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