Ducks Attack Message Board Forum

lukeyrid13 wrote:No offense but it kinda bothers me that people clump together LDS and catholics, unitarians etc when discussing "christians". I would say that the Christian faith is far closer to Judaism(and we know how that it is, Passion of Christ) then to mormonism. Mormons are very extreme and essentially created their own interpretation and their own Bible.

As a Christian I can tell you that most don't think the Earth is as old as scientists say but also think it is older then just several thousand years. We mainly believe it is somewhere in the middle, but for the most part don't really care. How old the Earth is has nothing to do with our Faith so why worry.

Creation is a separate issue and we care far more about that. I know that some may take it literally when it says God created this day 1 day 2 etc but most Christians do not. In the Bible it says God doesn't measure time for 10,000 years feels like one second to Him since he is eternal. It could be that God created the Earth over 300 million years, it isn't the numbers that matter to us, it's what happened that matters. God created us. We just want him to get credit. Not the nothing that created something to get credit.

As far evolution I would say that most believe certainly in adaptation but not evolution. I do not think an organism became a tadpole then fish then cat then monkey then person. Why is it that the cycle stopped at humans? Why isn't everything now human if thats the end all be all? Why are there 0 neanderthals currently? Why are there zero half monkey half dog or whatever the cycle is.

Just to play devil's advocate, who said evolution stops at modern day humans?

@ the religious convo

please remember there is always a loud minority and a quiet majority. on both sides, realize the people you hear often skew the perceptions of the masses. as soon as you've polarized yourself, i've stopped listening to you/ respecting your point of view. please don't speak for people beyond yourself. "i believe/know/etc." not "we believe/know/etc." or if you must, "some", but not "most". thx.

Wheaton = Brilliant

Well said my friend on every count.

Seriously...

please stop the non-football stuff because there are plenty of places to do that that I don't have to sift through and waste my time reading

All else equal I don't want Baylor or Tech and would much rather Utah and Colorado because the makeup of those two schools just matches what the other 14 teams would be (excluding Stanford which is pretty much fully private and is not getting kicked out)

They bring in different states that we currently have no coverage in, and they also didn't have a B-ball program that was hugely stigmatized by one of their players murdering another player a few years ago...and it's no Waco, I wouldn't wish Waco on anyone (or Lubbock for that matter)

chapelhillduck wrote:Seriously...

please stop the non-football stuff because there are plenty of places to do that that I don't have to sift through and waste my time reading

All else equal I don't want Baylor or Tech and would much rather Utah and Colorado because the makeup of those two schools just matches what the other 14 teams would be (excluding Stanford which is pretty much fully private and is not getting kicked out)

They bring in different states that we currently have no coverage in, and they also didn't have a B-ball program that was hugely stigmatized by one of their players murdering another player a few years ago...and it's no Waco, I wouldn't wish Waco on anyone (or Lubbock for that matter)

Any deal involving Texas will make us take Texas Tech since they are one of the larger public schools in Texas and have always been linked to UT. We don't get Texas without Texas Tech.

Adding Colorado is mainly to open up another major market in Denver, even though the Buffs haven't really done anything in recent years. They are a member of the AAU (Association of American Universities), which is something that other Pac-10 universities may want in maintaining the academic integrity of the Pac-10.

Baylor may have to be taken due to political pressure from Texas, but Baylor is not all that bad of an athletic program and academic university (they ranked higher than Colorado is a couple different rankings). They had that incident with the basketball program a couple years ago but they have adequately moved on and are no longer a problem in my book.

Utah would only be added if the Pac-10 can't make the deals with the Big 12 teams work or just want a smaller expansion first before they expand further. Utah is a much more well-rounded school than Baylor and Colorado, but they don't really open up that big of a TV market, which means not as much money that will flow in from a possible TV deal.

I'll stop, for real this time. I don't know if this place has PMs, but I'd be happy to pick up the non-football talk via private message, or a separate thread on one of the boards that doesn't get the traffic if we really want to hash this out anymore.

In regards to expansion, the real loser here is Kansas. Just goes to show that hoops may be the clear cut #2 sport in college, but it means nothing when compared to football. The almighty pigskin is king.

oregontrack wrote:I'll stop, for real this time. I don't know if this place has PMs, but I'd be happy to pick up the non-football talk via private message, or a separate thread on one of the boards that doesn't get the traffic if we really want to hash this out anymore.

