Expansion w/Baylor not Colorado?

[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.

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?

It sure does look like that. I go on other boards during the off-season, ours is currently in a full blown meltdown right now. The thinking was it was a "done deal" for the U and CU in the Pac12. There were numerous threads posted that "insider sources" have pretty much said it was a "done deal". There are really only a few of us that have said we were in the wait and see boat and I was one of them. I'd love to watch the U play a Pac10 schedule, but i'm also fine with us playing a MWC Schedule plus a few Pac10 in the out of conference games.

This season we have PITT in SLC, at Iowa State, then go to South Bend in November to play the Irish.

Next season we have Iowa State and you guys in SLC before we got up to Boise and then out to Pitt.

[Legions]

If wheaton still doesn't understand what oregontrack is explaining, I dunno what will help him. Oregontrack has literally explained a simple concept like 3 different ways and wheaton still doesn't seem to grasp it.

[wheaton4prez]

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

I agree. Except for oregontrack. Apparently, he is a sports marketing research analyst for ESPN. He's just bashful about telling us.

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).

My impression is that their potential for football is about equal. Either one, with Pac-16 money could get ahold of the next Chris Peterson and do something. But, Colorado is quite a ways behind in terms of non-football sports. It would take longer for them to get up to speed in the other sports.

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.

I can see the Arizona plus Colorado against Texas angle. Though, I'm not sure if being a state school is a good thing. Probably a higher chance that they'll squander the cash, experience obstacles from the academic side of things in regard to new facilities, spending on coaches, etc.

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.

When you are debating a subject and someone directly addresses your point with a rebuttal, if your only response is to re-iterate your previous argument, it is called an ad nauseum fallacy. No matter how many times you repeat your argument, adding insults, periods between words, self-congratulations, etc. it is still a failure to address the new arguments given.

The hell?

Do you need me to explain how your quote lends support to what I've been arguing?

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!

I have understood what you are trying to argue for several pages now. Do you think that the only way someone can disagree with you is if they don't understand your perspective?

Here, in more detail, is why I think that you are mistaken on this subject:

The tv contracts are worth money because they can turn a profit selling air time to advertisers who want to sell products.

The more people that witness this air time, the more valuable it is to the people bidding for ad spots.

Every college program brings value to the table because they represent an additional 3 hour game each saturday that people can watch. If Baylor is playing Arizona and a bunch of people in Texas tune in, the value of that air time belongs to Baylor. Not to UT.

I think that more people in Texas would tune in to a Baylor vs. Arizona game than people in Colorado would a Colorado vs. Arizona game. Texas consists of 24 million people. Colorado 5 million. That would mean more people viewing the air time shown on Baylor vs. Arizona and likewise a higher price tag for advertisers looking for air time with the most viewers.

I think that you get onto the wrong track when you start with this premise that any team allows you to "have" a market. It's not an either 100% or 0% matter. UT doesn't control 100% of what people watch in Texas. UT can only take up 3 hours of any given Saturday. With the other schools, you're working with 6-9 more hours of games to sell ad spots on. It's contrary to common sense to suggest that those additional 6-9 hours of ad spots in the 2nd most populated state in the nation aren't worth anything.

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....

I can think of a few other historical figures that justified bigotry by claiming that this group or that was "ruining the country."

[wheaton4prez]

If wheaton still doesn't understand what oregontrack is explaining, I dunno what will help him. Oregontrack has literally explained a simple concept like 3 different ways and wheaton still doesn't seem to grasp it.

I agree that oregontrack's idea is simple. I have understood what he was trying to say since the first time he put it out there.

However, he has failed to support his idea or defend it from basic scrutiny (see post above for more detail).

Do you, like him, believe that some programs are "special" and bring 100% of the value of a given market, while others that are not "special" bring 0%?

[Legions]

In short I do agree. UT is like a big circle that covers most of Texas. Baylor is small circle that covers a little bit of Texas. Colorado is a small circle that covers a little bit of Colorado. Baylor's circle is inside of the UT circle and Colorado's circle is in Colorado.

