Ducks Attack Message Board Forum

wheaton4prez wrote:All of these sources probably assume that Colorado brings the Denver market for the same reason that you and I do: proximity.

Likewise, if you accept that proximity affects who will tune in, you have to accept the same tendency for Baylor. That the area immediately and historically associated with Baylor is 5 times more populated than the area around Colorado is a significant fact, imo.

Do I? CU is the flagship school in their state, and based on enrollment numbers, not only has twice the alumni base as Baylor, but is also located much closer to the state's primary population zone. Baylor is a niche school in Texas with a much smaller alumni base, in heavy competition with several other in-state schools for recognition.

You're making the exact same mistake but with different words.

As I pointed out, the "them" you are referring to is Chilis or some other advertiser. It is not the conferences concern how wide the reach of the Chilis brand is. It is the conferences concern how much money they make from the ad space that they have. They should be able to demand a higher price for air time that is viewed by more people. That Chilis or anyone else would buy air space for less money from some other network in another state is inconsequential to the conference.

How do you not get this point by now?

UT plays a game at 9am. It lasts 3 hours and x number of ads are shown.

Baylor plays a game at 12pm. It lasts 3 hours and y number of ads are shown.

That is a total of 6 hours of programming and x+y number of ads shown ala sold.

Since you simply don't understand markets and, quite obviously, never will, let's try this: advertising dollars aren't the only thing we're after here. If the Pac-10 wants to start it's own television network (which it does), the number of potential television sets available will determine its viability. Let's say there are 15 million television sets in the state of Texas. That number does not grow simply because Baylor plays a football game at a different time as UT. There are still 15 million television sets who can subscribe to our network. Baylor is again redundant to our cause. If there are 3 million television sets in Colorado, our potential number of television sets available to subscribe has jumped to 18 million. The Denver market is key.

Please. Read more closely.

I said that the reasons for my position are verifiable. That is different than saying that my argument is substantiated. I've already acknowledged that my position on this has a subjective element. That being that I think that it's not plausible that people in Colorado are five times more likely to watch Colorado than people in Texas are likely to watch Baylor. I could be wrong.

You are.

What I'm trying to point out to you is that your argument also has a subjective element. For some reason, you seem to be very uncomfortable with that.

"My" argument, the "Pac-10's" argument... y'know, whatever.

You made the claim. The burden is on you to support it. Once you make an effort to do that, I will give you my reasons for why I disagree.

The primary goal of any business in to acquire profit. Okay, your turn.

I never claimed to know that number or that I could prove my entire argument. If you were a more reasonable person, our conversation would have gone similarly to the one I had with Mukden. He pointed out that all of this is an estimation of the numbers. I agreed and we moved on with that understanding.

This has nothing to do with me being unreasonable, it has everything to do with you getting all hot and bothered from our initial confrontation and refusing to give an inch, no matter how much common sense slaps you across the face.

Elduderino wrote:You guys both need to take deep long breaths lol. I've enjoyed reading this personal pissing contest and all, but come on, time to let it go.

My apologies. I figured that this exchange wouldn't be too much of a nuisance since it's now in the "Other" section.

You're right on the relevance of the subject. However, it hasn't been about Baylor vs. Colorado, in my view, for several posts now. It's more about oregontrack, who has some communication issues running into someone who has the patience to hack it out with him, hopefully to a productive end. I believe it has already been productive. Despite him not wanting to take accountability for his statements to me, I've noticed a marked improvement in the way that he has communicated to the rest of the board in other threads. After the disrespectful approach that sparked this debate, I think his change of tone has been positive for both the board and himself.

oregontrack wrote:Do I? CU is the flagship school in their state, and based on enrollment numbers, not only has twice the alumni base as Baylor, but is also located much closer to the state's primary population zone. Baylor is a niche school in Texas with a much smaller alumni base, in heavy competition with several other in-state schools for recognition.

