Expansion w/Baylor not Colorado?

[duckgrad99]

Actually, I wouldn't have a problem with Baylor. In terms of sports, Baylor has been more relevant than Colorado, at least in recent years. It doesn't get much bigger than football in Texas. How many times has Colorado been on sportscenter recently?

[greenyellow]

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.

That is why I think the Pac-10 would rather have Colorado over Boulder. This whole expansion talk is mainly about making the most amount of money with a fat TV deal and Colorado gets you into another major TV market. Once the schools see how much money will be had, they'll drop some of their reservations about the expansion.

[shear_j]

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.

Don't you love being able to make fun of schools now for not having a baseball team

[oregontrack]

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.

That is why I think the Pac-10 would rather have Colorado over Boulder. This whole expansion talk is mainly about making the most amount of money with a fat TV deal and Colorado gets you into another major TV market. Once the schools see how much money will be had, they'll drop some of their reservations about the expansion.

Absolutely. I said this once before in one of these threads, but I'll say it again: the elite schools are going to be for this merger because the rich are only going to get richer, and the alternative is being left out of the expansion craze; the non-elite schools like Wazzu, Oregon State, etc., are going to be all for this merger because they are cash-strapped and they're suddenly going to find themselves rolling in money. Financially, it's a slam dunk, and finances rule college sports, nothing else.

[greenyellow]

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.

Don't you love being able to make fun of schools now for not having a baseball team

Feels pretty good now. Now that we have a team, I didn't realize how complete it feels when you have sports change along with the seasons. As a fan, it felt odd not to have a real team sport going on during the spring. Not having baseball almost felt unAmerican.

[wheaton4prez]

You'd be surprised.

No. I'm informed on the subject. It sounds like you might be surprised.

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.

You are mistaken. Most Christians don't believe in a literal reading of Genesis or that scientific findings are in conflict with God's design.

Evolution has been proven. This is not a debate.

I'm not debating that point. I'm asking you to demonstrate why you believe that it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Please proceed. If there isn't a shadow of doubt, it should be easy for you to do.

So far, all you have offered is your personal insistence, which asks a lot of faith from others.

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.

Your point being that more people have TVs in Colorado than in Texas?

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.

This statement makes no logical sense. Colorado gives us the Denver market but Baylor interest would be limited to Waco. Actually, it's pretty impressive that Waco alone is the 89th best tv market. You're just forgetting that Texas is the 2nd most populated state in the nation. More Texans will tune in to Baylor games than Colorado games.

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.

[I see what you were saying now. The problem is that some markets appeal from multiple teams and over-lap. So, you could say that a large proportion of the #5 Dallas market would watch Baylor games more often than Colorado games.]

[wheaton4prez]

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.

Don't you love being able to make fun of schools now for not having a baseball team

I do. Have to admit it was a bit of a stretch when I did it also.

[oregontrack]

Plus, we have new entry into the "most liberal city in the Pac-10" if Colorado joins. It's not just a two horse race between Berkley and Eugene anymore.

[shear_j]

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.

Don't you love being able to make fun of schools now for not having a baseball team

Feels pretty good now. Now that we have a team, I didn't realize how complete it feels when you have sports change along with the seasons. As a fan, it felt odd not to have a real team sport going on during the spring. Not having baseball almost felt unAmerican.

Absolutely. Baseball is and always will be my fav. sport. Now that we have a team (and a damn good one this year), I just feel so much better about the athletic department as a whole. I really think they hit a hr with that program

[Mukden]

Oh… wow. What have we done?

Just a few clarifications, and then I think I will respectfully bow out of this conversation. One too many profanity laced tirades for me. Plus I’d like to avoid the label of “that one bigoted dude who ruined ducksattack.”

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:

-The earth is 6000 or so odd years old and God created all life as it appears today. Some claim Dinosaurs actually never existed (they are whale bones, pieces of other planets God used to create earth, etc.) Similarly, remains of early human ancestors are just deformed people or the Giants mentioned in the Bible.

