Mukden wrote: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.
Mukden wrote: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.
Mukden wrote: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.
oregontrack wrote: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.
oregontrack wrote:The hell?
Do you need me to explain how your quote lends support to what I've been arguing?
oregontrack wrote: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.
uostudent wrote: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."