Expansion w/Baylor not Colorado?

[autzenzoo]

Discussing Baylor-Colorado is awesome, but now you're at each others' throats over who knows their rhetoric better. Shake hands?

[oregontrack]

Discussing Baylor-Colorado is awesome, but now you're at each others' throats over who knows their rhetoric better. Shake hands?

Nah, one of is right and thus needn't cede any ground, and the other doesn't know what he's talking about but is too invested to give in. My boredom level with this thread is slowly rising, though, so I'm sure it'll slowly fade away pretty soon.

[oregontrack]

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?

Except you have said that you don't know what you're talking about. I do have a degree in sports marketing, yes. Just when I thought I could make good on my life long dream of being an assistant to the general manager (Seinfeld, anyone?) the economy went in the hole, though.

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.

The thing is, Jonah, is that you haven't "substantiated" anything. You've given reasons why you think Baylor makes sense, I've countered and offered reasons as to why CU is the only obvious choice. Just because you think you're right -- despite, y'know, admitting that you don't know how much of this works -- doesn't mean you've substantiated anything, and just because you don't like me because I laughed at your religion and have a quick tongue doesn't mean I've failed to substantiate anything. What I'm saying is alien to you because you don't know how it works. What you're saying to me is kindergarten level jibberish because it's flat out incorrect.

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.

Fine, you're not invited to my birthday party.

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.

I just think the timing of it is hilarious. Money is the ONLY thing that matters in college athletics. Baylor fits in with the Pac-10 so much better than CU both academically and athletically, and according to you, they are a cash cow. LMAO @ you saying there are a "multitude of reasons why the Pac-10 might take CU over Baylor..." There is only ONE reason why anyone does anything in this business. Money. CU can offer it. Baylor offers none, because we already control their market. Regardless, you continue to insist that Baylor is worth their weight and gold, and right in the middle of this, Larry Scott comes out and flat out says we have no interest in Baylor. Oops!

[wheaton4prez]

Except you have said that you don't know what you're talking about. I do have a degree in sports marketing, yes. Just when I thought I could make good on my life long dream of being an assistant to the general manager (Seinfeld, anyone?) the economy went in the hole, though.

Here we go again. Another "you have done this because you have really done this!" argument from oregontrack. Seriously: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

Judging by your inability to effectively argue a point related to your degree, I suspect that your troubles have little to do with the economy.

The thing is, Jonah, is that you haven't "substantiated" anything. You've given reasons why you think Baylor makes sense, I've countered and offered reasons as to why CU is the only obvious choice. Just because you think you're right -- despite, y'know, admitting that you don't know how much of this works -- doesn't mean you've substantiated anything, and just because you don't like me because I laughed at your religion and have a quick tongue doesn't mean I've failed to substantiate anything. What I'm saying is alien to you because you don't know how it works. What you're saying to me is kindergarten level jibberish because it's flat out incorrect.

I don't see a quick tongue here. I see someone trying to compensate for lack of substance with ad hominem statements.

What about my arguments do you question the substantiation on? That there are 24 million people in Texas vs. the 5 million in Colorado? That a UT game takes up 3 hours of air time while a Baylor game also takes up 3 hours of air time? That 6 hours of air time is more valuable than 3?

I just think the timing of it is hilarious. Money is the ONLY thing that matters in college athletics. Baylor fits in with the Pac-10 so much better than CU both academically and athletically, and according to you, they are a cash cow. LMAO @ you saying there are a "multitude of reasons why the Pac-10 might take CU over Baylor..." There is only ONE reason why anyone does anything in this business. Money. CU can offer it. Baylor offers none, because we already control their market. Regardless, you continue to insist that Baylor is worth their weight and gold, and right in the middle of this, Larry Scott comes out and flat out says we have no interest in Baylor. Oops!

Substantiate that money is "the only reason why anyone does anything" in college football.

[woundedknees]

Just for the helluvit:

http://collegesportsblog.dallasnews.com ... n-apr.html

The politicking has gone public. Colorado probably has the backing of Pac-10 presidents, a stronger football tradition and a proximity to the Denver TV market.

Baylor counters with growing support in the Texas Legislature, a better financial outlook and a much more competitive overall athletic program, especially when you factor basketball into the equation.

Now, according to Orangebloods.com along with corroborating sources of our own, Colorado will announce scholarship losses in football and men's basketball for failing to meet NCAA academic progress rate standards. Few programs get dinged so severely.

If that is the news, it couldn't come at a worse time for Colorado or a better time for Baylor.