I do give Colorado credit for being the flagship school. That's why I would agree that they could demand a higher rate of Colorado viewers. Maybe 2 or even 3 times the rate. However, 5 times as likely doesn't seem plausible to me.

oregontrack wrote:Since you simply don't understand markets and, quite obviously, never will, let's try this: advertising dollars aren't the only thing we're after here.

I "don't understand markets." oregontrack, please, stop. You're not even using the correct terms here.

oregontrack wrote:If the Pac-10 wants to start it's own television network (which it does), the number of potential television sets available will determine its viability. Let's say there are 15 million television sets in the state of Texas. That number does not grow simply because Baylor plays a football game at a different time as UT. There are still 15 million television sets who can subscribe to our network. Baylor is again redundant to our cause. If there are 3 million television sets in Colorado, our potential number of television sets available to subscribe has jumped to 18 million. The Denver market is key.

Your mistake with this argument is thinking that there aren't Baylor fans that would subscribe to the network so that they can watch Baylor. As Elduderino points out, Baylor does have a fan base.

Think of it this way, if the Ducks aren't playing a game, but the Beavers are, a lot of Duck fans watch the Beaver game, right?

If the Ducks and Beavers were in different conferences, Duck fans would only pay for the network that shows the Duck games. Not the one that shows the Beavers and vice versa. Baylor would sell network subscriptions too.

oregontrack wrote:The primary goal of any business in to acquire profit. Okay, your turn.

Are you trying to say that this assertion is you supporting your claim?

oregontrack wrote:This has nothing to do with me being unreasonable, it has everything to do with you getting all hot and bothered from our initial confrontation and refusing to give an inch, no matter how much common sense slaps you across the face.

If it has nothing to do with you being unreasonable, why did my conversation with Mukden go so differently despite him sharing your point of view initially?

wheaton4prez wrote:You're right on the relevance of the subject. However, it hasn't been about Baylor vs. Colorado, in my view, for several posts now. It's more about oregontrack, who has some communication issues running into someone who has the patience to hack it out with him, hopefully to a productive end. I believe it has already been productive. Despite him not wanting to take accountability for his statements to me, I've noticed a marked improvement in the way that he has communicated to the rest of the board in other threads. After the disrespectful approach that sparked this debate, I think his change of tone has been positive for both the board and himself.

LMAO, if you're a day under 85 years old, you've done yourself a disservice here.

I do give Colorado credit for being the flagship school. That's why I would agree that they could demand a higher rate of Colorado viewers. Maybe 2 or even 3 times the rate. However, 5 times as likely doesn't seem plausible to me.

It doesn't need to be. Only a lunatic would argue Baylor command 5 times the viewers Colorado does, even with Baylor's vicinity to such large population zones.

I "don't understand markets." oregontrack, please, stop. You're not even using the correct terms here.

Ah, another sign that it's all unraveling for you. My only error is assuming you fully understood that "markets" meant "television markets." The fact that I shortened it and you used it as a talking point speaks much more towards your own desperation than anything else.

Your mistake with this argument is thinking that there aren't Baylor fans that would subscribe to the network so that they can watch Baylor. As Elduderino points out, Baylor does have a fan base.

Think of it this way, if the Ducks aren't playing a game, but the Beavers are, a lot of Duck fans watch the Beaver game, right?

If the Ducks and Beavers were in different conferences, Duck fans would only pay for the network that shows the Duck games. Not the one that shows the Beavers and vice versa. Baylor would sell network subscriptions too.

I made no mistake, I'm just taking out your advertising argument. When setting up the Pac-10 Network, the potential subscribers in Texas remains 15 million television sets with or without Baylor involved. The number is stationary. With CU, the number jumps upwards. To get off the ground, the Pac-10 is going to have to enter into a deal with ESPN or (god forbid) FSN, if not an entity like Direct TV. All involved will be looking up potential television sets in the given markets under Pac-10 control to try to determine the subscription rate.

Are you trying to say that this assertion is you supporting your claim?

What do you want, a link? Christ, you're annoying.

If it has nothing to do with you being unreasonable, why did my conversation with Mukden go so differently despite him sharing your point of view initially?

