Boise State will forfeit $2.3 million in Mountain West revenue; blue-on-blue rule would have been removed if Broncos had stayed

By Chadd Cripe
ccripe@idahostatesman.com
© 2012 Idaho Statesman

LAS VEGAS — Boise State will forfeit about $2.3 million in Mountain West revenue for 2012-13 because it’s leaving for the Big East but would not lose its Bowl Championship Series-qualification money if the football team reaches a BCS bowl game, commissioner Craig Thompson said Wednesday.

The Mountain West pays BCS participants $4 million. That money must be used to cover the school’s expenses.

The Mountain West distributed about $2.9 million per school for 2011-12. The total revenue of $23.3 million is expected to remain the same in 2012-13 despite the loss of $4 million in TV revenue because The Mtn. was shut down. Money from the NCAA basketball tournament will make up the difference.

The Mountain West’s TV deal now will be worth $8 million per year, but that’s open for negotiation again with the membership changes next year.

Other notes from Thompson (click here for his comments on Mountain West membership):

— The Mountain West rule prohibiting Boise State from wearing all-blue uniforms on the blue turf would have been rescinded if the Broncos had decided to stay in the conference, Thompson said (if Boise State breaks the rule, the league board of directors would tackle the issue, with a fine possible).

The largest piece of the Mountain West’s pitch was to subject half of the conference’s BCS distribution to a performance-based distribution. Teams with BCS Top 25 finishes would have gotten larger shares, with Boise State getting the most and Nevada and Hawaii getting a bump. It was a change of philosophy from talks with BYU, when Thompson indicated the league wouldn’t give the Cougars a special deal. “(This) was equal to everybody,” he said. “Hawaii would have gotten an incremental bonus. Nevada would have. So it looks like, ‘Oh, this is for Boise State.’ Yeah, Boise State would have been a benefactor.” Thompson said he dealt with the Boise State negotiations on a daily basis for months and thought he had a chance to prevent its move to the Big East. “It was a very hard decision for Boise state,” he said. “… Our presidents felt we were a better league with Boise State. I agree with that.”

— The Mountain West is close to finalizing its TV schedule for this year. Most non-national games will air on local/regional TV. Boise State-New Mexico is expected to be part of that package. It’s the only Boise State game not scheduled for TV so far. Several MW-owned games are on ESPN, including BYU-Boise State, because CBS Sports Network sold them. “ESPN was willing to pay and buy those games,” Thompson said. “I don’t know if they weren’t in the past, but this year they were.” The Mountain West is looking into putting games on digital platforms like phones and tablets in the future, perhaps as soon as this basketball season, but not for this football season.

— Thompson said he was disappointed in the BCS decision not to grant the Mountain West’s waiver request for automatic-qualifier status. The league proposed either a one-year exemption, while Boise State is in the league, or a two-year exemption. Both were denied. “We deserved it. We earned it,” Thompson said. “The black-and-white rules say we should have received it. It had been granted in the past. For whatever reason, it was not granted for us. … We were able to access those games without it in the past and there’s nothing stopping us from doing it again.”

— Hawaii will pay Boise State a $175,000 travel subsidy for this year’s game as part of the Warriors’ membership agreement with the conference.

— The MAACO Bowl Las Vegas will have the first selection from the Mountain West again this year. The Poinsettia Bowl gets the second pick, with the Hawaii, New Mexico and Armed Forces bowls working together on the final three selections. BYU is set to play in the Poinsettia Bowl, which makes that an unlikely destination for the Broncos.

1343245137 Boise State will forfeit $2.3 million in Mountain West revenue; blue-on-blue rule would have been removed if Broncos had stayed Idaho Statesman Copyright 2014 Idaho Statesman . All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Thats funny

"You want in? No Blue on Blue. Our conference, our rules. And write us a check."

"Oh wait, you want out? Blue on Blue is soooo fashionable. You can have it back. And heres some extra bags of money."

Last year in the MWC

I say BSU wears the blue for their home games. What's going to happen? A fine?

When the then Pac-10 tried to stop USC and ucla from both wearing home uniforms when that rivalry game was played, the penalty was loss of a timeout. Both coaches got together, agreed the home uniforms were a good thing and both agreed to sacrifice a timeout. So when USC walked onto the rosebowl in home uniforms, the refs threw a flag and deducted the timeout. ucla immediately called a timeout, evening the numbers. And this was before the game. The Pac-10 decided their rule was stupid and it hasn't been an issue since.

I say BSU make a statement this year. Have the coaches and AD's agree to it before hand, but wear the blue. If the opponent is inthe loop, what's the league going to do?

Excellent idea

Craig Thompson screwed BSU many times over, it's time that BSU return the favor. I mean, it pretty much is BSU against the world anyway, so why not take a chance?

Haha

I like it.

Not a good idea. . .