[oregontrack]

Here we go again. Another "you have done this because you have really done this!" argument from oregontrack. Seriously: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

You asked me if I had a degree in sports marketing. I answered your question. Try to hide your lady parts, Paula.

What about my arguments do you question the substantiation on? That there are 24 million people in Texas vs. the 5 million in Colorado? That a UT game takes up 3 hours of air time while a Baylor game also takes up 3 hours of air time? That 6 hours of air time is more valuable than 3?

I have two dogs, I thought the last episode of LOST was well done, and I really hate people who wear socks with sandals. Everything I just said has just as much to do with the Pac-10 getting a new lucrative TV deal as what you said.

Therein lies your problem. You think you're making quality points, but your own failed knowledge of the topic at hand handicaps you (which you ADMITTED!). There are indeed more people in Texas than Colorado. Spot on, champ. How do you know these people will watch Baylor football? You don't. You assume, "because they are in the same state." You have failed to substantiate your point. There is nothing to suggest a meaningless Baylor football game (which is OUT OF CONFERENCE in this scenario) would draw more viewers than Colorado, potentially playing a key conference game, the same conference that is home to the majority of Texans we're trying to reach.

THIS IS YOUR ARGUMENT: We own the Dallas, Houston, Fort Worth, San Antonio, and Austin markets. Sweat deal, no? Our television stations and their advertisers can sell product to all those people! Sweet. Now let's add that lucrative Waco market to the mix! Our advertisers can now sell product to Dallas, Houston, Fort Worth, San Antonio, Austin... and Waco. My argument, the one that, y'know, is being implemented by the Pac-10 (but who the hell are they, right?) is that since we own the Dallas, Houston, Fort Worth, San Antonio, and Austin markets already, let's bring in CU, who brings with them the Denver market. I've just gotten us Dallas, Houston, Fort Worth, San Antonio, Austin... and Denver, bumping up our market share -- both television percentage and total customers -- by MILLIONS.

We already own most of Texas. Your theory is redundant. My theory adds millions of television sets to sell to a network in our TV contract negotiations. You don't think that's substantiated? Go back to any of my posts which call you out for not knowing what's going on around you.

Substantiate that money is "the only reason why anyone does anything" in college football.

College football is a business. There, that was easy, right?

[oregontrack]

Just for the helluvit:

http://collegesportsblog.dallasnews.com ... n-apr.html

The politicking has gone public. Colorado probably has the backing of Pac-10 presidents, a stronger football tradition and a proximity to the Denver TV market.

LOL!!!!!!! Sorry, wheaton!

Baylor counters with growing support in the Texas Legislature, a better financial outlook and a much more competitive overall athletic program, especially when you factor basketball into the equation.

Now, according to Orangebloods.com along with corroborating sources of our own, Colorado will announce scholarship losses in football and men's basketball for failing to meet NCAA academic progress rate standards. Few programs get dinged so severely.

If that is the news, it couldn't come at a worse time for Colorado or a better time for Baylor

So not only is Colorado not in a good position financially, but they appear to be in shambles both on AND off the football team. Yet, we still offer them membership into the conference, and we don't even consider Baylor -- superior academically, athletically, and apparently, financially -- a candidate. LOL! Gee, I wonder why?

hahaha

[wheaton4prez]

You asked me if I had a degree in sports marketing. I answered your question. Try to hide your lady parts, Paula.

And you also asserted that I wrote something that I didn't. Not sure what your "lady parts" comment is about?

I have two dogs, I thought the last episode of LOST was well done, and I really hate people who wear socks with sandals. Everything I just said has just as much to do with the Pac-10 getting a new lucrative TV deal as what you said.

You asserting that what I write isn't true is not a valid argument.

Therein lies your problem. You think you're making quality points, but your own failed knowledge of the topic at hand handicaps you (which you ADMITTED!). There are indeed more people in Texas than Colorado. Spot on, champ. How do you know these people will watch Baylor football? You don't. You assume, "because they are in the same state." You have failed to substantiate your point. There is nothing to suggest a meaningless Baylor football game (which is OUT OF CONFERENCE in this scenario) would draw more viewers than Colorado, potentially playing a key conference game, the same conference that is home to the majority of Texans we're trying to reach.

The comparison I am assuming is not between Colorado being in the conference and Baylor being out. My assumption here is how they would compare if either was part of the conference. So, the "key conference game" aspect would apply to either team.

You do realize that you have now completely contradicted the basis for your own argument, right? The only sliver of logic you've offered in this discussion is based on the assumption that proximity to Denver means that Colorado will cause people in Denver to watch their games.