Because he played nicer with you. I've worked my way into your head. This will go on until I say it ends, because anything less will be you ceding all points, and you won't be able to handle that.

Here. Argue with this Denver news article for awhile. You'll be aghast to find it supports what I'm saying. I took the liberty of quoting the pieces that will make you tear up.

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/sports/ ... etail.html

Pac-10 has also extended invitations to Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech, according to a source familiar with the negotiations.

The moves are all about the money that can be made in TV.

If those Big 12 South schools follow CU into the Pac-10, one estimate has television revenue approaching the $25 million to $27 million range when a new contract is signed, according to the Daily Camera.

The coach said the Pac-10 favored Colorado over Baylor because of the Buffaloes' presence in the Denver TV market.

ha, that one won't sit well with you.

It would take a week to 10 days to finalize the details of a Pac-16. The blockbuster deal would add the nation's No. 5 (Dallas), No. 10 (Houston) and No. 16 (Denver) TV markets to the conference, which already includes No. 2 Los Angeles, No. 6 San Francisco, No. 12 Phoenix and No. 13 Seattle.

With that large population base, the new conference would start its own network and, along with other broadcast partners, likely would distribute around $20 million per member, comparable broadcast revenue to the Big Ten ($22 million) and SEC ($17 million), the source said.

oregontrack wrote:LMAO, if you're a day under 85 years old, you've done yourself a disservice here.

What do you mean by this?

oregontrack wrote:It doesn't need to be. Only a lunatic would argue Baylor command 5 times the viewers Colorado does, even with Baylor's vicinity to such large population zones.

Perhaps you misunderstand. Who has argued that Baylor commands 5 times the viewers that Colorado does?

oregontrack wrote:Ah, another sign that it's all unraveling for you. My only error is assuming you fully understood that "markets" meant "television markets." The fact that I shortened it and you used it as a talking point speaks much more towards your own desperation than anything else.

No. I just think it's ironic that you try to position yourself as an authority on this subject but continually mangle terms.

oregontrack wrote:I made no mistake, I'm just taking out your advertising argument. When setting up the Pac-10 Network, the potential subscribers in Texas remains 15 million television sets with or without Baylor involved. The number is stationary. With CU, the number jumps upwards. To get off the ground, the Pac-10 is going to have to enter into a deal with ESPN or (god forbid) FSN, if not an entity like Direct TV. All involved will be looking up potential television sets in the given markets under Pac-10 control to try to determine the subscription rate.

Now you're contradicting yourself. In the same paragraph, you mention potential subscribers and subscription rate. Two different things. As I pointed out, more schools amongst potential subscribers would increase the subscription rate in that area. 5% of subscribers in Texas is as many as 24% of subscribers in Colorado.

You have the same problem here. The subscription rate in Colorado would need to be five times higher than that of people signing up to watch Baylor.

oregontrack wrote:What do you want, a link? Christ, you're annoying.

I want you to support your claim. If you can't, you ought to own up and admit that you can't support it.

If you don't understand what supporting a claim means, we can back up and go over that. Just let me know.

oregontrack wrote:Because he played nicer with you. I've worked my way into your head. This will go on until I say it ends, because anything less will be you ceding all points, and you won't be able to handle that.

This demonstrates my point quite well. You're an unreasonable person.

It is unreasonable (if not delusional) to maintain that someone is "ceding all points" if they stop participating in a discussion.

oregontrack wrote:Here. Argue with this Denver news article for awhile. You'll be aghast to find it supports what I'm saying. I took the liberty of quoting the pieces that will make you tear up.

You're the one who seems so insecure about "losing" an argument that you can't even acknowledge what you really do and do not know. I don't have any self worth invested in which market is more valuable and I already made it clear that I didn't know for certain.

That said, I don't see that link as all that strong of support for your position. The Denver market definitely helps Colorado. If it wasn't there, Colorado wouldn't be in the Pac. That doesn't mean that it is more valuable than the market Baylor offers and that other factors might have played into the decision.