Not a good idea, no matter how you justify it. There is a difference between making a statement and being spiteful. What you're talking about is doing something out of spite, just because you can. Statements are made with performance and respect. BSU showed that it can win games w/o using the blue uniforms at home.

Absolutely...

...I agree 100%

Craig Thompson

If you really wanted Boise St. so badly, you should have at least been respectful to them. BSU asked you several times to be invited when you still had TCU, Utah, and BYU,(which would have made your conference even stronger) and every time you told them to screw off. You did not invite BSU until you knew that Utah, BYU, and TCU would leave and you just wanted BSU to keep you afloat. Then you make it illegal for the Broncos to wear blue unis on the blue turf. Then you say that you would subvert the uniform rule if BSU stayed. If you think BSU is being selfish in going to the Big East, you can at least allow them to thank you for setting the perfect example of selfishness in the first place. It is your fault, Mr. Thompson, and you have nobody to blame but yourself.

Wrong

"You did not invite BSU until you knew that Utah, BYU, and TCU would leave...." Absolutely incorrect. When Boise State was invited, it still looked like the PAC was going to raid the Big 12. Utah had no idea the Pac invite was about to fall into their laps and didn't think they were going anywhere. BYU bailed in a jealous response to Utah moving up, and TCU then looked to leave due to the watering down of the conference by those two departures. However, had Boise State been added earlier, the MWC might have been granted AQ status and none of those teams would've been so eager to move on.

Actually

when the rumors of BSU being invited to the MWC were flying around, rumors stated by media sources were also stating about Utah being invited to the Pac-10 at the exact same time. Utah knew their invite was coming, and Craig Thompson knew it, there was no way that BSU moving to the MWC and Utah going to the Pac-10 at the exact same time was simply just a coincidence. There was no way that Utah would have wanted to play BSU every year for the next several years(see their bailout on the 3-game series with BSU). There was absolutely no way that the BCS was simply going to just give another conference in the western USA AQ status even if the MWC did invite BSU before then. BCS was about money, no way were they going to just give that smaller conference AQ status. So basically, my statement is accurate.

This is more true.

During the MWC media days, we sent Boise to Jackson, WY to see about an invite, to which it was declined. After Utah announced they were leaving less than a month later, the invite to Boise St quickly came up. The fallout with BYU and TCU (to Big East) came shortly after.

Yup, the BCS. . .

Yup, the BCS heads saw the MWC getting stronger with the addition of BSU and panicked. Bill Han(ock quickly called Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma St. and said the move is a bad idea. He then called the PAC-10 and told them to invite Utah and Colorado. He then told BYU to go indy. He called up the Big East and told them to invite TCU. And thus thwarted the MWC from ever getting AQ status and screwing BSU more. Whew! Good thing they avoided that disaster.

Craig Thompson didn't tell

Craig Thompson didn't tell us no, it wasn't his decision to make. It was the presidents of the universities in the MWC that didn't want to invite us. Inviting us would have meant less tv revenue for them, they would have had to share it. Thompson just does what the University presidents tell him to do. Basically just a spokesman.

Partly true.

It is also the commissioners job to make recommendations to the University presidents, which he never did.

In case anyone needs reminded

http://instagram.com/p/Ng1fa0u2VV/

Good find

.

looks as though we are

in their head.

We?

Are you on the team?

§

.

§ Interesting

that the clock doesn't seem to be working.

§ Grab 'em early.

This is off the topic of BSU and the MWC, but it's still pretty surprising news on the cfb landscape.

Not saying he will, but what happens if Martell turns out to be a dud in HS, or gets hurt, or winds up 6'3" and 300 lbs? What happens if Sarkisian is gone before 2017, or the Huskies get nailed with some big NCAA sanctions?

Maybe there are contingencies in the offer. But to a kid just out of the 7th grade?

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8200394/quarterback-tate-martell-14-commits-washington-huskies

Verbal Commitment

The commitment is only verbal. Either Martell or Washington can back out any time between now and signing day. Washington's just hoping to show this kid that they were behind him the entire time, so if a 'better' offer comes through, he'll feel some sort of responsibility to stick with them anyway (the PR doesn't hurt either). Make no mistake, Washington wouldn't hesitate to rescind the offer if Martell isn't what they expected him to be in 5 years.

§ Obviously only verbal

As the article states, he "... won't be able to sign a national letter of intent until Feb. 1, 2017." Kid must be very good.

Here is the video mentioned in the article: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQ11hzq8iVs

Don't know about the "showdown" music from "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly", though.

Liked this, too: "It's highly unlikely a single Washington player still will be on the roster by the time Tate Martell makes an appearance in purple and gold."

I would hope.

Woopty Doo. Who cares about

Woopty Doo.

Who cares about the Blue on Blue? It was childish to make it a rule in the first place. I'll bet they flip the checkerboard when they start losing at checkers too... Did they really think Boise State was going to get excited and want to stay? It shows they don't think too highly of BSU.