THIS IS YOUR ARGUMENT: We own the Dallas, Houston, Fort Worth, San Antonio, and Austin markets. Sweat deal, no? Our television stations and their advertisers can sell product to all those people! Sweet. Now let's add that lucrative Waco market to the mix! Our advertisers can now sell product to Dallas, Houston, Fort Worth, San Antonio, Austin... and Waco. My argument, the one that, y'know, is being implemented by the Pac-10 (but who the hell are they, right?) is that since we own the Dallas, Houston, Fort Worth, San Antonio, and Austin markets already, let's bring in CU, who brings with them the Denver market. I've just gotten us Dallas, Houston, Fort Worth, San Antonio, Austin... and Denver, bumping up our market share -- both television percentage and total customers -- by MILLIONS.

I've already pointed out the flaw in this argument. No one team controls all of the ad time in any of these markets. We would only have as many hours of the Dallas, Houston, etc. market as we have teams there. An additional team brings additional hours of games during which advertisements could be sold in the Dallas, Houston, etc. market.

We already own most of Texas. Your theory is redundant. My theory adds millions of television sets to sell to a network in our TV contract negotiations. You don't think that's substantiated? Go back to any of my posts which call you out for not knowing what's going on around you.

lol. I'm sorry. You're nuts.

No. You haven't substantiated this assertion. You making arrogant statements about me are not examples supporting your argument. If you need to pat yourself on the back with ad hominem attacks, it's no sweat off my back. Just don't kid yourself that you've made an intelligent point.

College football is a business. There, that was easy, right?

What the? Seriously, do you know what the word substantiation means?

Observing that "college football is a business" (it's an industry technically) does not prove or support that "money is the only reason why anyone does anything in college football."

[wheaton4prez]

LOL!!!!!!! Sorry, wheaton!

Why? This statement does nothing to contradict what I have written. I've never claimed that Colorado's proximity to Denver wasn't a feather in their cap. I haven't even claimed to know for certain which school brings the most market value.

What I have done is offer verifiable reasons for why the market offered by Baylor appears more valuable to me. On the other hand, you have offered no substantiated basis for your assertions while carrying on as if you know something we don't. If you are right in this case, it was either a guess or you are severely lacking in the ability to communicate the reasons for your beliefs.

So not only is Colorado not in a good position financially, but they appear to be in shambles both on AND off the football team. Yet, we still offer them membership into the conference, and we don't even consider Baylor -- superior academically, athletically, and apparently, financially -- a candidate. LOL! Gee, I wonder why?

Correction. Colorado ranks higher academically than Baylor and, as someone pointed out, is a member of the AAU to which all of the other Pac-10 schools belong. So, Colorado does have a bit of an edge academically.

There is no guarantee at this point that the Texas schools are on their way. If it ends up being a smaller expansion, Baylor would make much less sense without the other Texas schools. The Pac-10 may have felt that their best chance of winning over the Texas teams was to take another Big 12 program conclusively rather than leaving open a possibility that they would keep the Big 12 together with Colorado. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

[oregontrack]

You do realize that you have now completely contradicted the basis for your own argument, right? The only sliver of logic you've offered in this discussion is based on the assumption that proximity to Denver means that Colorado will cause people in Denver to watch their games.

I contradicted myself in no way. You just struggle paying attention from one post to another.

I've already pointed out the flaw in this argument. No one team controls all of the ad time in any of these markets. We would only have as many hours of the Dallas, Houston, etc. market as we have teams there. An additional team brings additional hours of games during which advertisements could be sold in the Dallas, Houston, etc. market.

How do you think advertising works? If Chiles wants to sell baby back ribs by buying five 30 second commercials to national markets to be aired during, say, a UT game, the affiliates air them. Under your theory, should we add Baylor instead of CU, 24 million people are getting 5 Chiles commercials during the UT game, and then 5 Chiles commercials again during the Baylor game. Chiles isn't reaching new people by trying to sell the same product to the same group of people twice. If we add CU over Baylor, suddenly Chiles is not just reaching 24 million people, they are reaching over 30 by selling product to a different group. This is why Baylor is redundant. Our TV contracts are not worth as much with Baylor in the fold, because we already effectively control all the markets in Texas. Our contracts get richer when we add Denver.

lol. I'm sorry. You're nuts.

No. You haven't substantiated this assertion. You making arrogant statements about me are not examples supporting your argument. If you need to pat yourself on the back with ad hominem attacks, it's no sweat off my back. Just don't kid yourself that you've made an intelligent point.

