Expansion w/Baylor not Colorado?

[wheaton4prez]

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.

I think that any school in a Pac-16 getting yearly payouts higher than the SEC currently gets will have growth potential.

Between Colorado and Baylor, both have been around for a long time and Baylor seems to have grown more successful athletic programs than Colorado.

Again, if you subscribe to this "covered" theory of market value, why take any more than one Texas school? According to that reasoning, we could take Baylor alone and have all of the Texas market.

[Mukden]

I think that any school in a Pac-16 getting yearly payouts higher than the SEC currently gets will have growth potential.

We'll get that through payouts with Colorado as well though. Or Utah, or whomever.

Between Colorado and Baylor, both have been around for a long time and Baylor seems to have grown more successful athletic programs than Colorado.

Valid point.

Again, if you subscribe to this "covered" theory of market value, why take any more than one Texas school? According to that reasoning, we could take Baylor alone and have all of the Texas market.

The “covered” theory is really the principle of diminishing returns. Adding more schools in a single state will only add value up to a certain point. Baylor will not add any appreciable value to a package of Texas, A&M and Tech. If both Baylor adnColorado have about the same amount of support, why not add the one that brings in a new market?

[wheaton4prez]

We'll get that through payouts with Colorado as well though. Or Utah, or whomever.

Yeah. We would be fine. I was meaning that Baylor or Colorado would have the funds to grow their programs.

The “covered” theory is really the principle of diminishing returns. Adding more schools in a single state will only add value up to a certain point. Baylor will not add any appreciable value to a package of Texas, A&M and Tech.

I agree that the returns would be diminished. But, I think it's a stretch to say that they would be diminished to nothing with Baylor. Texas is so much larger of a market than Colorado, that even diminished returns in terms of viewers would be higher. Which brings up another question. Denver is the #16 market for what? All of TV? Or, college football? I don't think Colorado is into college football like Texas is. They have the Broncos and Nuggets.

If both Baylor adnColorado have about the same amount of support, why not add the one that brings in a new market?

Because the new market might not be as valuable. It looks to me like Baylor represents more viewers. But, thats just my guestimation. There's a lot to factor in that could go either way. A new market wouldn't be as saturated. But, travel costs would be increased with Colorado. Etc.

I'm not against Colorado. I think either option would be fine and hope that neither option would be a deal-breaker. I just think that academically and market value wise they are at least close to each other. But, Baylor has the better athletic program.

[oregontrack]

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.

No, but I'm hoping it helps drive the point home. I did the internet message board equivalent of hand puppets and pie charts with that Team A/Market X stuff in my last post, and I'm still not sure you're on the same page.

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.

Not necessarily. Texas is the Queen Bee of the region. I'm sure you've read that all of this shuffling amongst conferences is really all about getting Texas? If you get UT, you more or less control the major metropolitan cities of a very large state with several elite market zones. Baylor does not have that kind of draw. Neither does A&M, or Texas Tech. UT does. We'll probably get stuck with taking A&M and Tech because UT demands it.

To say it as simplistic as I can, UT is special. They can swallow up most of the Texas markets because of their size, alumni base, and mass appeal. Baylor is not special. Nobody cares about Baylor, and nobody cares or needs the tiny market they would bring.

The same principal applies to your Stanford example. If the Big 12 were to, say, pluck USC and UCLA away from us, no, we would not own Los Angeles. We would have the Bay Area still, but the Big 12 would own the giant LA market and the Pac-10 would be up a creek.

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

If you try to convert me I'm out.

[oregontrack]

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.

I think that any school in a Pac-16 getting yearly payouts higher than the SEC currently gets will have growth potential.

Between Colorado and Baylor, both have been around for a long time and Baylor seems to have grown more successful athletic programs than Colorado.

Again, if you subscribe to this "covered" theory of market value, why take any more than one Texas school? According to that reasoning, we could take Baylor alone and have all of the Texas market.

When I make fun of you for not understanding something, it's typically not wise to give me further ammunition. You don't understand markets. I've proven this. It may not be in your best interest to talk about your wacky theories.

[wheaton4prez]

No, but I'm hoping it helps drive the point home. I did the internet message board equivalent of hand puppets and pie charts with that Team A/Market X stuff in my last post, and I'm still not sure you're on the same page.

Is your assumption that others have to be on the same page as you in order for you to debate them?

Not necessarily. Texas is the Queen Bee of the region. I'm sure you've read that all of this shuffling amongst conferences is really all about getting Texas? If you get UT, you more or less control the major metropolitan cities of a very large state with several elite market zones. Baylor does not have that kind of draw. Neither does A&M, or Texas Tech. UT does. We'll probably get stuck with taking A&M and Tech because UT demands it.

To say it as simplistic as I can, UT is special. They can swallow up most of the Texas markets because of their size, alumni base, and mass appeal. Baylor is not special. Nobody cares about Baylor, and nobody cares or needs the tiny market they would bring.

The same principal applies to your Stanford example. If the Big 12 were to, say, pluck USC and UCLA away from us, no, we would not own Los Angeles. We would have the Bay Area still, but the Big 12 would own the giant LA market and the Pac-10 would be up a creek.

So, to summarize, you're basically admitting that my position is valid. Different teams have different values attached to them, even in the same region.

Your position relies on the notion that Texans are more interested in Colorado than a college that has been in their state since 1845.

[wheaton4prez]

When I make fun of you for not understanding something, it's typically not wise to give me further ammunition. You don't understand markets. I've proven this. It may not be in your best interest to talk about your wacky theories.

lol. I'm more worried for you than about you.

