The reason to add Houston is because they’re the best available Texas team. We’re not pulling a team from a current BCS conference to play in the MWC, even if we get the auto bid. That leaves the following possible candidates (from West to East):

1- Hawaii. Bad idea. They are ridiculously expensive to have in a conference (not for football and basketball, but every other team has to travel out there too). All of the good HS players from Hawaii already leave the islands to play on the mainland, so we don’t need to add them for recruiting, and adding them would legitimize their program, potentially making it harder to get Islanders off the Islands. Plus they have little support for their program, and don’t look to have much support coming (worst facilities in the WAC, Idaho included).

2- Fresno State. Good idea. Expands the MWC into NoCal for recruiting. Good tradition in football, decent (not great, but not horrible) basketball program. Already has rivalry with Boise (if we also add Boise).

3- SJSU. Bad idea. Average at best in the WAC, routinely gets destroyed by MWC bottom-dweller SDSU.

4- Boise State. Good idea. Horrible basketball team, but adds significant credibility to MWC football prestige. With Boise the MWC would have teams ranked in the top 15 every year since 2004 except last year, (Utah in 2004, TCU in 2005, Boise in 2006 (and BYU at 16), Utah/Boise/TCU/BYU in 2008). Even in 2007, BYU was 17th.

5- Nevada. Um . . . not sure. Good basketball program, rivalry with UNLV, average football program. Not at the top of the list, but worth considering.

6- Utah State (hahahahahahaha).

7- Idaho (hahahahaha).

8- New Mexico State. Not sure. Average football team, average basketball team, doesn’t really add anything. Pretty much filler if we can’t find a better option (and I think we can).

9-14 are the schools from the West division of CUSA. There are 4 texas schools (Rice, UTEP, Houston, SMU), Tulsa, and Tulane. Tulane is out (horrible), Rice and SMU are historically awful, but maybe they’re on par with Houston or UTEP. I think I rank these schools as follows: Houston, UTEP, Tulsa, SMU, Rice, Tulane. Also, SMU is in Dallas, and we already have TCU there. Houston is a decent basketball team with a decent football team and a great recruiting bed.

15- LA Tech. Decent basketball, average (at best) football, horrible location (far from everyone).

That’s everyone with a realistic chance of being added. I’d rank them as follows (as far as desirability):

1- Boise, 2- Fresno, 3- Houston, 4- Tulsa, 5- Nevada, 6- SMU, 7- Rice, 8- Hawaii, 9- NMSU, 10- SJSU, 11- LA Tech, 12- UTEP, 13- Tulane, 14- Utah State, 15- Idaho.

Again, if we’re kicking people out, start with Wyoming and then add 1-4 on the list. Tulsa/Nevada is a toss-up for me, as are SMU/Rice behind them. I still think we go to 12. Having a weak bottom half of the conference doesn’t hurt us and gives us the opportunity to separate halves of the conference so we can end with more ranked teams.

But of course, the only reason to split the pie with more members is if we can get a much bigger pie (i.e., an automatic bid).

The last time a teams was selected because of TV market over commitment to athletics we took SDSU with us from the WAC instead of Fresno State.

Let’s not make that mistake again. I like Tulsa because they have averaged a higher ranking in the BCS computers than any C-USA west team over the last 5 years. This is significant, but may be second to actual training facilities or those currently being built.

Dropping a team would be significantly difficult. I personally hope SDSU loses their stadium, can’t afford to build a new one and decides to step down to FCS football.

Boise State would bring instant credibility. They are the only team that really would bring the attention of the BCS, as Fresno State consistently fails to live up to expectations. With these two teams added it would be hard to imagine the MWC not having 3 top 25 teams on a regular basis, the level most BCS conferences maintain. The last two years demonstrate that a one loss team from the MWC can end up in the top 15 and a two loss team in the top 20, showing that even in a down year the top MWC would still be competitive.

The biggest thing the MWC can do is win a BCS bowl this year. They will be playing a Big 12 or SEC team in the Fiesta or Sugar Bowl. Win that, or even keep it close, and BCS leaders will take notice.

I think if BYU beats AF then loses to us by less than a TD, they fall from 13 or 14 to about 22. If they lose by a blowout they’ll fall further, to maybe 25 or maybe off the board.

And I disagree. If we went with my setup from the other post (i.e. two divisions with two cross-division games and one rivalry game) Boise wouldn’t have to play Utah, BYU, TCU every year. They’d have to play fresno every year and the one or two good teams in their division (Utah, tcu, byu wouldn’t all be in the same division). That way, sure, maybe they’re 8-2 right now instead of 10-0, but even at 8-2 they’re still ranked (albeit low, like at 22 or 23). That’s one more right there, plus AF doesn’t have to play Utah/TCU/BYU every year, so they’re ranked too (in fact, if not for the Utah loss they’d be ranked right now). That’s 5 right there. And fresno has a chance to be ranked, so that’s 6, and it looks like CSU is getting back on track, so that’s 7. Add Houston (ranked as recently as 2006, iirc) or Tulsa (currently ranked), and that’s 8 teams with a shot.