You haven't substantiated a thing because your entire premise depends on people within the Texas markets watching Baylor football. That is an assumption on your part, and it handicaps your argument. The fact that you think you're providing bulletproof reasoning here is hilarious.

What the? Seriously, do you know what the word substantiation means?

Observing that "college football is a business" (it's an industry technically) does not prove or support that "money is the only reason why anyone does anything in college football."

[/quote]

Money is the only reason anyone does anything in business. You know this.

[oregontrack]

Why? This statement does nothing to contradict what I have written. I've never claimed that Colorado's proximity to Denver wasn't a feather in their cap. I haven't even claimed to know for certain which school brings the most market value.

What I have done is offer verifiable reasons for why the market offered by Baylor appears more valuable to me. On the other hand, you have offered no substantiated basis for your assertions while carrying on as if you know something we don't. If you are right in this case, it was either a guess or you are severely lacking in the ability to communicate the reasons for your beliefs..

No, you haven't offered verifiable reasons for why the market offered by Baylor appears more valuable to you. But, as we learned in the evolution talks, if you close your eyes and cover your ears, you think you can justify anything, and you believe you're in a position to question everything said that you don't like. Isn't it funny how one conversation completely destroys another?

Correction. Colorado ranks higher academically than Baylor and, as someone pointed out, is a member of the AAU to which all of the other Pac-10 schools belong. So, Colorado does have a bit of an edge academically.

There is no guarantee at this point that the Texas schools are on their way. If it ends up being a smaller expansion, Baylor would make much less sense without the other Texas schools. The Pac-10 may have felt that their best chance of winning over the Texas teams was to take another Big 12 program conclusively rather than leaving open a possibility that they would keep the Big 12 together with Colorado. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush

LMAO. Yeah, maybe.

[wheaton4prez]

I contradicted myself in no way. You just struggle paying attention from one post to another.

Ok. So why do you think that Colorado "brings" the Denver market if it's neither due to proximity or being in the same state?

How do you think advertising works? If Chiles wants to sell baby back ribs by buying five 30 second commercials to national markets to be aired during, say, a UT game, the affiliates air them. Under your theory, should we add Baylor instead of CU, 24 million people are getting 5 Chiles commercials during the UT game, and then 5 Chiles commercials again during the Baylor game. Chiles isn't reaching new people by trying to sell the same product to the same group of people twice. If we add CU over Baylor, suddenly Chiles is not just reaching 24 million people, they are reaching over 30 by selling product to a different group. This is why Baylor is redundant. Our TV contracts are not worth as much with Baylor in the fold, because we already effectively control all the markets in Texas. Our contracts get richer when we add Denver.

The problem with this idea is that there are many companies that want to advertise. If you notice the advertising on football games, you will find that, even on the same networks, different games are "brought to you by" different products. The Baylor games are not made less valuable by Chilis only wanting the ad space for UT because Lexus or one of thousands of other companies also has advertising needs. The conference sells advertising space. They don't sell brand strategies.

Reach to a wide number of markets is Chili's concern, not the athletic conference. What matters to the conference in terms of revenue from advertising is the price they can take in for the ad space they have. If they take in more money selling ads in Texas than in Colorado, why would they care that Chili's is out making deals to buy space with some other network, for a lower price, in the Denver market?

You haven't substantiated a thing because your entire premise depends on people within the Texas markets watching Baylor football. That is an assumption on your part, and it handicaps your argument. The fact that you think you're providing bulletproof reasoning here is hilarious.

lol. What? I haven't substantiated something because of what my premise depends on?

My assumption is the same one you employ in regard to Colorado "bringing" the Denver market.

Money is the only reason anyone does anything in business. You know this.

As a business owner, I can assure you that this is not true.

No, you haven't offered verifiable reasons for why the market offered by Baylor appears more valuable to you.

Ok. Lets re-cap my argument then:

The Baylor market appears more valuable than the Colorado market, to me, because it is in a state with substantially more people in it. In order for the number of viewers to be higher in Colorado, fans there would have to be five times more likely to watch the games than Texans watching Baylor games. I would expect the ratio of viewers to be higher in Colorado. But, not five times more likely.

The only verifiable item that my position relies on is the population difference. Do you think that I am incorrect to claim that there are far more people in Texas than in Colorado?

But, as we learned in the evolution talks, if you close your eyes and cover your ears, you think you can justify anything, and you believe you're in a position to question everything said that you don't like. Isn't it funny how one conversation completely destroys another?