-South and Central America was home a great civilization having absolutely zero in common with those we have evidence of. Conveniently, this civilization disappeared without a trace.

-A flood destroyed the world, however many years ago. But luckily, someone managed to fit all the animal species of the world on a boat.

-Black skin is a curse.

-People used to live to be hundreds of years old; a teacher told this was probably due to the lack of pollution.

That is just a sampling.

Thinking I felt the same, friends would often express their distain for evolution, science, and secular knowledge in general.

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.).

To me, these ideas are pretty hard to reconcile with academic inquiry. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the strengths of Baylor and BYU are Law and Business, rather than Anthropology. And apparently, Baylor College of Medicine and the Pac-10 presidents, along with many in the Pac-10 community, agree.

Sorry if I offended anyone. Again I don’t hate religion, and in fact have quite a bit of respect for the lifestyle religions try to encourage. 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.

[lukeyrid13]

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.

[lukeyrid13]

As far as the expansion goes I would prefer Colorado, especially if Baylor doesn't play on Sundays like Byu(idk if they do or do not). This is really about sports and mainly just football and Colorado has a lot more upside. I don't think it has much to do with religion with Baylor. It's about sports and money and I think Colorado would bring more.

If a great football player gets a scholarship to Jesuit or Central Catholic he probably takes it cause they're the best at sports regardless of religious affiliation. Same but opposite with this situation. You choose Colorado just cause they're better and religion doesn't matter much in the decision making

[greenyellow]

I thought we got off debating religions and back to discussing the possible expansion. Yes, everyone has a different viewpoint on things such as evolution and religion, but it doesn't really have any place in the type of discussion we are trying to have.

[Mukden]

@ Lukeyrid: You'll see I adressed your point in my last post.

I thought we got off debating religions and back to discussing the possible expansion. Yes, everyone has a different viewpoint on things such as evolution and religion, but it doesn't really have any place in the type of discussion we are trying to have.

Like I said, I figured I'd say my peace and then stay out of it. Anyway, a big concern I have is the Arizona schools saying enough is enough. I think they feel some affinity for Colorado, and it gives them a break on the travel. Do Pac 10 expansion desicions have to be unanimous, or is that a myth?

[oregontrack]

No. I'm informed on the subject. It sounds like you might be surprised.

You are mistaken. Most Christians don't believe in a literal reading of Genesis or that scientific findings are in conflict with God's design.

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"?

I'm not debating that point. I'm asking you to demonstrate why you believe that it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Please proceed. If there isn't a shadow of doubt, it should be easy for you to do.

I think someone brought up gravity earlier, and I'll steal the concept. I can prove evolution on an online message board as easily as I can prove gravity on an online message board, or that the Earth is round. My favorite example in evolution's simplest terms has always been:

"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)."

So far, all you have offered is your personal insistence, which asks a lot of faith from others.

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.

Your point being that more people have TVs in Colorado than in Texas?

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.

This statement makes no logical sense. Colorado gives us the Denver market but Baylor interest would be limited to Waco. Actually, it's pretty impressive that Waco alone is the 89th best tv market. You're just forgetting that Texas is the 2nd most populated state in the nation. More Texans will tune in to Baylor games than Colorado games.

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 see what you were saying now. The problem is that some markets appeal from multiple teams and over-lap. So, you could say that a large proportion of the #5 Dallas market would watch Baylor games more often than Colorado games.]

But we already have the Dallas market. It doesn't matter if they watch Baylor games too, which in and of itself is completely debatable, we already have the Dallas market. If only UT was coming over (instead of A&M and Tech as well), it still makes more sense to offer Colorado instead of all 3 remaining Texas schools because UT alone brings the Dallas market. Overlap DOES NOT MATTER. If we get UT, we own Dallas. It's redundant to take any more Texas schools, but we'll do so because it seems UT is demanding it. Baylor adds nothing. Colorado adds the 16th largest market in the nation. It's as no-brainer.