contract with the conference and want as many people to watch those games as possible when they play.

As far as the arguments in the article, they are really focused on the "big three" of Gonzaga, BYU, and St. Mary's. I will agree that all three teams are a "fit" for being quality teams in a power conference. The real debate on the WCC is the depth of the conference. It's interesting that this article spins the improvement of the resumes of the "big three" being due to a shorter conference schedule and replacing games against weaker conference opponents with games against quality non-conference opponents. Personally, if the WCC wants to be viewed as a power conference, I think it's the middle-to-lower tiers of the WCC that need to show some improvement. They have shown some steps in those regards over the last year or two. Hopefully that trend keeps moving in the right direction.