Colorado = new viewers. Baylor = viewers already covered by UT. Maybe since there is double coverage in that circle there could be double the viewers, but that's not a sure thing. Compounding the problem is A&M and Tech, which are medium circles also covering that same (or similar area) in Texas.

That is how I understand Colorado to be a better TV market to go after. Am I missing something?

[wheaton4prez]

Yes. Time.

UT is a big circle covering 3 hours.

A&M and Tech are medium circles covering 3 hours each.

Baylor is a little circle covering 3 hours.

---

3 hours of 24 million people is worth more than 3 hours of 5 million.

[UOducksTK1]

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?

At least he's created something for us to talk about, but seriously, this has gone terribly off topic. This is getting moved..

[oregontrack]

When you are debating a subject and someone directly addresses your point with a rebuttal, if your only response is to re-iterate your previous argument, it is called an ad nauseum fallacy. No matter how many times you repeat your argument, adding insults, periods between words, self-congratulations, etc. it is still a failure to address the new arguments given.

Except, I've addressed your rebuttal. You were wrong. You think that Texans already covered under the UT market that will watch Baylor games will improve our market, and that is false. You haven't added anything since, you've been caught up in the same circle of stupid.

Do you need me to explain how your quote lends support to what I've been arguing?

Go for it.

I have understood what you are trying to argue for several pages now. Do you think that the only way someone can disagree with you is if they don't understand your perspective?

It's not "my perspective." It's how markets and TV contracts work. It's not a terribly difficult science, nor is it top-secret. It's not my fault you don't understand it one bit, as you proved in your very first post when you tried telling us that markets were determined by population. This is essentially me saying, "Water is wet", and you disagreeing. It's not my opinion that water is wet, it just is. You can disagree with the statement all you want, you're just embarrassing yourself when you do.

Here, in more detail, is why I think that you are mistaken on this subject:

Awesome. Try to educate me on the subject, guy who thought markets were determined by population. You've clearly established that you know what you're talking about.

The tv contracts are worth money because they can turn a profit selling air time to advertisers who want to sell products.

The more people that witness this air time, the more valuable it is to the people bidding for ad spots.

And that would make perfect sense, if we were talking about individual programs on network television. Your argument works for something like, say, the Super Bowl, which can demand huge advertisement prices because of the potential number of viewers. Pac-10 (or any conference) TV contracts are not determined by "potential advertising dollars" in that sense, they are determined by the markets in which they encompass, which can be later broken down into potential advertising dollars. Thus, if ABC wants to sign the Pac-10 to a 10 year contract, that price is determined by the markets within Pac-10 territory. Advertisements within the conference are then broken down between the network and their affiliates, because what may be a popular niche in Texas is worth nothing in the state of Washington.

Every college program brings value to the table because they represent an additional 3 hour game each saturday that people can watch. If Baylor is playing Arizona and a bunch of people in Texas tune in, the value of that air time belongs to Baylor. Not to UT.

Your loose understanding of how this all works keeps getting the better of you. See above.

I think that more people in Texas would tune in to a Baylor vs. Arizona game than people in Colorado would a Colorado vs. Arizona game. Texas consists of 24 million people. Colorado 5 million. That would mean more people viewing the air time shown on Baylor vs. Arizona and likewise a higher price tag for advertisers looking for air time with the most viewers.

I'm going to stop you at the bolded part.

I think that you get onto the wrong track when you start with this premise that any team allows you to "have" a market. It's not an either 100% or 0% matter. UT doesn't control 100% of what people watch in Texas. UT can only take up 3 hours of any given Saturday. With the other schools, you're working with 6-9 more hours of games to sell ad spots on. It's contrary to common sense to suggest that those additional 6-9 hours of ad spots in the 2nd most populated state in the nation aren't worth anything.

Again, this is not "me" getting on the wrong track, because I don't determine how any of this works. Go back to the water/wet metaphor.