In regards to expansion, the real loser here is Kansas. Just goes to show that hoops may be the clear cut #2 sport in college, but it means nothing when compared to football. The almighty pigskin is king.

The real losers in this expansion are going to be Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, and either Baylor or Colorado. The Big Ten is not going to take them if they add Nebraska, Missouri, and possibly Notre Dame. I don't see how they fit into the Big East since the distance is quite great and there are already 16 teams for basketball (they don't need another 3 teams in BB.) About their only options are to move into the MWC, Conference USA, or hope that the Big 12 stays together.

If the conferences do expand, do the changes take place immediately, or would it still be the pac 10 for a year or two more?

OregonMAX wrote:If the conferences do expand, do the changes take place immediately, or would it still be the pac 10 for a year or two more?

The expansion would start at the beginning of the 2012-2013 school year, same as the new TV deal....

lukeyrid13 wrote:No offense but it kinda bothers me that people clump together LDS and catholics, unitarians etc when discussing "christians". I would say that the Christian faith is far closer to Judaism(and we know how that it is, Passion of Christ) then to mormonism. Mormons are very extreme and essentially created their own interpretation and their own Bible.

As a Christian I can tell you that most don't think the Earth is as old as scientists say but also think it is older then just several thousand years. We mainly believe it is somewhere in the middle, but for the most part don't really care. How old the Earth is has nothing to do with our Faith so why worry.

Creation is a separate issue and we care far more about that. I know that some may take it literally when it says God created this day 1 day 2 etc but most Christians do not. In the Bible it says God doesn't measure time for 10,000 years feels like one second to Him since he is eternal. It could be that God created the Earth over 300 million years, it isn't the numbers that matter to us, it's what happened that matters. God created us. We just want him to get credit. Not the nothing that created something to get credit.

As far evolution I would say that most believe certainly in adaptation but not evolution. I do not think an organism became a tadpole then fish then cat then monkey then person. Why is it that the cycle stopped at humans? Why isn't everything now human if thats the end all be all? Why are there 0 neanderthals currently? Why are there zero half monkey half dog or whatever the cycle is.

Great post, I'm with you 100%.

As far as adding CU or Baylor goes, if getting Texas, Oklahoma & all the others hinges on Baylor then its a no brainer to add them too instead of CU.

If we have the option though I think you definitely want Colorado. Like others have said, its not really about who has better athletics. Its about the market. Adding all these Texas teams will give you the texas tv market, adding Baylor would do next to nothing for that. Adding Colorado would give you a giant tv market in Denver. And one that you wouldn't get otherwise.

Why is it that the cycle stopped at humans? Why isn't everything now human if thats the end all be all?

The cycle hasn't stopped at humans, we are ever evolving as a species. Humans are merely very intelligent animals; there is not end-result to evolution.

Mukden wrote:I was raised LDS, have many LDS friends, and generally can tell you I think very highly of the faith. I have absolutely nothing against religion in general. However I can tell you that many LDS people, regardless of how smart or educated they are, believe the following:

LDS make up a small fraction of Christians. You go from your personal experiences with LDS to projecting false assumptions on every other Christian.

Mukden wrote:Don’t kid yourself and think Baylor is any different; it’s not some liberal Jesuit school. If anything, they are probably stronger advocates of creationism and the like: Baptists TEND to be extremely fundamentalist, as they take the Bible to be the only legitimate source of religious knowledge, and as such need to rely on the Bible being both literal and totally true. Mormons are basically the opposite (think Catholicism, minus the ritual and art, robes, etc.).

Catholics, LDS and Baptists all have very different beliefs from each other. Your lumping them all together has caused many of the statements you've made in this thread to be factually incorrect.

Mukden wrote:I do however stand by all the comments I’ve made, and think Baylor’s somewhat fundamentalist Christian stance on many ideas is a valid concern.

Baylor doesn't have a fundamentalist Christian "stance". It's a college with a Baptist affiliation. Baptists don't require a stance on the age of the earth or any of the other things you imply that they all believe. Students at Baylor can believe one way or another. They don't even need to be Christians or Baptists to go there. Do you think that there are no Christians or Baptists at other secular schools that voice their opinions and debate from their perspective? Should they be kicked off campus for doing so?