I find it ironic that after all you have written in this thread, your standard of what qualifies as "proof" is about as unscientific as humanly possible.

[greenyellow]

When I make fun of you for not understanding something, it's typically not wise to give me further ammunition. You don't understand markets. I've proven this. It may not be in your best interest to talk about your wacky theories.

lol. I'm more worried for you than about you.

I find it ironic that after all you have written in this thread, your standard of what qualifies as "proof" is about as unscientific as humanly possible.

Will you guys please drop the discussion about evolution and religion? It doesn't add anything to the conversation about possible expansion of the conference.

[big z]

I really didn't think by starting this thread it'd go this deep in the Religion talk.

I just wanted to get your opinion on it. Personally i'd like to see Utah over Baylor, but by pulling in Texas you have to get it's ugly step sisters.

[Mukden]

Will you guys please drop the discussion about evolution and religion? It doesn't add anything to the conversation about possible expansion of the conference.

I think it stirred up a bit of bad blood, unfortunately.

Because the new market might not be as valuable. It looks to me like Baylor represents more viewers. But, thats just my guestimation. There's a lot to factor in that could go either way.

Here-in lies the rub, I think. None of us really have access to hard data. It gets reduced to somewhat-educated guessing.

I was meaning that Baylor or Colorado would have the funds to grow their programs.

This is what I find really interesting, is trying to figure out who has more potential? Colorado is floundering, and I don't get the sense their fans see a light at the end of the tunnel. Baylor has a new-ish coach, correct? A lot of people seem to be impressed with him. I'd be interested to see if their fans see an upward trajectory for the program, or more of the same (mediocrity).

It’s also worth noting that while they both have basically the same terrible football record over like the past five years, Baylor plays in the far more difficult Big 12 south. One thing for sure is if Colorado get left out they are DOA.

I still feel like passing up a respected state flagship with a bit of football history is not the best idea though. Especially because I think the Arizona schools would feel a lot more comfortable having a bit of a companion of sorts.

Personally i'd like to see Utah over Baylor, but by pulling in Texas you have to get it's ugly step sisters.

I’d like to take CU and switch Utah in for A&M; seems they’re not to keen on the merger anyway.

[oregontrack]

Is your assumption that others have to be on the same page as you in order for you to debate them?

Obviously not. But after I've explained the same thing seven or eight different times, I would hope you've caught up to speed by now.

So, to summarize, you're basically admitting that my position is valid. Different teams have different values attached to them, even in the same region.

The hell?

Your position relies on the notion that Texans are more interested in Colorado than a college that has been in their state since 1845.

No. My position relies on the fact that with UT in the fold, nobody gives a damn about what those people think. With UT, we own their market. We cash out big time. You think that adding Baylor would give us "more of the market", which slaps common sense in the face. Let me bring out the finger puppets and crayons one more time for you:

Let's say that UT market is worth $20 to the Pac-10. It's going to be $20 with or without A&M, Tech, or Baylor. It doesn't matter if a bunch of Texans watch Baylor football. IT'S STILL GOING TO BE WORTH TWENTY DOLLARS.

So, we've got $20. If we add Colorado, we now have, say, $30. Thirty bucks. Cool, huh? We just made more money. Let's take away Colorado. Now we're back to $20. Now let's bring Colorado back. We've got $30 again! Hooray! Now let's take Colorado out. We're back at $20. Let's bring in Baylor. Rats, we're still at $20. Boo! Let's drop Baylor. We're still at $20. Now let's bring in Colorado. Hey, now we're back to $30! Cool!

[uostudent]

Excellent posts oregontrack. I was raised a Catholic and while Catholicism definitely has a lot of flaws, it's not even the most extreme denomination of Christianity. Southern Baptists are by the far worst. These are the types of evangelicals who are ruining this country. The Jerry Falwells (was), the Pat Robertsons, and the Ted Haggards are the spokesmen for Southern Baptists.

Baylor had their first school dance 15 years ago....

[Mukden]

Excellent posts oregontrack. I was raised a Catholic and while Catholicism definitely has a lot of flaws, it's not even the most extreme domination of Christianity. Southern Baptists are by the far worst. These are the types of evangelicals who are ruining this country. The Jerry Falwells (was), the Pat Robertsons, and the Ted Haggards are the spokesmen for Southern Baptists.

Baylor had their first school dance 15 years ago....

I think you may have been referencing one of my posts, and you obviously know were I stand on the issue, but lets give it a rest now. Let a sleeping dog lie and all that.

[shear_j]

I really didn't think by starting this thread it'd go this deep in the Religion talk.

I just wanted to get your opinion on it. Personally i'd like to see Utah over Baylor, but by pulling in Texas you have to get it's ugly step sisters.

Man brand new to the board and you've already divided us. I'm beginning to wonder if you didn't have ulterior motives. Did you really join just to talk, or are you trying to cause our fanbase to fight amongst eachother, thus making us weaker?

[Mukden]

I really didn't think by starting this thread it'd go this deep in the Religion talk.

I just wanted to get your opinion on it. Personally i'd like to see Utah over Baylor, but by pulling in Texas you have to get it's ugly step sisters.

Man brand new to the board and you've already divided us. I'm beginning to wonder if you didn't have ulterior motives. Did you really join just to talk, or are you trying to cause our fanbase to fight amongst eachother, thus making us weaker?

Should we be looking out for a MWC- Pac 7 merger?