Ducks Attack Message Board Forum

duck55 wrote:I'm just curious if some of you think we shouldn't recruit kids out of "religious" High Schools?
Seems like a silly argument at this point since sides are already drawn and many of you refuse to budge.
How about sticking to Football. Maybe the Mods could create a "Religion and Politics" Forum.

Haha probably should, but the off topic section is sufficient enough.

I would be a permanent poster in that section! Im a bit of a politico junkie.

Can we close this thread? Does anyone actually prefer Baylor to Colorado? Moving on...

I'll take Baylor

Biggus Duckus wrote:

QuackSince82 wrote: I'll take Baylor

Even if you wait until marriage?

^^^^^

I'll take Colorado...



I'm not sure who votes on the merger in Texas, but here's the breakdown:

Senators who graduated from....
UT- 8
A&M- 4
Baylor- 2
Tech- 1

House of Representatives
Members who graduated from....
UT- 24
Baylor 10 (about half from Baylor's med school)
A&M 9
Tech 6

Wow. It appears that secular schools have failed to give some of you accurate knowledge about the beliefs of massive groups of people in the world. Perhaps some of you could benefit from a couple of classes at Baylor.

The vast majority of Christians DO NOT believe that the world is 6000 years old. Catholics make up over half of all Christians and they do not object to the theory of evolution. Protestants and Baptists don't have a doctrine on this subject and many (if not most) of them believe in "Old Earth Creationism."

Biggus Duckus wrote:Wounded, it's not bigotry if you want the conference to remain unaffiliated in any way with religious institutions. I'd say it's the opposite of bigotry.

How do you figure that excluding a school from consideration because of their religious affiliation is not intolerance of religion (ie. bigotry)?

It wouldn't even be consistent with the roots of the Pac anyway. USC only severed formal ties with religion in 1952 while the PCC included their membership since 1922. So, a religious school was part of the organization for nearly a third of its existence.

oregontrack wrote:Evolution itself has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, I was just getting cute with my words. I knew he meant evolution in a beginning-of-life sense. Basically, it just comes down to whether or not one believes in science and facts, or if one believes in a fairy tale about a boogeyman living in the clouds creating the Earth with a wiggle of the nose 6,000 years ago, man walking with the dinosaurs, and having complete faith in a book written buy a bunch of men that has been altered several times over the last 2,000 years, which also just so happens to coincidentally be the last time anyone saw God walking around.

If you're going to claim to be on the side of facts, at least try to get your facts straight. The vast majority of Christians do not believe that their faith is incompatible with facts and science.

The truth is, nobody is without faith. Don't believe me? Lets test it out: why do you believe that evolution has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt?

Hoagduck wrote:Can we close this thread? Does anyone actually prefer Baylor to Colorado? Moving on...

I prefer Baylor over Colorado based on the facts relevant to an athletic conference: they have better over-all athletics.

I think that Baylor is comparable if not ahead of Colorado in terms of market as well. Colorado's population is around 5 million while Texas is at 24 million. Boulder Colorado has 94k people. Waco Texas has 120k.

We have 4 California schools. So, it shouldn't be objectionable to have 4 schools from Texas, the second most populated state in the nation.

Colorado is the top school in the state of Colorado and would bring the large Denver TV market into the Pac 10. Baylor is outclassed by Colorado in a big way from just a $$$$ standpoint. Colorado a National Championship in football and may suck right now but they could be good again one day, Baylor will always be a doormat. Unless Texas forces the Pac 10 to take Baylor there is no real benefit for the Pac 10 to take them over CU. Heck I'd take Utah over Baylor....

wheaton4prez wrote:I prefer Baylor over Colorado based on the facts relevant to an athletic conference: they have better over-all athletics.

I think that Baylor is comparable if not ahead of Colorado in terms of market as well. Colorado's population is around 5 million while Texas is at 24 million. Boulder Colorado has 94k people. Waco Texas has 120k.

