  Spelling notwithstanding.

While you're correct that they're not exactly the same, we're not comparing Texas getting its own network with BSU getting a package for its home football games.  The two schools are comparable because they each have tried or are trying to leverage their popularity to get more favorable deals within their conference.  Texas is the Big 12.  As they go, the conference goes.  BSU will be the big name (for now) in whichever conference they end up in (again, for now), but they do not have the population base and staying power that Texas does.  That's why it could backfire on BSU much worse than on Texas.

The difference is that the Big 12 would have ceased to exist immediately if Texas left. They are the linchpin of the conference. Texas leaving would have immediately created a Pac-16, a likely SEC or Big Ten expansion, and teams like Kansas and Kansas State left scrambling for the Mountain West or Conference USA.

Boise State isn't in the same world as Texas. Texas can be down for 10 or 20 straight years and still spend tons of money on new coaches until they hit on one and jump straight back to the top of college football (like Alabama). Boise State had a 5-6 year run of glory that's already on the downside, and they have a relatively small fan base. Realignment is all about money, and Boise State doesn't bring money. If both the Big East and Mountain West call their bluff, they're in trouble. They're running a very serious risk playing this game.

Exactly.  Which is why I would worry that BSU's strategy of acting like a Texas will come back to bite them if I was a Bronco fan.

komacki wrote:

firstdownBSU wrote: Here is the non-ESPiN version of the story.

Still hanging around, I see.

Your link took me to the CBS columns page, not to a story.  Here's one that will work.  Also, here's CBS's other two articles on the subject, just for anyone interested.

The important questions here are still (1) how much they would get for a max of seven games, only a fraction of them interesting on a national level and several of them guaranteed to be against poor teams, games that will not have the advantage of a significant fanbase to drive ratings, and (2) what this does to BSU's relationship with the conference it ends up in and how it affects BSU's odds of being invited to a major conference down the road.

Again, I don't see the wisdom in acting like Texas when you don't have Texas's bargaining power behind you.  I would worry that it might come back to bite BSU.  And saying that a provider was interested in a deal that would resemble Notre Dame's really doesn't mean much.  Notre Dame can make it work because of their fanbase.  Their massive fanbase.  BSU can't compete with that and I can't believe the money would be there.  Remember that we're talking in the future, too.  A dip in on-field performance, which is inevitable (it happens to everybody), would be killer for BSU compared to Notre Dame.  Contracts need to be renewed and renegotiated, and BSU would be very vulnerable to poor ratings, especially if they were forced to go back to their conference asking to be made a full member because they got dropped from their own deal.

BYU is getting around $2-$3 million from ESPN for their home games (going by memory, please correct me if I am wrong.

BSU is currently getting around $400k a year from the MWC contract.

BSU is going to do whatever it can to continue to elevate it's program. The BEast or a new conference. Or, worse case scenario, going back to the MWC and getting $400k a year for their TV share.

Others have suggested going independent, but that's not really an option at this time (Stadium is too small).

CloudsOfDust wrote: I'm withholding judgement until I hear what Matt Hayes has to say.

+100  Awesome!  

D3Badger wrote: Doesn't Texas have a deal similar to the one this article references?

No.  Texas has third-tier rights, but first- and second-tier go to the B12.  Boise seems to be asking to reserve all its TV rights, which would be very different from the UT situation.  In any case, BSU does not have the leverage of UT.

11 conf titles in 14 yrs, 7 straight top 20 finishes, 2 bcs bowl wins, rabid fan base that travels like a bigten team, growing facilities. Are we a new kid on the block...yeah, are we a flash in the pan??? Heck no!
---------------------------------------------
--- Dimven1 wrote:

firstdownBSU wrote: Here is the non-ESPiN version of the story.

www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/213 78913/boise-state-holds-the-ke...ts-shaky-future

"Big East credibility has been damaged but no matter what happens, Boise is going to be OK. At the BCS level, conference brands sell. At the mid-tier level, individual schools give value to a conference.

CBSSports.com has learned that there was interest from a rights-holder in televising Boise State's home games only, similar to Notre Dame. That's not to say Boise would go independent, but it is a sign that the football program alone has television value no matter where it ends up."

That's where it came from.

The local rag reported a while back via twitter that BSU hired an external company to research options, and BSU's #1 option was the BEast. It's second best option was to start a new conference with remnants of the BEast and the MWC (with/without BYU).

I assume that's where this guys "sources" are coming from.

It's Boise State.

It's in Idaho.

A few years ago, nobody cared.

A few years from now, no one will care. Again.

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

Btw, don't buy espin's b.s., they want boisestate for ten cents on the dollars so we can remain " their little team that could" but thankfully our leadership realizes that model is unsustainable and is trying to put us in the best possible situation for us. Would you expect your school to act any differently??? Espn criticizing anyone for trying to maximize their market share is effing rich lol!

---------------------------------------------
--- EDSBS wrote:



---------------------------------------------
A small market that we own as well as a natl following! Is Lincoln Nebraska a big market or Norman Oklahoma??? Nobody's saying that we're Notredame for cryin out loud, just sayin that we believe we're better than a 400k a yr tv deal on an irrelevant network. Espn wants the big east to fail, they have demonstrated that they will stop at nothing to see it fail. They see that Boise despite their best efforts is still going to go east so they're gonna stir up some sh#t, it's what they do! Espin wants Boise in a western conf, where they can buy rights to our games for jack and they can play us up as their lil Cinderella. We're just trying to get paid folks, don't hate the player, hate the game!