When the Mountain West Conference was cashing seven-figure checks from the University of Hawai'i's march to the Sugar Bowl, we heard not a peep of protest or saw a cent returned.

When the MWC was going to the bank on Boise State's Fiesta Bowl triumph of 2006, there was not a discordant note sounded or a payday refused.

So it was curious to see MWC commissioner Craig Thompson, quoted yesterday by the Salt Lake Tribune from conference meetings, as saying, "I think it should be winner-take-all" when it comes to Bowl Championship Series money.

Winner-take-all in the years, such as 2008, in which the MWC has a team in the BCS, but not in '06 and '07, apparently, when it was along for the ride?

Not that we should be surprised at the avarice, of course.

The folks Thompson represents reflect much the same cabal that clandestinely met to torpedo the Western Athletic Conference a decade ago and tried to take the NCAA basketball money out the backdoor, until the NCAA put its foot down.

And they are the same ones, with Thompson running point, who have sought — unsuccessfully — for the past five months to sell the BCS a self-aggrandizing membership plan.

The way the BCS is set up, six leagues (ACC, Big East, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-10 and SEC) receive automatic berths and are guaranteed $18 million each. The remaining five conferences (WAC, MWC, Conference USA, Mid-American and Sun Belt) are not automatic and share a $9.5 million pot among them. Table scraps and hush money, basically. Then, should one of their number crash the BCS party, there is an additional $9.5 million weighted to the participating league.

Under the current structure, when UH went to the Sugar Bowl, the WAC earned $9.2 million, the MWC $3.72 million, C-USA $2.62 million, etc. When Boise State went to the Fiesta Bowl, the WAC got $9 million and MWC $3.5 million. And Utah's 2008 appearance brought the MWC $9.8 million and WAC $3.2 million.

Is the whole BCS a scheme to keep the lion's share of postseason money in the pockets of a few? Sure, and it should be replaced with a more equitable approach to both championship opportunities and paydays.

But the MWC is less interested in fairness than it is in nudging its snout to the trough.