MWC and C-USA: Is the MWC getting played or are they playing C-USA?

At first glance, the cooperation between the MWC and C-USA seems to be a fairly mutually beneficial endeavor.  If it's to be presumed that in their pact to cooperate and stay out of each other's way that in the next few months the MWC will claim Utah St and San Jose St while the C-USA has dibs on North Texas and FIU.  From a distance it looks like both leagues are picking up two big tv markets and that the move is relatively even for the leagues.  Closer examination reveals that it C-USA who is winning big because of the deeper implications that this move has.  C-USA gains Texas hegemony--sleeping giant UTSA sit firmly in their domain and C-USA will have the right of first refusal with the Roadrunners.  Why is a program that has played one year of football such a big deal?  UTSA has a massive stadium, the Alamo Dome, they'll be the biggest show in town in the fall, and they already averaged 35,521 fans a game playing a crappy schedule of DII's, NAIA's and a smattering of FCS programs.  To give you a scope of what that attendance figure means, they outdrew every Sunbelt and WAC school and every school in the C-USA and MWC except for Air Force and East Carolina.  They also managed to still draw that many fans despite all of their home games being televised regionally by the Longhorn Network.  Also, as the biggest show in town, they will command a significantly larger share of San Antonio tv market, the 36th largest in the US, than the other four expansion schools will in their markets.

Additionally, the MWC is effectively hemmed in expansion-wise.  New Mexico St and Idaho are the only additional FBS programs in their conference footprint and neither one of those programs are very exciting.  Last year NMSU barely met minimum FBS attendance requirements drawing an average of 15,138 while Idaho, in their 16,000 seat Kibbie Dome failed to meet the 15,000 mark drawing an average of only 11,980.  C-USA on the other hand has ample expansion opportunities, the aforementioned UTSA, three schools in Louisiana, two in Alabama, and one in the following states: Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Florida.  And that's not counting the strong FCS programs in the south that have the stated goal of FBS football.  It seems that the MWC has stunted their own growth.  If this partnership was truly about helping both leagues than the MWC should have gotten concessions from C-USA that would have given them a Texas presence, replacing the lost TCU program and if C-USA refused they should have tried to pry UTEP away from them and offer North Texas and UTSA membership in order to claim the Lone Star State.

I am hoping that the MWC really wasn't this foolish and that in fact it was a calculated risk to make their league stronger than C-USA.  Here is the scenario I think they were trying to achieve:  1) the loss of SJSU and Utah St destabilizes an already fragile WAC, 2) the remaining schools are reactive, the Sunbelt extends LA Tech, UTSA, and Texas St a life raft and they take it, UT Arlington gets to go along for the ride to to balance out UALR's lack of football 3) the only programs remaining in the WAC are Idaho, NMSU, Denver, Seattle, and Boise St,  at this point a few different things can happen that will bring about the MWC's desired result: 3a) Idaho and/or NMSU decide to move to a FCS conference (BSC) or SBC, 3b) the WCC bails out Denver and Seattle,   3c) the MWC offers Denver or Seattle membership, taking Hawaii's slot in Olympic sports.  If any of these happen the WAC is done.  Should all of those schools stay for some crazy reason they could try rebuilding but the only programs out west available are Utah Valley and Cal St Bakersfield and that still only brings their overall total to 7, 1 shy of NCAA requirements.  The end goal result is still the same, Boise St, and, by association San Diego St, have no choice but to come home to the MWC because Boise no longer has a home for their Olympic sports (unless the Big Sky lets them in).  If this should play out, the the MWC walks away as the big winner, having a far superior 12 team league than C-USA.

One of the questions surrounding this gambit to bring back Boise and San Diego St is what price is the MWC willing to pay to get them back?  Would they be willing to take Idaho and New Mexico St to ensure a WAC collapse?  What happens if you do add these teams you don't really want and then Boise gets the Big Sky to let them mooch off of them?

In many ways the illustration I made is essentially the Perfect Storm.  The WAC is the Rasputin of college athletic conferences because it simply refuses to die.  This plan could go wrong in so many places--the SBC might be more cautious and not take in 4 of the 11 refugees as I laid out. The WAC schools left might circle the wagons and try to hold things together.  Idaho and New Mexico St could foolishly refuse to admit that they can't exist as FBS independents in this environment.  Maybe out of desperation they go outside their footprint to pick up non-fb independents to get to the magic number of 8.  It's hard to tell if the WAC can be damaged enough to force Boise to come home.

April 28th Edit--- C-USA inviting UTSA, a team I saw sitting in the SBC for a few years maturing their program before getting a call up to C-USA further speeds up the WAC's demise.  I now see New Mexico St getting the SBC slot I previously gave to UTSA.  It also looks as if C-USA wants to go to 12 rather than the 10 I expected and I think that LA Tech gets the 12th spot (FIU and N Texas getting 10 and 11).  This would theoretically put the WAC at just 3 members: Seattle, Idaho, and Boise St---far too few to try and rebuild.