Look. I insulted your religion, and I've been talking down to you. I understand why you're so upset, but you're fighting the wrong fight here. You have no idea how any of this works, and it's getting embarrassing. Just go quietly into that good night and end this. Wait until I say something incorrect in another thread, and commence trying to show me up then. I don't blame you for not coming into this thread and not knowing how this all works, some of us are just more educated than others. But it's getting downright boring watching you throw poop on the wall in hopes that something sticks. It isn't.

[wheaton4prez]

Except, I've addressed your rebuttal. You were wrong. You think that Texans already covered under the UT market that will watch Baylor games will improve our market, and that is false. You haven't added anything since, you've been caught up in the same circle of stupid.

Except that insisting I'm wrong is not a rebuttal. As I pointed out, it is an ad nauseam fallacy.

I directly addressed your "covered" idea. UT games only cover 3 hours of time that advertising can be placed on tv. Baylor can cover 3 hours that UT does not. Therefore, Baylor does bring value to the table in terms of advertising time that can be sold for a profit.

Your theory that any value calculations for tv contracts wouldn't factor in the amount of time to viewers available to sell ads on contradicts common sense. The burden is on you to substantiate your claim.

It's not "my perspective." It's how markets and TV contracts work. It's not a terribly difficult science, nor is it top-secret. It's not my fault you don't understand it one bit, as you proved in your very first post when you tried telling us that markets were determined by population. This is essentially me saying, "Water is wet", and you disagreeing. It's not my opinion that water is wet, it just is. You can disagree with the statement all you want, you're just embarrassing yourself when you do.

And I already directly challenged you to substantiate this point. Prove to us that what you have claimed here is indeed how the networks evaluate markets.

Awesome. Try to educate me on the subject, guy who thought markets were determined by population. You've clearly established that you know what you're talking about.

I already pointed out that I was not saying that markets are determined solely by population. You ignoring my direct rebuttals of your arguments is not a valid counter-argument.

I haven't claimed to be an expert on this subject. That seems to be your specialty. Only, you seem to be long on bravado, short on substantiation.

And that would make perfect sense, if we were talking about individual programs on network television. Your argument works for something like, say, the Super Bowl, which can demand huge advertisement prices because of the potential number of viewers. Pac-10 (or any conference) TV contracts are not determined by "potential advertising dollars" in that sense, they are determined by the markets in which they encompass, which can be later broken down into potential advertising dollars. Thus, if ABC wants to sign the Pac-10 to a 10 year contract, that price is determined by the markets within Pac-10 territory. Advertisements within the conference are then broken down between the network and their affiliates, because what may be a popular niche in Texas is worth nothing in the state of Washington.

You asserting that you are right is getting old. Do you know how to construct a logical argument?

Why do you think that markets are determined the way that you describe? Where did you get that from?

I'm going to stop you at the bolded part.

Translation = "I have no rebuttal to this point."

Look. I insulted your religion, and I've been talking down to you. I understand why you're so upset, but you're fighting the wrong fight here. You have no idea how any of this works, and it's getting embarrassing. Just go quietly into that good night and end this. Wait until I say something incorrect in another thread, and commence trying to show me up then. I don't blame you for not coming into this thread and not knowing how this all works, some of us are just more educated than others. But it's getting downright boring watching you throw poop on the wall in hopes that something sticks. It isn't.

Sounds to me like someone is saying "uncle". Sorry. I'm not letting your feet off the fire.

You may not realize it now. But, I see this as doing you a favor.

[oregontrack]

Except, I've addressed your rebuttal. You were wrong. You think that Texans already covered under the UT market that will watch Baylor games will improve our market, and that is false. You haven't added anything since, you've been caught up in the same circle of stupid.

Except that insisting I'm wrong is not a rebuttal. As I pointed out, it is an ad nauseam fallacy.

I directly addressed your "covered" idea. UT games only cover 3 hours of time that advertising can be placed on tv. Baylor can cover 3 hours that UT does not. Therefore, Baylor does bring value to the table in terms of advertising time that can be sold for a profit.

Your theory that any value calculations for tv contracts wouldn't factor in the amount of time to viewers available to sell ads on contradicts common sense. The burden is on you to substantiate your claim.

