Not sure the conference is going to remain as constituted long enough to know one way or the other. Certainly a question up for debate. It is going to be very interesting to see what Utah does in the next few years. This will go a long way, rightly or wrongly, in shaping people's opinions of these "elites" of the mid-majors...
The problem I see with comparing the MWC with the Big East and ACC is that I still have a hard time calling the likes of Pitt, WVA, Fla. State, BC, and Miami, "mid-majors", even with the present state of affairs in mind, because there is a history there and there are the resources present to play big boy football year in and year out with the right people in charge. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with "newcomers". It is very possible that Boise State, TCU, Utah etc., are here to stay. I just don't believe that they can make those claims of having "arrived" until they do the things that the big boys do, week in and week out, year after year. A good bowl win every several years is ok, but conference play for the big boys has 3,4 even 5 games with competition comparable to a bowl match up every year. JMHO.