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?

If my lack of words hasn't cleared up my point, consider these two THEORETICAL schedules. Which team would you rather pick in the BCS Bowl?

BYU 11-1
@Arizona Win
Tulsa Win
@Boston College Loss
Utah State Win
+ 8 conference wins

Boise State 12-1
@Arizona Win
Tulsa Win
@Boston College Loss
UNLV Win
Oregon State Win
+ 8 conference victories.

Which team do you prefer? I'd take Boise St, because they have 1 more BCS victory. I guarantee you that's how the pollsters and pundits will see it also.

I'm with you on this, ejmpalle. I just don't see the benefit, except that the MWC is marketing itself as "the best non-bcs conference," and because of that, I think a lot of Boise fans see it as a step up. Plus, just looking at their history, they've been climbing the ladder since they became a 4 yr institution. The fans are used to stepping on their conference to move up to another one.

ejmpalle Wrote: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?

the main reason to make a jump is $$$$ and perception... this years run for them helped the whole conference with the latter.. right now most people see the MWC and CUSA as the top 2 non bcs. thats why they get more TV cash.. though this year I think the Wac was a bit ahead of CUSA.. we need 1 team to step up and become a TCU/Utah/Boise. I think that will happen over the next 2 or 3 years.. but right now CUSA is a pretty balanced bunch.

One thing I've been overlooking:

If the MWC were to go to 10 teams, they'd be watering down their schedules even further and taking an OOC game away. That would give the pollsters even more reason to talk about how weak of a schedule they play, simply because it's a mid conference. It's not in Boise St's best interest to water down their schedule even further.