It's not "my perspective." It's how markets and TV contracts work. It's not a terribly difficult science, nor is it top-secret. It's not my fault you don't understand it one bit, as you proved in your very first post when you tried telling us that markets were determined by population. This is essentially me saying, "Water is wet", and you disagreeing. It's not my opinion that water is wet, it just is. You can disagree with the statement all you want, you're just embarrassing yourself when you do.

And I already directly challenged you to substantiate this point. Prove to us that what you have claimed here is indeed how the networks evaluate markets.

Awesome. Try to educate me on the subject, guy who thought markets were determined by population. You've clearly established that you know what you're talking about.

I already pointed out that I was not saying that markets are determined solely by population. You ignoring my direct rebuttals of your arguments is not a valid counter-argument.

I haven't claimed to be an expert on this subject. That seems to be your specialty. Only, you seem to be long on bravado, short on substantiation.

And that would make perfect sense, if we were talking about individual programs on network television. Your argument works for something like, say, the Super Bowl, which can demand huge advertisement prices because of the potential number of viewers. Pac-10 (or any conference) TV contracts are not determined by "potential advertising dollars" in that sense, they are determined by the markets in which they encompass, which can be later broken down into potential advertising dollars. Thus, if ABC wants to sign the Pac-10 to a 10 year contract, that price is determined by the markets within Pac-10 territory. Advertisements within the conference are then broken down between the network and their affiliates, because what may be a popular niche in Texas is worth nothing in the state of Washington.

You asserting that you are right is getting old. Do you know how to construct a logical argument?

Why do you think that markets are determined the way that you describe? Where did you get that from?

I'm going to stop you at the bolded part.

Translation = "I have no rebuttal to this point."

Look. I insulted your religion, and I've been talking down to you. I understand why you're so upset, but you're fighting the wrong fight here. You have no idea how any of this works, and it's getting embarrassing. Just go quietly into that good night and end this. Wait until I say something incorrect in another thread, and commence trying to show me up then. I don't blame you for not coming into this thread and not knowing how this all works, some of us are just more educated than others. But it's getting downright boring watching you throw poop on the wall in hopes that something sticks. It isn't.

Sounds to me like someone is saying "uncle". Sorry. I'm not letting your feet off the fire.

You may not realize it now. But, I see this as doing you a favor.

Time to break up this staring contest. We get it, you're not going to give in, as ridiculous as you sound.

Let's try this. Larry Scott came out today and said that Baylor was NOT one of the teams that the Pac-10 was looking at. Colorado is the target. Why is that? Baylor has an OUTSTANDING academic reputation, and their athletic department is much more well-rounded than CU. In regards to strengthening the Pac-10, Baylor is the obvious choice... but according to our commissioner, they aren't even a candidate. Why not?

Oh, wait. We both know why. Because the Pac-10 wants the Denver market, to drive up television revenue. But WAIT! Baylor is an outstanding academic institution and they're better athletically, AND ACCORDING TO YOU, we'd make even more money in television contracts with Baylor. Why isn't Baylor a slam dunk, then?

Because you're a fool who has no idea what he's talking about, that's why. Baylor makes all the sense in the world, but they aren't even a candidate because the Denver market DWARFS what Waco can get us. If your argument had even the slightest footing in reality and Baylor would make us more money, we'd gladly take them over CU. But they don't.

I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul.

[wheaton4prez]

Let's try this. Larry Scott came out today and said that Baylor was NOT one of the teams that the Pac-10 was looking at. Colorado is the target. Why is that? Baylor has an OUTSTANDING academic reputation, and their athletic department is much more well-rounded than CU. In regards to strengthening the Pac-10, Baylor is the obvious choice... but according to our commissioner, they aren't even a candidate. Why not?

If I had stepped in the logical cow-pies you have, I might also want to "try this". So you know, I'm marking this down in the oregontrack-failing-to-back-up-what-he-says department.

I never claimed to be an expert on the subject. I specifically wrote that the value of the market could be swayed in either direction by factors beyond viewership. Mukden and I, despite disagreeing on points, were able to come to a reasonable understanding of each other. So, it appears that you seem to be the odd man out regarding who "won't give in".