If several schools objected to Baylor because of its religious affiliation, for example, that is the last reason I would expect them to make public. I would expect them to cite some other factor, whether it was true or not, in order to avoid making an issue out of religion vs. secularism.

wheaton4prez wrote:That said, I don't see that link as all that strong of support for your position. The Denver market definitely helps Colorado. If it wasn't there, Colorado wouldn't be in the Pac. That doesn't mean that it is more valuable than the market Baylor offers and that other factors might have played into the decision.

The article directly states that the Pac-10 favored Colorado over Baylor because of the Buffaloes presence in the Denver TV market.

Here. This is an article from a Waco news agency.

http://www.wacotrib.com/sports/baylor/J ... ogram.html

It fully supports my position. Baylor makes all the sense in the world for the Pac-10, but Colorado brings the better TV market. You'll notice that the writer of the article was nice enough to put that in his title. I'd pull quotes out, but literally the entire article supports my theory. I'm sorry, the Pac-10's theory.

Here's another link:

http://espn.go.com/blog/dallas/colleges ... for-baylor

Clearly the Pac-10 wanted Colorado over Baylor all along. Colorado delivers the Denver market. Baylor might add better all-around athletic and academic programs, plus new state-of-the-art facilities, but expansion is all about targeting television markets.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/0 ... 05918.html

While the conference hasn't issued formal invitations yet, Pac-10 sources have told the Denver Post that Colorado, which would bring with it the lucrative Denver media market, has the edge over Baylor for the final spot.

No insults this post, no reason to get in a huff and try to one-up me. It was really fun arguing with you for a week, and I look forward to doing it again someday (it's going to be a long, dull summer) but it's time to end this charade. I can pull thirty more quotes from thirty other legitimate news sources, but they all side with me.

oregontrack wrote:blah. blah. blah.

I already addressed these types of links. All they support is that there are other people that make the same assumption that you do. That would be pretty unremarkable if the Pac-10 is telling people that the Denver market is the reason for the Colorado choice so that they don't have to have a debate about excluding a school because of their religious affiliation.

You haven't really provided anything new to this discussion for a few posts. So, yeah, I don't see anything left that I haven't already responded to a couple of times. We'll have to agree to disagree.

--The loss of Nebraska and Colorado should have been a loss of about 16 percent to the league's revenue generating capacity. But because Colorado was an underperformer, the league lost only about 8.6 percent of its value with the loss of Nebraska, according to sources with knowledge of the Beebe Plan.

http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1094038

wheaton4prez wrote:

oregontrack wrote:blah. blah. blah.

I already addressed these types of links. All they support is that there are other people that make the same assumption that you do. That would be pretty unremarkable if the Pac-10 is telling people that the Denver market is the reason for the Colorado choice so that they don't have to have a debate about excluding a school because of their religious affiliation.

You haven't really provided anything new to this discussion for a few posts. So, yeah, I don't see anything left that I haven't already responded to a couple of times. We'll have to agree to disagree.

LMAO, I accept your apology.

As I pointed out, you have provided nothing demonstrating that your assumption is correct. We've been over this.

Let me know when you have something new.

Sure I did. I've provided quotes both from within the conference itself, and those covering the expansion. I gave you an article FROM WACO that flat out admits that Baylor brings nothing to the table from a television standpoint, and that the Denver market does.

Your stubbornness is on full display right now. It's YOU that has provided nothing.

LOL!!

oregontrack wrote:blah. blah. blah.

We covered that multiple times too. Let me know when you have a new argument that hasn't been addressed.

How embarrassing for you.

Checkmate has come and gone. Time to either start a new game, or you can take some time off to lick your wounds before coming back to the adult table.

oregontrack wrote:blah. blah. blah.

Let me know when you have something of substance to add.

So this is wheaton4prez in full meltdown mode, huh? I knew after you had invested so much in this the obvious end result wouldn't be pretty.

oregontrack wrote:blah. blah. blah.

Still no substance. I'll give you the last word, which you will obviously take.

Others can decide for themselves whether or not it's a comment from a common forum troll.