I actually commented on the Ratto article page about that piece.

Not a fan.

* I think if you're a journalist and writing about Pac-10 expansion, you HAVE to mention Texas. The Pac-10 had discussions with them once before and they might have joined if Stanford was willing to guarantee a Yes vote (vote needs to be unanimous).

* And since Texas is clearly the #1 option, you have to throw on Texas A&M in the discussion. Fact is, adding Texas alone brings you more TV sets than Utah and Colorado (or Utah & BYU).

* BYU would likely get only 7-8 yes votes, not 10

* Rattos' idea of Utah not wanting to leave their rivalry with BYU is laughable. It's like saying Lebron James would have passed on the NBA in order to play in the CBA with his high school friends and rivals. Not to mention there are some of the best rivalries that are inter-conference (Florida vs Florida St, Georgia vs GA Tech, Clemson vs South Carolina...or SoCar as I like to call them )

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.

Article out of Nevada Wolfpack country with speculation regarding possible MWC replacements for any schools that "may" be taken by the PAC-10.Link at http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/201 ... ofile=1059

Article out of Nevada Wolfpack country discussing possible replacements(especially Nevada) for any MWC schools that may be taken by the PAC-10.Link at http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/201 ... ofile=1059

Article in Denver paper regarding possible PAC-10 raid on the MWC.Link at http://www.denverpost.com/colleges/ci_14378166

ESPN blog article discussing possible negative impact of major conference realignment on the MWC.Link at http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/ ... or-the-mwc

Denver post is reporting that the MWC Presidents will informally meet today to discuss the possibility of future league expansion beyond 9 schools.No IMMEDIATE action is expected.Link at http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_14660709

Followup article in Denver Post discussing MWC expansion talk at http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_14667581

Denver Post article with comments from MWC Commish regarding possible conference realignment.Link at http://www.denverpost.com/ci_14671643

Blog article out of Boise regarding possibility of MWC inviting BSU at their June Presidents meeting.Link at http://voices.idahostatesman.com/2010/0 ... udget_sche

MWC MB thread discussing IdahoStatesman article with comments from SDSU President regarding possible MWC expansion at http://www.mwcboard.com/www/forums/inde ... opic=24360

I got an e-mail from an "insider" today saying that the sun belt commish was told by the MWC commish that Utah, BYU, TCU are no votes for Boise meaning they won't get in. 7/2 passes. Now I don't know why TCU is voting no because unless UT/A&M leave the B12, TCU isn't going anywhere. Voting no could cost them the bid. BYU/UU figure they're gone and they don't want to pay a higher exit fee by adding BSU. The MWC school justmake an exception this time to not raise the fee. Also why would the MWC commish tell the SBelt commish the details like that.

_________________

WRANGLERS 153-55-1 CVFL CHAMPS '04 '05 '09 '12

NFL CHAMPS '29 '30 '31 '36 '39 '44 '61 '62 '65 '66 '67 '96 '10

BW/WAC/MWC CHAMPS '77 '82 '85 '88 '89 '91 '92 '93 '99 '12
['08 NCAA BASEBALL CHAMPS]

Nothing makes any sense to why BYU, Utah, and TCU would say no.
Utah and TCU will most likely be gone a year after BSU start MWC play.
And BYU needs BSU in the MWC if they get left behind.

A yes for BSU entry means in a worse case scenario for those 3 schools, not getting a BCS conference invite, is a
BCS MWC. It wound be dumb to say no.

I think it sucks, but it DOES make sense. Here's why. We figure at least 2 B12 schools are gone so even if the P10 doesn't expand, BYU and Utah would be at the top of the B12 list. In 2012 MWC would be a BCS conference w/ BSU. Utah and BYU would be in the the B12 by 2012 or 2013. So a MWC AQ would mean nothing to those 2. Why would they want to pay more to leave by adding BSU 2 years before they get out? TCU is a different story. I only see them as an option if Texas and Texas A&M leave since the B12 said they want new markets. TCU should vote yes. If the Pac 10 does expand then you figure Utah to P10, BYU, Colorado St., New Mexico could be in the B12. So maybe they should be voting no over TCU.

_________________

WRANGLERS 153-55-1 CVFL CHAMPS '04 '05 '09 '12

NFL CHAMPS '29 '30 '31 '36 '39 '44 '61 '62 '65 '66 '67 '96 '10

BW/WAC/MWC CHAMPS '77 '82 '85 '88 '89 '91 '92 '93 '99 '12
['08 NCAA BASEBALL CHAMPS]

Yeah, MWC needs to realize that they will lose members IF the P10 expands or B12 needs replacements. It' spointless to ask the current teams to penalize themselves for filling a newly created void. If they want to make a few quick bucks, then just have a hefty fee to join the MWC that BSU will pay...along with Nevada, Fresno, etc.

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.

That only makes sense if you think the MWC will get BCS without BSU. If not, then the MWC should not charge anyone anything for a yes vote.