Obviously, the AAC and the MWC are not going to get TV and bowl agreements anywhere near the level of the power 5 conferences. It may be wise for the MWC and the AAC to engage in some scheduling agreements. Didn't the MWC and CUSA explore some combo deal awhile back (3 or so years ago) but never developed due to realignment/expansion activities happening then?
If Army became part of the AAC along with Navy, the ongoing scheduling with the AFA could be incorporated into a MWC-AAC 'PAC'. Others would do cross-games as well. It may help some financially, and strategically, for the TV sponsor to present some more interesting inter-conference games; and could captivate some enhanced bowl interest.
Coop agreements such as the PAC12-B1G attempt and the exploration of such between the ACC and the SEC, may be a good way to resolve some OOC scheduling issues, protect certain rivalries, provide a few more intriguing games, and offer enhanced, though limited, certain market penetration when expansion itself is not desired or available.
The problem, though, with these 'coop agreement' efforts is that certain schools within a given conference shall resist, putting their self-interests first, or do not see it benefiting themselves as much as certain other conference members.
While the AAC makes slightly more than the MWC, both AAC/MWC make about 2 million a year per schools in TV money which is about 18 million less than the Big 5 and 1 million less than the Big East, though 1 million more than CUSA.
The CUSA MWC thing was a way to balance out CUSA's/MWC's odd membership while it was influx so that their members wouldn't continue to leave for the Big East, and also for the pair to negotiate a higher price for their TV rights together however everyone but Big Ten and MAC (and SBC who sells game by game) have already signed a deal so that likely won't work for another 8-10 years.
It was also a roundabout way to try to get the autobid into the BCS which they kinda accomplished (but they had to add in the other 3 little conference) w/o having to have their CCG champs play each other.
The scheduling agreement would only decease their value as watching random mid sized East school play random mid sized West school just doesn't do anything for the networks or viewing public. Hawaii vs USC, or TCU vs SMU, or Temple vs PSU, or ECU vs NCSU, or USF vs Miami at least appeals somewhat to the regional audience.
I do see the benefit of expanding the SEC/ACC rivalries (for those that make sense) but not if it means forcing Ark/LSU/Mizzou to play VPI/Pitt/BC. The East (minus Mizzou) can easiliy pair up with with the ACC (FSU, Clem, GT, LVille, UNC, WF) but the East pairs more with the Big 12 (UT, OU, KU, OSU, TT). They should also probably try to work in other rivalries like ISU/Iowa, OU/Neb, Pitt/WVU, Sryacuse/Rutgers, MD/UVA, and even some of the exsisting annual/semi annual non-AQs like TCU/SMU, Utah/BYU or UtahSt, CU/CSU, or some that should be like UConn/BC, tOSU/Cincy, Miami/USF, PSU/Temple.
IMO there are 12 good OOC rivalries that could be locked down, plus 3 others that would work well, 8 Big Ten/PAC12 games that could rotate in some manner like they wanted, and 14 versus non-AQ rivalries (AAC+CSU/Boise/BYU) that are/could be played (mostly in state rivalries).
That only leaves about 4 games that would be 'forced' but still a few forced rivalries where none really exsist is better TV than the annual FCS slaughter weekend in mid Novemeber.
Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...