We have 4 California schools. So, it shouldn't be objectionable to have 4 schools from Texas, the second most populated state in the nation.

After closely looking at the schools' athletic records, it does appear that Baylor has more competitive sports teams than Colorado. While their football team isn't one of the better ones, they do excel in basketball, track & field, tennis, and baseball. Colorado doesn't even have a baseball team, which to me is a knock against them. They don't really compete in many sports at a high level.

As far as having 4 schools in Texas, I think that it actually makes better sense since Colorado would be about 600 miles from the nearest conference school, which is actually making some in Colorado question the need to move to the Pac-10. The only thing about Colorado's location is that it's only 25 miles from Denver, which makes its market bigger than Baylor's in Waco. The Texas marketplace is already dominated by Texas and A&M so adding Baylor wouldn't add as much. Even with that, Baylor would still make a good school to pick up and isn't a complete waste of space if they joined.

desertfan wrote:Colorado is the top school in the state of Colorado and would bring the large Denver TV market into the Pac 10. Baylor is outclassed by Colorado in a big way from just a $$$$ standpoint. Colorado a National Championship in football and may suck right now but they could be good again one day, Baylor will always be a doormat. Unless Texas forces the Pac 10 to take Baylor there is no real benefit for the Pac 10 to take them over CU. Heck I'd take Utah over Baylor....

I, too, would support Utah over Colorado or Baylor, but would take one of them if it meant getting the big fish in Texas, A&M, and Oklahoma.

wheaton4prez wrote: I prefer Baylor over Colorado based on the facts relevant to an athletic conference: they have better over-all athletics.

I think that Baylor is comparable if not ahead of Colorado in terms of market as well. Colorado's population is around 5 million while Texas is at 24 million. Boulder Colorado has 94k people. Waco Texas has 120k.

We have 4 California schools. So, it shouldn't be objectionable to have 4 schools from Texas, the second most populated state in the nation.

UT, A&M, and Tech cover pretty much the entire football market in Texas. At this point TCU is probably more probably than Baylor. Hell, if we really wanted a school in Texas that is good in non revenue sports than we would be far better off adding Rice. Rice is an elite academic institution, has no religious affiliation, and recently won a national championship in baseball. Baylor has won 2 national championships - 1 in men's tennis and 1 in women's basketball.

Boulder is 30 miles from Denver. Even if the 5 million viewers in Colorado aren't watching CU, they would likely be watching some Pac 16 game, whether it's USC, UT, or even Washington State. Not having Baylor in the conference is not going to significantly affect viewership. Not having a huge TV market in Denver could.

In terms of football attendance, it isn't even close:
Colorado averaged 50,000 a game (54,000 capacity), while Baylor averaged 34,000 a game (50,000 capacity)

Colorado has had far better athletic success, having won 6 national championships in the past - 1 in football, 3 in men's cross country, and 2 in women's cross country. They have also won 16 national championships in skiing, which I don't believe the NCAA recognizes. From 1996-2007, their men's cross country team won their conference every year.

Academically, Colorado is a member of the AAU, while Baylor is not.

UT fans want nothing to do with Baylor:
link

A&M fans feel pretty much the same way.

Baylor alums are throwing a hissy fit, but it shouldn't make a difference. I can't see the Pac 10 allowing Baylor in the conference if they won't take BYU. Colorado is part of the package that Fox wants because of the Denver TV market.

uostudent wrote:UT, A&M, and Tech cover pretty much the entire football market in Texas. At this point TCU is probably more probably than Baylor. Hell, if we really wanted a school in Texas that is good in non revenue sports than we would be far better off adding Rice. Rice is an elite academic institution, has no religious affiliation, and recently won a national championship in baseball. Baylor has won 2 national championships - 1 in men's tennis and 1 in women's basketball.

