...sounds like the Mountain West doesn't want us

**CYCLNST8** · 06-10-2010, 10:02 AM

Sorry if this has been posted somewhere else- if so, please merge. Check out the end of this article:

Your take: To take or not take Boise State, Part II - College Football Nation Blog - ESPN

Conference USA? boo....

**chuckd4735** · 06-10-2010, 10:06 AM

Because an ESPN columnist does not think so? doubtful it has much validity.

I am so sick of everyone in the media thinking these conference decision are being made solely on athletics. It is so much more than that, and the MWC would take ISU as an institution in a heart beat.

**jdoggivjc** · 06-10-2010, 10:06 AM

Originally Posted by CYCLNST8

Sorry if this has been posted somewhere else- if so, please merge. Check out the end of this article:

Your take: To take or not take Boise State, Part II - College Football Nation Blog - ESPN

Conference USA? boo....

Who says CUSA even wants us?

**WalkingCY** · 06-10-2010, 10:08 AM

Let's go the independent route.

**DaddyMac** · 06-10-2010, 10:08 AM

Why wouldn't the MAC add at 13? Seems like they'd be a natural to.

Kinda the same reason the WAC wants an even number, the Big 10 too.

**Incyte** · 06-10-2010, 10:08 AM

Originally Posted by CYCLNST8

Sorry if this has been posted somewhere else- if so, please merge. Check out the end of this article:

Your take: To take or not take Boise State, Part II - College Football Nation Blog - ESPN

Conference USA? boo....

Did the Mountain West hire an ESPN blogger to make realignment decisions? I must have missed that.

**Al_4_State** · 06-10-2010, 10:09 AM

There is no objective reason to not bring ISU, along with KU, KSU, Mizzou, Boise and Baylor into the MWC, if they want to compete at all.

**DaddyMac** · 06-10-2010, 10:09 AM

BTW - who is Graham Watson?

**CyinCo** · 06-10-2010, 10:12 AM

MWC = Not currentlly BCS. With leftover Big XII = BCS.

**JY07** · 06-10-2010, 10:12 AM

Originally Posted by Al_4_State

There is no objective reason to not bring ISU, along with KU, KSU, Mizzou, Boise and Baylor into the MWC, if they want to compete at all.

Why wouldn't those 5 stay put, and the MWC teams added to the big 12?

**chuckd4735** · 06-10-2010, 10:15 AM

Originally Posted by DaddyMac

BTW - who is Graham Watson?

He would be the biggest reject blogger working for ESPN. I mean, he was hired to cover the MWC...

**Al_4_State** · 06-10-2010, 10:16 AM

ISU adds far more to the MWC than Baylor.

**CycloneJames** · 06-10-2010, 10:16 AM

I think everyone is looking at this the wrong way. I don't think the Mountain West would expand. I think the Big 12 would just add new members. That way the good Mountain West teams can get rid of the bad ones and join with an existing BCS conference.

**jdoggivjc** · 06-10-2010, 10:17 AM

Originally Posted by CyinCo

MWC = Not currentlly BCS. With leftover Big XII = BCS.

Not if the new Pac 10, Big 10, SEC, and ACC superconferences have their way, as it's the conferences, who are controlled by the school presidents, who decide who gets to be a BCS conference and who doesn't. And isn't the whole point of the superconference model keeping all of the money for themselves? Why would they give any of that to a fifth conference?

**jdoggivjc** · 06-10-2010, 10:19 AM

Originally Posted by CycloneJames

I think everyone is looking at this the wrong way. I don't think the Mountain West would expand. I think the Big 12 would just add new members. That way the good Mountain West teams can get rid of the bad ones and join with an existing BCS conference.

As soon as Nebraska leaves for the Big 10 and the 6 Big 12 schools leave for the Pac 10, the Big 12 dissolves under simple majority under Delaware corporate law (which with the Big 12 conference was founded). Dissolution means no conference from which the remaining schools can try to pick up the pieces and no ginormous payouts from leaving schools:

CHAPTER 1. GENERAL CORPORATION LAW Subchapter X. Sale of Assets, Dissolution and Winding Up