There could be many different reasons for not considering Baylor beyond the market value. The powers that be in the Pac-10 might exclude them for reasons that I disagree with. So, what Larry Scott has said is inconsequential to my position.

Oh, wait. We both know why. Because the Pac-10 wants the Denver market, to drive up television revenue. But WAIT! Baylor is an outstanding academic institution and they're better athletically, AND ACCORDING TO YOU, we'd make even more money in television contracts with Baylor. Why isn't Baylor a slam dunk, then?

I have qualified my claim to say that I think it would make more money but that I didn't know for certain. As noted above, even if Baylor COULD bring more money, it may not be a significant enough of a difference to over-come other reasons some people wouldn't want Baylor.

Because you're a fool who has no idea what he's talking about, that's why. Baylor makes all the sense in the world, but they aren't even a candidate because the Denver market DWARFS what Waco can get us. If your argument had even the slightest footing in reality and Baylor would make us more money, we'd gladly take them over CU. But they don't.

I think you're the one who has played the fool here. I have been careful to only claim information that I could substantiate and qualified my arguments accordingly. You claimed to know things that you clearly do not. But, if you want to be congratulated for making a correct guess, I'm sure there are people that will accommodate you. Somebody, at some point, had to inflate that head.

I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul.

I take that as a compliment, from you.

[oregontrack]

The only truthful nugget in there was "I'm not an expert." YOUR ARGUMENTS CONSIST OF ADMITTING YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, AND OFFERING IDEAS SPRUNG OUT OF A LOOSE UNDERSTANDING THAT ADVERTISERS PAY MONEY TO HAVE THEIR COMMERCIALS SHOWN.

You made a statement. I corrected you, and gave you a crash course on TV Athletic Contracts 101. You think I'm wrong? You prove it. I've demonstrated I have a perfectly fine grasp of how this works. You freely admit you have no idea what's going on. Educate yourself, and get back to us.

How embarrassing for you. There is NO reason to take Colorado over Baylor academically or athletically. We're not looking in their direction wholly because we want that Denver market. How painful is it knowing that I'm right, but you're so invested at this point that you can't back down? LOL!

[wheaton4prez]

The only truthful nugget in there was "I'm not an expert." YOUR ARGUMENTS CONSIST OF ADMITTING YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, AND OFFERING IDEAS SPRUNG OUT OF A LOOSE UNDERSTANDING THAT ADVERTISERS PAY MONEY TO HAVE THEIR COMMERCIALS SHOWN.

No. My arguments are qualified to accurately represent what I do know and believe. Contrary to your arguments which consist of you over-stating what you know and never substantiating your claims.

Here is how a typical oregontrack debate breaks down:

NormalPerson: I believe that x is true based on y and z.

oregontrack: No. f is true.

NormalPerson: It doesn't seem that way to me. How do you know?

oregontrack: Obviously, f is true because f is true. You're stupid to question it.

NormalPerson: I understand that you believe f is true. But, what is your basis?

oregontrack: How stupid are you to even ask that? f is true because f is true! If you ask again, I will say the same thing with periods between the words or, if you really test me, I'll use ALL CAPS!

...and on and on...

You made a statement. I corrected you, and gave you a crash course on TV Athletic Contracts 101. You think I'm wrong? You prove it. I've demonstrated I have a perfectly fine grasp of how this works. You freely admit you have no idea what's going on. Educate yourself, and get back to us.

This is where you are terribly mistaken. You have not demonstrated that anything you have claimed is true. Your "crash course" consists of you insisting that you are right. That is not substantiation. When you make a claim, the burden is always on you to substantiate it. Not on others to disprove it.

How embarrassing for you. There is NO reason to take Colorado over Baylor academically or athletically. We're not looking in their direction wholly because we want that Denver market. How painful is it knowing that I'm right, but you're so invested at this point that you can't back down? LOL!

If you had asked what I thought the chances were for the Pac-10 choosing Colorado over Baylor, I would have said around 90%. So, no. I'm not embarrassed or surprised.