I think it's a shame that you "stand by" the false assumptions you have made here. Hopefully, you will some day employ the academic process you claim to support toward distinguishing what the people of the world believe.

lukeyrid13 wrote:As a Christian I can tell you that most don't think the Earth is as old as scientists say but also think it is older then just several thousand years. We mainly believe it is somewhere in the middle, but for the most part don't really care. How old the Earth is has nothing to do with our Faith so why worry.

I appreciate your perspective. I just want to clarify something to hopefully discourage people from spreading false information:

The majority of Christians are Catholic. According to long standing church doctrine, Catholics do not see scientific findings as being in conflict with their faith. Therefore, it is factually false to state that most Christians don't think the earth is as old as scientists say.

oregontrack wrote:They don't on message boards when forced to account for the ridiculousness of Genesis, anyway. Since the Bible is supposed to be inspired by the word of God, many believe anything but a literal translation is blasphemy. What's the difference between reading Genesis and saying, "nah, that's not how it happened" and reading the Gospels and saying, "nah, that Christ fellow is whack"?

So, because some people you found on message boards take Genesis literally, you think that's what all Christians believe?

If you are genuinely interested in the subject, I suggest that you research why the Catholic church doesn't take Genesis literally. That way, you can speak knowledgeably about it.

oregontrack wrote:"Take a petri dish full of bacteria and subject them to just enough toxin to kill 99.999% of them then keep applying the toxin. Pretty soon you'll have a whole population of bateria that can live in the toxin. You have selctively "Bred" toxin loving bacteria. These new Bacteria will differ from the population you started with (probably smaller and more robust)."

Have you performed this experiment yourself?

oregontrack wrote:Again, this is basically saying, "You're insisting that gravity exists. Prove it." if you haven't mastered 9th grade science, this is lost on you.

Wrong. This is basically saying that you have provided no more reason to believe in the theory of evolution than the Lochness Monster. Yet, you claim that it is proven beyond a shadow of doubt. I'm simply asking you to support your claim. If you haven't mastered Logic 101, this may be lost on you.

oregontrack wrote:My point is that we're not after the Waco market, which you incorrectly assumed was being compared to "the Boulder market" in terms of population, which isn't even how market values are determined. Baylor is a modestly sized university in the middle of nowhere, and since we would already control the Dallas/Houston/Austin/San Antonio markets, taking Waco over Denver makes no sense. Colorado has a huge almuni base, and Denver opens up another huge market. Taking Baylor would be redundant, like the Pac-10 adding Portland State to take the Portland market when they already have Oregon and Oregon State to do that.

Denver only looks like a huge market if you look at cities. Waco is a city surrounded by 24 million people. Boulder is a city surrounded by 5 million people (even if you include "huge" Denver). Colorado wins the middle of nowhere award in this comparison.

My assumption has been that more viewers is better than fewer viewers. In that case, redundant from Texas is better than different from Colorado. If 25% of Texans watch one extra game because Baylor is playing, that is still more than the entire Colorado market watching.

That said, I agree that there are many aspects that could go into determining the value of a market and that some of those factors do favor Colorado. I'm sure that it's a science of it's own the way that market researchers calculate prices for these things.

oregontrack wrote:As I said, we would already have every major market in Texas. If we take Baylor over Colorado, we add a terrible market in Waco, which doesn't contribute much. If we take Colorado, we open up the huge market that is Denver. Like I said in my example above, there's no Pac-10 school in Portland, but the Pac-10 owns the Portland market because of the two in-state schools. With CU comes Denver.

This is all painfully obvious and rudimentary. No offense, but you didn't even know how markets were determined. I think you're a little out of your element here.

I'm pretty sure that the number of viewers is a significant factor in determining the value of a market as attached to a school.

However, I'm always open to learn things. So, please, explain to me how markets are "determined" since you seem very confident in the subject. Since it is obvious and rudimentary, it should be easy for you to explain.

oregontrack wrote:It doesn't matter if they watch Baylor games too, which in and of itself is completely debatable, we already have the Dallas market.

I'm pretty sure that it does matter toward ratings and values for more people to watch. However, I'll wait for you to provide your expert explanation for exactly how markets are determined and valued.

wheaton4prez wrote:Denver only looks like a huge market if you look at cities. Waco is a city surrounded by 24 million people. Boulder is a city surrounded by 5 million people (even if you include "huge" Denver). Colorado wins the middle of nowhere award in this comparison.

