It's always been entertaining for us Baylor faithful and those in Texas to hear the perpetuated lies of how Ann Richards, etc got Baylor into the Big 12. Yet no facts are ever communicated.
So it's not true? Or the facts just weren't communicated? Why do you think Rice and TCU etc...hold on so tightly to those non-facts?
You do realize that the last decade of the SWC Baylor had the second best record of any SWC team, don't you?
And Waco's standard of living is higher than Lubbock's. We know, we know...
They also won two conference championships and played in numerous bowls, back when making a bowl actually meant something. Unfortunately frmo 1996 to 2007, a former religious professor (promoted to university President - say what?!?) and a music salesman (college roomie of said religious professor given the Athletics Director job), buried the football program.
I don't know much of Colorado's football history other than they won a share of a national title in 1990 after the 5th down debacle and typically have had a pretty decent program, but no one could argue that Colorado has been more successful than Baylor even in the Big 12. Football is basically the only thing we suck at and Art Briles is slowly turning that ship around.
Regarding the underlined part: Maybe you should look it up before drawing you're conclusions. It happens to be a large part of our discussions.
Regarding the bolded part: That can be taken two ways. Please, tell me that you're suggesting that Baylor, not Colorado has been more successful in Big XII play. For the record, it encompasses the worst time in our football history--and it's still superior to Baylor's. What do you mean in that bolded selection, exactly?
For what it's worth, Colorado is ranked 42 schools ahead of Baylor in all-time wins. Baylor has won fewer less than fifty percent of its games in its history.
Of course, Colorado has played 37 more games than Texas' oldest universty, so maybe those rankings aren't fair. But of course, we could spot Baylor those 37 games--assume that The Bears would win them all--and it still wouldn't make much of a dent.
Academically, there are plenty of rankings, etc that speak for themselves and people can come to their own conclusions.
Academic rankings are academic rankings. Take them or leave them, but they overwhelmingly favor CU (although I think Baylor snuck in a place ahead in a recent U.S. News report). I'm sure those listings will be linked before this thread is over.
Yet somehow Buddy Jones stated Baylor's academic superiority as a fact. So you'll have to talk to him, rather than preach at us on this one.
Financially, is it hard to understand when the country is bombarded with news that the PAC-10 wants to back out of their knee jerk to try to block Baylor from the PAC-10 and Colorado can't find a couple of million to leave on time that people question what type of operation they're running up there?
What are you talking about? The Pac 10 never backed down and offered Baylor membership. When was the country bombarded with this news? Was Baylor
ever offered membership in the Pac? ,
And CU is actually transferring
earlier than originally arranged. You're statement about not leaving on time is completely wrong.
Maybe I don't understand your statement above, but the entire thing appears completely false to me.
Colorado also supports the bare minimum number of sports teams. Have you ever been to Baylor campus? Some of the finest facilities in the country - I've never seen CU's facilities so at a minimum, we'll call that a push.
The number of sports that CU fields is a thorn in our side--we hope to improve on that in the Pac 10. Again, you're making conclusions on things you admit to not knowing about. Your credibility is top notch with me.
I confess that Baylor's football stadium's seats are among the finest I've seen. They look both sturdy and comfortable. Do you want to know how
I know your stadium's seats look like?
Fact remains, what is going on in the NCAA is ruining college athletics. Also, had the PAC-10 just taken the Big 12 south, they'd have gotten all they were really after, which was Texas.
The Pac really did want UT Austin.
But is there any evidence that Texas would have gone if Baylor was included in the package? I saw nothing which indicated that Texas wanted Baylor to tag along. Nothing.
In fact, according to a leak from the Pac 10, the collapse in negotiations had nothing to do with the inclusion/exclusion of Baylor in the package. Instead, it seemed that Texas wanted to change revenue distribution at the 11th hour, even though the terms had been agreed upon months in advance. According to the Pac leak, they refused Texas' new terms, and left the deal feeling that Texas had been lest than forthright in their negotiations.
Do you really, really believe that Baylor, or the other teams in the Big XII South had anything to do with Texas's decision? Really?
Baylor has significant ties in Texas and is the oldest university in the state. It has created one of the finest health care training and facilities in the entire state of Texas. It's mark is all over the state of Texas and her contributions are many. To leave her behind for the likes of some of the other schools was frankly laughable when it all comes down to a decade of bad football.
If that was the case, Colorado wouldn't be considered in any scenario either.
Exactly! That should tell you--despite your ridiculous claims regarding Baylor--how much more Colorado brings to the table. It's about football, and so much more.