and the relative value of their football product.

Of course, most Mountain West teams also really need TV revenue. Later in that same interview, Thompson said:

It still gets down to exposure and relevancy, to recruitment and revenue, and certainly the control of kick and tip times

The MWC already has some non-revenue sports on FloSports. It seems entirely possible the MWC could elect to stream more events, especially higher profile events, than the AAC, Sun Belt, or other G5 leagues.

BYU, on the other hand, seems less likely. Its football inventory (both because of BYU’s own brand and the brands of the teams it’s hosting) is much more valuable than the MWC’s, and the religious mission of the institution places a higher emphasis on exposure. One industry source told me BYU could take less money than it could get on the open market, in order to improve exposure.

BYU has been been featured as a premiere game 4 times this year (2 on ABC and 2 on main ESPN channel).  The ENTIRE MWC has had 1 game (Boise v. Wyoming) on ESPN1 and none on ABC. 

BYU and the MWC are not the same as far as TV exposure.  The MWC is considering moving more content to Flosports and other streaming platforms.  BYU's brand is considered too valuable to bury in the same place.