Just because fans in Texas like UT, A&M and Tech doesn't mean that they wouldn't be more likely to tune in to a Pac-16 Baylor game than they would a Pac-16 Colorado game. I think that Baylor would bring significantly more tv viewers than Colorado.

uostudent wrote:Boulder is 30 miles from Denver. Even if the 5 million viewers in Colorado aren't watching CU, they would likely be watching some Pac 16 game, whether it's USC, UT, or even Washington State. Not having Baylor in the conference is not going to significantly affect viewership. Not having a huge TV market in Denver could.

Lets assume that everyone in the state watches every Pac-16 game that a school from their state plays in. Baylor and Texas with 24 million is a much bigger market than Colorado at 5 million.

uostudent wrote:In terms of football attendance, it isn't even close:
Colorado averaged 50,000 a game (54,000 capacity), while Baylor averaged 34,000 a game (50,000 capacity)

Football isn't the only sport to consider.

uostudent wrote:Colorado has had far better athletic success, having won 6 national championships in the past - 1 in football, 3 in men's cross country, and 2 in women's cross country. They have also won 16 national championships in skiing, which I don't believe the NCAA recognizes. From 1996-2007, their men's cross country team won their conference every year.

If you count conference championships, which makes a lot more sense than limiting the comparison only to national championships, Baylor has performed better.

Colorado does have an outstanding cross-country program and one amazing football season to go on. However, the Pac-10 isn't a cross-country only conference. As noted, Colorado doesn't have a baseball team, let alone a record of success in much other than cross country or the one fluke year of football. Their football team has no conference championships other than the one year they won it all. Baylor has won their conference 5 times in football (one of those times being more recently than Colorado's miracle season).

Baylor has won their conference in 13 different sports. Colorado in 6. There's no comparison. Baylor is the better, more well-rounded school for athletics.

uostudent wrote:Academically, Colorado is a member of the AAU, while Baylor is not.

Baylor is ranked higher than Washington State, Arizona State, Arizona, Oregon and Oregon State. They are very close in ranking to Colorado.

uostudent wrote:UT fans want nothing to do with Baylor:
link

I imagine that most Pac-10 fans would be saying similar things if we were in their shoes and Washington State was trying to get in on the deal. I still think that more Texans would watch Baylor games than the small Colorado market would make up for.

wheaton4prez wrote:Wow. It appears that secular schools have failed to give some of you accurate knowledge about the beliefs of massive groups of people in the world. Perhaps some of you could benefit from a couple of classes at Baylor.

The vast majority of Christians DO NOT believe that the world is 6000 years old.

You'd be surprised.

If you're going to claim to be on the side of facts, at least try to get your facts straight. The vast majority of Christians do not believe that their faith is incompatible with facts and science.

That depends on what you're talking about. We were talking about Creation. By definition, science and that particular fairy tale are incompatible. Either you believe that Santa Claus had sex with a genie and birthed out the universe in 6 days, or you believe in something not ridiculous.

The truth is, nobody is without faith. Don't believe me? Lets test it out: why do you believe that evolution has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt?

Evolution has been proven. This is not a debate.

I prefer Baylor over Colorado based on the facts relevant to an athletic conference: they have better over-all athletics.

I think that Baylor is comparable if not ahead of Colorado in terms of market as well. Colorado's population is around 5 million while Texas is at 24 million. Boulder Colorado has 94k people. Waco Texas has 120k.

We have 4 California schools. So, it shouldn't be objectionable to have 4 schools from Texas, the second most populated state in the nation.

Baylor is nowhere near comparable to Colorado in terms of market. Markets are not determined by population, for the record. Markets are determined by TV households. We're also not after the "Boulder market", if such a thing even exists; we're after the Denver market, which is the 16th largest market in the country. Waco is 89th.

Denver would give us the #2 (LA), #5 (Dallas/Ft. Worth), #6 (San Fran), #10 (Houston), #12 (Phoenix), #13 (Seattle/Tacoma), #16 (Denver), #20 (Sacramento), #22 (Portland) markets in the nation. I'd also argue we'd own San Diego (#28) and San Antonio (#37), too.