|
Post by NTU on Jan 8, 2013 13:02:39 GMT -8
Rick, If the intent was to only cover the home games then why did they put in the modifier "included, but not limited to"? If they only meant to include home games, then there is no need for the qualifier. In the end I think you are right that the MWC would not have to pay a bonus for a road OOC game, however it should have never been left to chance and further goes to show how incompetent the MWC is. This only strengthens my previous points. It is time to move on The conference's position is that OOC road games--i.e., games not covered by the conference's own TV contract--are not covered under this deal, and therefore are not eligible for bonus payments. BSU is asserting the opposite, and thus their road games next year against Washington and BYU--should they be picked up by a national network--would earn them the bonus. It's something that will certainly get sorted out in short order. The language in the contract is definitely ambiguous, but I'm going to bet that the conference wins that argument. Only games controlled by the conference will apply in regards to the bonus structure.
|
|
|
Post by aztecfankrishnan on Jan 8, 2013 14:40:21 GMT -8
At this point, I'm pretty neutral on which conference we end up in. I'm slightly leaning towards the nBE. However, it is interesting to note that in the final AP poll Utah State #16, Boise #18 and SJSU #21. At least the competition will be pretty decent in the MWC. As much as everyone on this board loves to rip Utah Sate and SJSU they played some pretty good football this year (even if very few in San Jose bothered to notice).
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Jan 8, 2013 15:09:40 GMT -8
At this point, I'm pretty neutral on which conference we end up in. I'm slightly leaning towards the nBE. However, it is interesting to note that in the final AP poll Utah State #16, Boise #18 and SJSU #21. At least the competition will be pretty decent in the MWC. As much as everyone on this board loves to rip Utah Sate and SJSU they played some pretty good football this year (even if very few in San Jose bothered to notice). A long-running and continuing problem, which may never be overcome: NO ONE that I know gives a damn about seeing SJ, or Utah State as well as most of the others in the MWC.
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on Jan 8, 2013 17:18:35 GMT -8
Rick, If the intent was to only cover the home games then why did they put in the modifier "included, but not limited to"? If they only meant to include home games, then there is no need for the qualifier. In the end I think you are right that the MWC would not have to pay a bonus for a road OOC game, however it should have never been left to chance and further goes to show how incompetent the MWC is. This only strengthens my previous points. It is time to move on The conference's position is that OOC road games--i.e., games not covered by the conference's own TV contract--are not covered under this deal, and therefore are not eligible for bonus payments. BSU is asserting the opposite, and thus their road games next year against Washington and BYU--should they be picked up by a national network--would earn them the bonus. It's something that will certainly get sorted out in short order. The language in the contract is definitely ambiguous, but I'm going to bet that the conference wins that argument. Only games controlled by the conference will apply in regards to the bonus structure. Less those broadcast on our most prolific channels, NBC Sports and CBS College Sports. No bonus on either channel. So how many games will we see on the national over the air networks and ESPN 1 or 2? Those are the ones spelled out for bonus's.
|
|