The Mountain West Conference presidents showed wisdom in not expanding the conference on Monday during its annual meeting in Jackson, Wyo.

However, that could change by next Monday, the 14th, or June 21 or even June 28 because potential invitee, Boise State, must give notice to the WAC by July 1, if it will be involved in the MWC in the 2011 season.

And, all heck could bust loose by Friday.

This past Monday, despite a lot of chatter, anticipation, and handwringing in Boise, turned out to be something very specific for MWC presidents: A day to not rush decisions.

Right now college athletics is perched on the sharp end of a golf tee. The Big 12, under attack by school hawking invaders from the Pac-10 and Big Ten, gave Nebraska and Missouri a Friday deadline to decide to end all this talk and stay true, according to the Austin American Statesman.

If the Huskers and Tigers bolt to the Big Ten, the Big 12 will be wounded. But that's nothing if the Pac-10 swoops down and claws away Texas, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Baylor. That is called being dismantled.

And if that happens, Boise State, the 112th largest TV market must be weighed with or against a marketplace that could include Kansas, Kansas State and Colorado. Kansas City is the 32nd ranked TV market, while Denver is 16th.

Why not shop for one or all? Go to 10, 14 or 16 teams.

And what happened if Utah, BYU and TCU decided to leave the league and hook up with stragglers from BCS conferences and even call it the Big (Something) if invited.

"We want to be proactive and reactive as the same time," said MWC commissioner Craig Thompson.

And so far, he said, nobody's been invited anywhere.

My guess is this stare down between egomaniac Big Ten commish Jim Delaney and Pac-10's new visionary Larry Scott will fizzle out. Texas is not going to the Pac-10 and play second fiddle to big dog USC. The Huskers and Mizzou are not going to abandon tradition with the Kansas schools, Oklahoma and Texas.

MWC presidents like Utah's Michael Young and BYU's Cecil Samuelson, who huddled last week before going to Jackson, decided Monday to see wait and see.

Friday looms as perhaps the most important day in college football history.

What's a few more days?

It was a smart move.

Friday is the day big money deals could decide athletic borders from Los Angeles to Ann Arbor and from Austin to Seattle.

And again, I maintain this has never been about academics. It's TV tubes, not test tubes. In days to come, some sane minds may just back down and call Delaney on his narcissism. Scott will then disengage his counter money grab and the MWC will invite the Broncos.

Since this is about TV, I wonder how Utah and BYU will come out if the MWC decides to expand. Obviously, they'd have to share money if the league adds.

But by annexing teams, changing the principles involved, expanding the inventory for the current contract with CBS-C, Versus and The mtn., would it require a new contract? Would expansion void the current contract?

But by adding teams, changing the principles involved, expanding the inventory for the current contract with CBS C, Versus and The mtn., would it require a new contract? Would expansion void the current contract?

Could Comcast, an initial investor and partner in The mtn. see this as a return on the investment or an opportunity to bail if there's tiny print that allows it to do so? Would ESPN be interested in an expanded MWC before the league's current pact expires in 2016? And if it is, could anything be done? If anointed BCS automatic qualifying (AQ) teams Kansas, Kansas State and Colorado join a non-AQ league like the MWC, or if the Big 12 is dismantled, could the MWC take its place? And who decides that, the BCS, the NCAA or Congress?

Is the NCAA even in control of any of this?

The answer is no.

Right now the MWC is signed up for a 10-year $120 million TV deal. That is paltry compared to the reported $200 million and $150 million per year deals with ESPN for the SEC and ACC, respectively.

We saw a partial answer to some of these questions in 2005 when the league added TCU and went from eight to nine. The MWC just adjusted the payout, divided the pie into another piece. But if multiple TV markets are added, does revenue change? Obviously, TV rights for MWC teams are costly to primary investors like Comcast. Does the cable giant need to ante up more money for rights in expansion?

I think Comcast would say: "Are you kidding?" There are a ton of issues in all this mess. You don't wade in a murky pond without knowing the depth.

But again, in this current arena of rumors and conjecture, we can get ahead of ourselves, just like the Pac-10 did by firing up Utah with "courting talk" this winter then looked for greener pastures in a matter of weeks when numbers showed Utah and Colorado add little to the pot.

No, the league did the right thing.

There is no need to start making moves when so much is unknown.

Good for the MWC eggheads.

They got this one right on Monday.