I am in a position to question anything that I don't like. How do you figure that I'm not?

[oregontrack]

Ok. So why do you think that Colorado "brings" the Denver market if it's neither due to proximity or being in the same state?

Why do I think Colorado brings the Denver market, or why do all these sources think Colorado brings the Denver market?

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_14979982

http://www.laobserved.com/intell/2010/0 ... pac-10.php

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5271438

Those are just the first three links I got from Google. I could add 20 more, if you want, but I think you get the picture. This is yet another instance of you thinking I'm arguing my opinion, when I merely stated a well documented fact. With CU, we get the Denver market. That's been established a hundred times over by every news agency who has covered the expansion talk.

The ESPN article is definitely worth a read for you -- one Pac-10 coach actually compares CU and Baylor, and says we would want to take CU, because CU gives us the Denver market, which is what we want. WHAT? Does that coach know we're missing out on Waco? LMAO! How damaging for your ego.

The problem with this idea is that there are many companies that want to advertise. If you notice the advertising on football games, you will find that, even on the same networks, different games are "brought to you by" different products. The Baylor games are not made less valuable by Chilis only wanting the ad space for UT because Lexus or one of thousands of other companies also has advertising needs. The conference sells advertising space. They don't sell brand strategies.

Chiles was just an example, because I was hungry when I wrote that. Rinse, repeat with whichever company you want. National brands want to reach the most customers possible. Your plan allows them to reach to reach 24 million, at most. My plan -- er, sorry, the Pac-10's plan -- gives national advertisers over 30 million. I don't know why numbers trouble you so.

Reach to a wide number of markets is Chili's concern, not the athletic conference. What matters to the conference in terms of revenue from advertising is the price they can take in for the ad space they have. If they take in more money selling ads in Texas than in Colorado, why would they care that Chili's is out making deals to buy space with some other network, for a lower price, in the Denver market?

Define "selling more ads in Texas" -- selling them to the markets covered by UT, or your crackpot crazy-person plan that includes Baylor?

lol. What? I haven't substantiated something because of what my premise depends on?

My assumption is the same one you employ in regard to Colorado "bringing" the Denver market.

No, you've apparently just managed to not read a single article about Pac-10 expansion that has come out over the past week.

You've "substantiated" your argument based on the premise that Texans watch Baylor football in large numbers. Your "substantiation" depends entirely on your premise, in this case. Since your premise is shaky at best, no, you haven't substantiated anything.

As a business owner, I can assure you that this is not true.

This has "wheaton's crackpot theories on life" written all over it, so I question to even go down this route, but... okay, then. I feel college football is a business that operates entirely around one goal: cold, hard cash. You dispute this... why?

No, you haven't offered verifiable reasons for why the market offered by Baylor appears more valuable to you.

Ok. Lets re-cap my argument then:

The Baylor market appears more valuable than the Colorado market, to me, because it is in a state with substantially more people in it. In order for the number of viewers to be higher in Colorado, fans there would have to be five times more likely to watch the games than Texans watching Baylor games. I would expect the ratio of viewers to be higher in Colorado. But, not five times more likely.

The only verifiable item that my position relies on is the population difference. Do you think that I am incorrect to claim that there are far more people in Texas than in Colorado?

Alright, I would like you to verify for me the number of people in Texas who watch Baylor football. Wait, you can't? Apparently your entire premise isn't so verifiable, is it?

I am in a position to question anything that I don't like. How do you figure that I'm not?

I said this in the context that you're oblivious to the world around you.

[wheaton4prez]

Why do I think Colorado brings the Denver market, or why do all these sources think Colorado brings the Denver market?

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.

Chiles was just an example, because I was hungry when I wrote that. Rinse, repeat with whichever company you want. National brands want to reach the most customers possible. Your plan allows them to reach to reach 24 million, at most. My plan -- er, sorry, the Pac-10's plan -- gives national advertisers over 30 million. I don't know why numbers trouble you so.

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.

Define "selling more ads in Texas" -- selling them to the markets covered by UT, or your crackpot crazy-person plan that includes Baylor?

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.

No, you've apparently just managed to not read a single article about Pac-10 expansion that has come out over the past week.

You've "substantiated" your argument based on the premise that Texans watch Baylor football in large numbers. Your "substantiation" depends entirely on your premise, in this case. Since your premise is shaky at best, no, you haven't substantiated anything.

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.

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.