Dallas, Houston, and Austin make a neat little triangle around Waco. We already own those surrounding 24 million people and their television sets by bringing in UT. You are arguing to bring in Baylor, which would bring in nothing new, since their market is essentially already overrun by what we already have, instead of Colorado, which would bring in the huge, untapped Denver market.

Baylor. Has. Nothing. To. Offer. Us. Whereas. The. University. Of. Colorado. Can. Offer. The. Very. Large. Market. That. Denver. Brings.

My assumption has been that more viewers is better than fewer viewers. In that case, redundant from Texas is better than different from Colorado.

Your assumption is wrong.

If 25% of Texans watch one extra game because Baylor is playing, that is still more than the entire Colorado market watching.

So is this.

That said, I agree that there are many aspects that could go into determining the value of a market and that some of those factors do favor Colorado. I'm sure that it's a science of it's own the way that market researchers calculate prices for these things.

In this scenario, every single factor favors Colorado over Baylor. Every. Single. One.

I'm pretty sure that the number of viewers is a significant factor in determining the value of a market as attached to a school.

However, I'm always open to learn things. So, please, explain to me how markets are "determined" since you seem very confident in the subject. Since it is obvious and rudimentary, it should be easy for you to explain.

I already told you. You assumed markets were determined by population, I corrected you and told you that markets are determined by TV households, and their % amongst the rest of the nation.

I'm pretty sure that it does matter toward ratings and values for more people to watch. However, I'll wait for you to provide your expert explanation for exactly how markets are determined and valued.

I've now told you twice.

Your biggest flaw is that you continue to assume that you can count the same television twice. If "Team A" owns "Market X", television contracts are drawn up accordingly for the conference that Team A is affiliated with. If that conference expands and brings in Team B, and they share Market X with Team A, you aren't doubling the market -- the market stays the same. The number of televisions within that market remains the same. Your argument is that "people will watch twice as much with Team B there, too!!" but that is irrelevant. Maybe they will, maybe they won't, it doesn't matter. The market remains stationary. You can bring in Team C, Team D, and Team E into Market X, and the market is Still. The. Same. And that's why Baylor is irrelevant to us financially. They bring nothing. Colorado brings the #16 television market in the country. That's cash money.

As for the religious stuff, I've promise twice now that I'd cease and desist in accordance to the masses. I offered to continue our discussion either on private message (if this site has such a thing), or on another forum here that doesn't get the traffic so it won't bother the kind folks who would rather talk football.

I started typing before oregontrack put up his last post, so just adding to that:

Baylor has both 1.)a small fan base and 2.)little growth potential, while residing in a market already "covered" by Texas, Tech, A&M and even the Okie schools to some extent.

Colorado doesn't have great support, but has the growth potential that comes with being a state flagship: a larger alumni base and the natural inclination of non-alums to support "their" school, over some random private university, along with brining in a new market.

oregontrack wrote:Your biggest flaw is that you continue to assume that you can count the same television twice. If "Team A" owns "Market X", television contracts are drawn up accordingly for the conference that Team A is affiliated with. If that conference expands and brings in Team B, and they share Market X with Team A, you aren't doubling the market -- the market stays the same. The number of televisions within that market remains the same. Your argument is that "people will watch twice as much with Team B there, too!!" but that is irrelevant. Maybe they will, maybe they won't, it doesn't matter. The market remains stationary. You can bring in Team C, Team D, and Team E into Market X, and the market is Still. The. Same. And that's why Baylor is irrelevant to us financially. They bring nothing. Colorado brings the #16 television market in the country. That's cash money.

Putting periods between words does nothing to support your position or demonstrate that you know more about this than anyone else. Neither does bare assertion.

By the logic you describe here, we could take any one Texas school and none of the others and not lose any market value. Apparently, you believe that we could lose all California schools except Stanford and we would still "own" Los Angeles.

oregontrack wrote:As for the religious stuff, I've promise twice now that I'd cease and desist in accordance to the masses. I offered to continue our discussion either on private message (if this site has such a thing), or on another forum here that doesn't get the traffic so it won't bother the kind folks who would rather talk football.

I look forward to seeing your response in my inbox then.