I think everyone believes that the top of the WAC is at least as good as the MWC's top in football. Let's begin with that assumption.

Now isn't it ludicrous to think that the voters and pundits care the MWC teams play San Diego St/Wyoming/UNLV and the WAC teams play USU/Idaho/NMSU? To them those mids are more or less equivalently weak, correct? So why would they care, as far as SOS is concerned, if Boise St is playing in the MWC instead of the WAC? Isn't Hawaii just as good of a win as BYU or better?

Now consider that Boise St all ready made it to the BCS in the WAC. What does the MWC offer that the Broncos can't accomplish in the WAC?

On top of this consider the other scheduling factor that comes into play. In the WAC you have 5 OOC games every other year instead of the usual 4 in the MWC. That allows the Broncos to play one more BCS team in OOC. Isn't the OOC when the voters and pundits are really going to take note???!!!??? Given such, wouldn't a 12-1 WAC team be more attractive than a 11-1 team from the MWC? That 1 extra win means more to those that matter, especially if it is against a BCS team.

The only other driving factor behind a move to the MWC that comes to mind is conference revenue. Isn't this really a moot point if Boise St is visiting the BCS often as a WAC member and the likelihood of a BCS Bowl birth in the MWC being lesser? Secondly, can CSTV and Comcast pay the MWC the figures they've advertised when the MTN has fallen on its face? I can't see how they pay the bills. Nor can I see how the MWC gets the money in hand without certain strings attached. And, finally, how can anyone trust anything the MWC office says, anyhow, when they promised to have EVERY MWC football game televised and that EVERY MWC market would have access to CSTV and the MTN? Talk about liars!! Therefore, how can any credibility be given to MWC/CSTV press releases about contract dollars?