I would feel sorry for you. But, at your age, I wasn't much different. So, I know that people can learn from their waffles like I have. That's why I think it's worth it to keep going over this with you. You can thank me later.

The only indication of pain I see is in your feeling that writing without ALL CAPS isn't sufficient to get your point across.

[oregontrack]

No.

Yes. The problem here is that you have openly admitted that you don't know what you are talking about. You obviously don't believe me, but unfortunately for you, you screwed yourself a long time ago when you freely admitted you were not qualified to have this discussion. Perhaps instead of that creative writing degree, you could have sat next to me for four years and you could have gotten your sports marketing degree, too. Alas.

This is where you are terribly mistaken. You have not demonstrated that anything you have claimed is true. Your "crash course" consists of you insisting that you are right. That is not substantiation.

And anyone with even a handicapped notion of what was going on here would side with me. You've admitted that you don't know what you're talking about. You're horribly wrong, but I continue to babysit you because I have a morbid curiosity as to what you're going to say next. You offered a point, I countered, and you've admitted you don't know a lot about it. Either do some research and prove me wrong, or stop arguing with me because you're all hot and bothered that I laughed at your religion and am having fun tossing you around like a rag doll.

If you had asked what I thought the chances were for the Pac-10 choosing Colorado over Baylor, I would have said around 90%. So, no. I'm not embarrassed or surprised.

I would feel sorry for you. But, at your age, I wasn't much different. So, I know that people can learn from their waffles like I have. That's why I think it's worth it to keep going over this with you. You can thank me later.

The only indication of pain I see is in your feeling that writing without ALL CAPS isn't sufficient to get your point across.

Do you feel sorry for the Pac-10, too? I mean, you've discovered a hidden GOLD MINE in Waco, Texas, and NOBODY else knows about it. Does that irk you? Have you written to the commissioner yet to notify him of his grave error? Baylor has everything we want, AND they'd make us more money! Too bad that stupid commissioner sides with me and thinks that cruddy Denver market is worth bringing in CU, huh?

[wheaton4prez]

Yes. The problem here is that you have openly admitted that you don't know what you are talking about. You obviously don't believe me, but unfortunately for you, you screwed yourself a long time ago when you freely admitted you were not qualified to have this discussion. Perhaps instead of that creative writing degree, you could have sat next to me for four years and you could have gotten your sports marketing degree, too. Alas.

I have not admitted that I don't know what I'm talking about. I pointed out that I am careful not to over-state what I do know.

Are you saying that you have a sports marketing degree?

And anyone with even a handicapped notion of what was going on here would side with me. You've admitted that you don't know what you're talking about. You're horribly wrong, but I continue to babysit you because I have a morbid curiosity as to what you're going to say next. You offered a point, I countered, and you've admitted you don't know a lot about it. Either do some research and prove me wrong, or stop arguing with me because you're all hot and bothered that I laughed at your religion and am having fun tossing you around like a rag doll.

No. We have each done different things.

I have made an argument for why I think that Baylor would be a better choice than Colorado and I offered substantiated reasons, qualified with the observation that there could be a lot of factors that sway the market value of the programs beyond those that I brought up.

You have made several outright claims. Yet, when asked to substantiate your basis for those claims, you haven't done so. Your idea of substantiation appears to be to repeat your claim. "What I say is true because what I say is true."

If you think that is tossing anyone around, you're more delusional that I thought. And, I'm not bothered for my sake that you are bigoted.

Do you feel sorry for the Pac-10, too? I mean, you've discovered a hidden GOLD MINE in Waco, Texas, and NOBODY else knows about it. Does that irk you? Have you written to the commissioner yet to notify him of his grave error? Baylor has everything we want, AND they'd make us more money! Too bad that stupid commissioner sides with me and thinks that cruddy Denver market is worth bringing in CU, huh?

Apparently you missed where I've written that I am not against Colorado and that the Pac-10/16 would do fine with them. I think that the values of the two programs are close in many ways. Baylor just has a better over-all athletic program.

That said, I will feel sorry for the Pac-10 if the Pac-16 proposal ultimately gets scrapped because we didn't add Baylor.