This has "wheaton's crackpot theories on life" written all over it, so I question to even go down this route, but... okay, then. I feel college football is a business that operates entirely around one goal: cold, hard cash. You dispute this... why?

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.

Alright, I would like you to verify for me the number of people in Texas who watch Baylor football. Wait, you can't? Apparently your entire premise isn't so verifiable, is it?

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.

[Elduderino]

Ok. So why do you think that Colorado "brings" the Denver market if it's neither due to proximity or being in the same state?

Why do I think Colorado brings the Denver market, or why do all these sources think Colorado brings the Denver market?

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_14979982

http://www.laobserved.com/intell/2010/0 ... pac-10.php

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5271438

Those are just the first three links I got from Google. I could add 20 more, if you want, but I think you get the picture. This is yet another instance of you thinking I'm arguing my opinion, when I merely stated a well documented fact. With CU, we get the Denver market. That's been established a hundred times over by every news agency who has covered the expansion talk.

The ESPN article is definitely worth a read for you -- one Pac-10 coach actually compares CU and Baylor, and says we would want to take CU, because CU gives us the Denver market, which is what we want. WHAT? Does that coach know we're missing out on Waco? LMAO! How damaging for your ego.

The problem with this idea is that there are many companies that want to advertise. If you notice the advertising on football games, you will find that, even on the same networks, different games are "brought to you by" different products. The Baylor games are not made less valuable by Chilis only wanting the ad space for UT because Lexus or one of thousands of other companies also has advertising needs. The conference sells advertising space. They don't sell brand strategies.

Chiles was just an example, because I was hungry when I wrote that. Rinse, repeat with whichever company you want. National brands want to reach the most customers possible. Your plan allows them to reach to reach 24 million, at most. My plan -- er, sorry, the Pac-10's plan -- gives national advertisers over 30 million. I don't know why numbers trouble you so.

Reach to a wide number of markets is Chili's concern, not the athletic conference. What matters to the conference in terms of revenue from advertising is the price they can take in for the ad space they have. If they take in more money selling ads in Texas than in Colorado, why would they care that Chili's is out making deals to buy space with some other network, for a lower price, in the Denver market?

Define "selling more ads in Texas" -- selling them to the markets covered by UT, or your crackpot crazy-person plan that includes Baylor?

lol. What? I haven't substantiated something because of what my premise depends on?

My assumption is the same one you employ in regard to Colorado "bringing" the Denver market.

No, you've apparently just managed to not read a single article about Pac-10 expansion that has come out over the past week.

You've "substantiated" your argument based on the premise that Texans watch Baylor football in large numbers. Your "substantiation" depends entirely on your premise, in this case. Since your premise is shaky at best, no, you haven't substantiated anything.

As a business owner, I can assure you that this is not true.

This has "wheaton's crackpot theories on life" written all over it, so I question to even go down this route, but... okay, then. I feel college football is a business that operates entirely around one goal: cold, hard cash. You dispute this... why?

No, you haven't offered verifiable reasons for why the market offered by Baylor appears more valuable to you.

Ok. Lets re-cap my argument then:

The Baylor market appears more valuable than the Colorado market, to me, because it is in a state with substantially more people in it. In order for the number of viewers to be higher in Colorado, fans there would have to be five times more likely to watch the games than Texans watching Baylor games. I would expect the ratio of viewers to be higher in Colorado. But, not five times more likely.

The only verifiable item that my position relies on is the population difference. Do you think that I am incorrect to claim that there are far more people in Texas than in Colorado?

Alright, I would like you to verify for me the number of people in Texas who watch Baylor football. Wait, you can't? Apparently your entire premise isn't so verifiable, is it?

I am in a position to question anything that I don't like. How do you figure that I'm not?

I said this in the context that you're oblivious to the world around you.

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. Barring any unforeseen circumstances, Baylor will not be joining the conference all of this is irrelevant; except of course to the egos that have to have the last say. Honestly, who really cares? You both have valid points. Denver is a potentially large market for the conference to capitalize on; though traditionally Denver has not been a large college sports market (Larry Scott disagrees with me and he seems to be pretty good at his job so I'll take him at his word). As far as Baylor, oregontrack, have you ever been to Texas? Have you ever personally experienced the very large, very passionate fan base; much of which reside in the Dallas/Ft. Worth and Waco areas? Trust me when I tell you, because I do know that fanbase, that there is a quite healthy Baylor TV market to be capitalized on.

In the end though, it doesn't matter at all. The dominoes have fallen and we've seen who the conference values more. Time to all have a beer and relax.