Utah State And The Mountain West Are In Round Two Of Negotiations For The Aggies To Join The League

Here’s what the WAC looked like in 1999 by date of entry to the conference (1999 was the last year of the old WAC, before BYU & Co. left)

1. BYU
2. UNM – MWC
3. Wyoming – MWC
4. Utah
5. Colorado State- MWC
6. UTEP
7. San Diego State — MWC
8. Hawaii
9. Air Force — MWC
10. Fresno State — MWC
11. UNLV — MWC
12. TCU — MWC
13. Rice
14. SMU
15. Tulsa
16. San Jose State

Just insane that 10 years ago the MWC formed and it’s already changed to the point where they have to add teams the original members blamed for the demise of the WAC (like Fresno). Back then, BYU & Others were upset that the WAC had been watered down and that it was spread too far – into Texas. Now, the MWC is also adding teams that never would have been added to the WAC had the original MWC 8 never left to begin with (namely the Big West’s Boise, Utah State, Nevada- 1999).

I know Comcast can at least renegotiate the contract if BYU leaves, but I thought I read somewhere that Comcast also has the option of dropping The Mtn. altogether?

Does anyone know if that is accurate?

To be fair, I’m ignorant as to the details about Utah State’s football program. I was under the impression, fhough, that they have a middle-of-the road, at best, team in the WAC. And middle-of-the-road in the WAC equates to really bad most anywhere else, including the MWC. (I just went to the Utah State athletics Web site to check the results from the last couple of seasons and confirmed my suspicion.)

Please, someone, explain to me how adding a bad program, another bottom-dweller, is going to help the MWC achieve AQ status, which should be our over-riding goal in the expansion process. It appears to me that adding Utah State to the MWC is just going to move us backward.

Sure, it’s a good deal for them because they get out of a sinking ship. But the very addition of Utah State to the MWC diminishes our status, making it less of a good deal for them (but, still an infinitely—OK, that may be a little strong—better deal for them.) And don’t feed me any of this, “But it’s a good, natural rivalry for the U of XYZ” tripe. Rivalries don’t fit into the BCS criteria. We need proven results and good competition. I see neither of those when I look at Utah State.

The bottom line is, I don’t see the up-side for the MWC other than getting to 12 teams. But that’s 12 teams in a weakened conference. We need to be adding teams that move us toward our goal, not away from it.

I just read the post about the draconian penalty for leaving Conference USA that Houston would have to pay to move to the MWC (so they and UTEP are out in terms of expansion). But is Utah State really the best we can do?

If BYU leaves, I’m okay with this. If BYU stays, there will be no emoticon for what I’m feeling.

UTEP and Houston are both far superior choices should BYU stay.