This is interesting, predictable and — I believe — a peek into the future.

Whether the Mountain West can sustain the momentum of 2008 (losses by BYU and Air Force in bowls didn’t help) is debatable, but the Big East’s slide and the MWC’s apparent rise have the potential to produce change in years to come.

There’s a fairly simple solution, one the BCS no doubt will embrace (but only after many meetings in goregous retreat locales for committee members) . . . The BCS will add a sixth game (new Cotton Bowl site, JJ’s Pleasure Palace, maybe?) that will up the BCS spots to 12. That’ll create room for the MWC to join the big table, as well as creating a fifth BCS at-large spot. Only issue of contention would be whether the extra game could keep the payout at $17 mil (or more) per game.

Games like V-tech vs. Cincy should not be forced upon the football world because their conferences are mediocre and they just want their money.

I think it’d be better to just allow top six conference champions in BCS ratings to have automatic bids, then fill out the remaining BCS spots with at-large teams. No auto bids for any conference champion, and no Notre Dame clause. If the ACC, Big East, or even SEC or Big 12 champ is rated lower than six other conference champions (even if MAC or MWC), that team doesn’t get a bid.

But you’re speaking logically. That’s not what the BCS is.

The system/format was set up to “stave off” the threat of a playoff (ask the college presidents, etc., why). It also was put in place to make some semi-meaningless conference championship games carry a reward so that fans and advertisers would pony up the $$$$$$$$. Notre Dame has to be part of the process because without ND, the whole house of cards comes down.

Look, while it’s not a true playoff, this isn’t a bad setup. Some years (Texas this year, Auburn in ‘04, USC in ’03) a good team gets left out. That’s the price we as fans pay because our lobby isn’t strong enough to overturn the status quo. Methinks, however, that we’re getting there.