That would be cool with me if they do a re-make.
Yes but in effect that means all the time, effort and money put into making the short in the first place has been wasted. I'm not saying that some form of visual aid during pitching might not be useful but actually making a complete pilot episode knowing that it's all going to be dumped seems pointless. Not to mention that your finalised realisation of your script could just as easily work against you as for you.
I don't need a treated audio room to make things meet broadcast specifications do I? I understand the advantages of it but I'm just talking about if I want to broadcast without breaking any laws.
To just meet minimum legal requirements, then "no", you don't need a treated mix room. However, meeting minimum legal requirements (CALM Act, ATSC A85) is only one step towards meeting specific broadcaster audio requirements. As an extreme example, it would be possible to meet legal A85 requirements with a hideously crappy mix (inaudible dialogue for example) which obviously won't get past the front door of any broadcaster's ingest dept even though it's A85 compliant. There's no easy answer to your question as different broadcasters have different expectations of quality. To meet the expectations of the smallest TV stations you could almost certainly get away with an untreated mix room. As you move higher up the food chain, an accurate mix environment becomes more essential.
There's got to be some kind of text book I can read. I've been posting here for a while now but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be able to say anything about sound without getting contradicted by someone more knowledgeable.
No, not only have I never heard of such a book but I can't even imagine how such a book could be written! Modern technology makes sound for film/TV appear pretty easy and straight forward and indeed for home videos and self hosting it is. But, with commercial theatrical systems and TV broadcast we're dealing with a whole range of complex technology, complex distribution models and market requirements, complex consumer protections AND usually higher aesthetic quality expectations as well! All of which means that at the commercial level there really is no alternative to specialist sound for picture audio post professionals and to become an audio post pro requires a considerable amount of technical knowledge (which regularly needs updating), practical experience and the right equipment. Unlike music mixing/production, it can't be learned from books alone, from audio schools/courses or be entirely self-taught.
Radio and small (local and public access) TV stations use fairly complex multi-band limiters installed on the broadcast chain to smash all the audio into a broadcast-able signal. In these cases you don't need much specialist knowledge and can get away with almost anything, as you can with Youtube (and other hosting platforms) which effectively have no quality controls or technical requirements. You can also get away with almost anything even at the higher commercial levels in some of the less well developed countries/territories. Youtube is primarily aimed at members of the public sharing their home videos, so I don't see anything changing there any time soon. The bigger, more commercial VOD providers have and are introducing tighter audio quality controls and there's even rumblings in the world of Radio. "Mastered for iTunes" is just such an initiative and the EBU (European Broadcast Union) is currently working on an entirely new set of specs for European radio broadcasters which reduces the variability and quality issues caused by crushing everything with broadcast limiters.
Learning who and what type/level of audio post personnel you need is certainly extremely useful (and essential at the commercial level), as is learning how to direct them and enable them to do their job efficiently/effectively but actually trying to learn commercial audio post yourself is a futile waste of your time (unless you actually want to be a specialist audio post pro)!
G