(05-31-2010 08:32 PM)ECU-DMB Fanatic Wrote:  

(05-31-2010 08:27 PM)buckaineer Wrote:  

(05-31-2010 08:24 PM)ECU-DMB Fanatic Wrote:  

(05-31-2010 08:18 PM)buckaineer Wrote:  

(05-31-2010 07:58 PM)ECU-DMB Fanatic Wrote:  

(05-31-2010 07:42 PM)buckaineer Wrote:  

(05-31-2010 07:14 PM)ECU-DMB Fanatic Wrote:  

(05-31-2010 06:43 PM)buckaineer Wrote:  

(05-31-2010 06:38 PM)Theodoresdaddy Wrote:  TCU is too far away unless Syracuse and UConn are gone from the conference

I would ask -too far away for what? I live in Ohio and can fly to Dallas directly on a reasonably short flight under a couple of hours. As the Big Ten commissioner stated his conference is looking down the road at future demographics which are heading south, the Big East might be wise to do this as well. TCU is a team that could be added now and would strengthen the conference in several ways including with the BCS. If current large market teams leave, they should especially become important.

Wow... I don't know where to start with your methodology, basically this is a worthless compilation of data.....Entertaining anyway!!!

I have included academics, competitiveness, facilities, attendance, information on financial potential and future demographics, recruiting grounds, etc.. What exactly would YOU include in a search for candidates?

I am not talking about the categories you included. I think that you could, in theory, put a ranking system together that would have some validity using these measurements. The problem is how the data is compiled. My issue is you trying to present this data as some unbiased statistical measure when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. Now if you dropped your categories that have opinion involved, used the same time frames in statistical data, and removed the categories that had some incomplete data you would at least have something with some validity.

You know, I love posters like you who never present anything constructive on these boards yet use baseless critiscism for those that do. Hey, you know, you are more than free to do the research I did and compile this wonder list. It's amazing how study after study shows the same results yet you keep coming up with other things because your school doesn't come out well. Everything I have included is valid and researchable. If you don't like the results do your own and post it.

This has nothing to do with ECU's rating....Hell, if you made the changes I was talking about ECU could very well come out with a lower rating. My point is that this information is far from statistically valid. So my argument is that your "research" is worthless. And I am not going to spend hours out of my day trying to put together some sort of statistical model to show who is or is not worthy of joining the Big East. If your are going to put something together like this you better be prepared for people to pick it apart....Sorry.

What part of my data is worthless? You spend hours a day on here criticizing everyone who doesn't think your school is the top choice, so why not use it for something positive. Don't come here and criticize my factual data if you have nothing but sour grapes and your opinion to back your statements up. I'll stand by all the facts presented above.

Bit and pieces of your data have value....What I am saying is worthless is the final ranking tabulation because it contains flawed data. Again, like I said this has nothing to do with ECU on my part, your flawed data could actually be helping ECU's ranking. And I think you know that this is true now that your argument has gone from the validity of your rankings to ECU. I never once mentioned ECU and its ranking as my issue with your "ranking" system.

You keep mentioning flawed data yet haven't shown any of it to be flawed. What data is flawed?

(05-31-2010 08:38 PM)buckaineer Wrote:  

(05-31-2010 08:32 PM)ECU-DMB Fanatic Wrote:  

(05-31-2010 08:27 PM)buckaineer Wrote:  

(05-31-2010 08:24 PM)ECU-DMB Fanatic Wrote:  

(05-31-2010 08:18 PM)buckaineer Wrote:  

(05-31-2010 07:58 PM)ECU-DMB Fanatic Wrote:  

(05-31-2010 07:42 PM)buckaineer Wrote:  

(05-31-2010 07:14 PM)ECU-DMB Fanatic Wrote:  

(05-31-2010 06:43 PM)buckaineer Wrote:  

(05-31-2010 06:38 PM)Theodoresdaddy Wrote:  TCU is too far away unless Syracuse and UConn are gone from the conference

I would ask -too far away for what? I live in Ohio and can fly to Dallas directly on a reasonably short flight under a couple of hours. As the Big Ten commissioner stated his conference is looking down the road at future demographics which are heading south, the Big East might be wise to do this as well. TCU is a team that could be added now and would strengthen the conference in several ways including with the BCS. If current large market teams leave, they should especially become important.

Wow... I don't know where to start with your methodology, basically this is a worthless compilation of data.....Entertaining anyway!!!

I have included academics, competitiveness, facilities, attendance, information on financial potential and future demographics, recruiting grounds, etc.. What exactly would YOU include in a search for candidates?

I am not talking about the categories you included. I think that you could, in theory, put a ranking system together that would have some validity using these measurements. The problem is how the data is compiled. My issue is you trying to present this data as some unbiased statistical measure when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. Now if you dropped your categories that have opinion involved, used the same time frames in statistical data, and removed the categories that had some incomplete data you would at least have something with some validity.

You know, I love posters like you who never present anything constructive on these boards yet use baseless critiscism for those that do. Hey, you know, you are more than free to do the research I did and compile this wonder list. It's amazing how study after study shows the same results yet you keep coming up with other things because your school doesn't come out well. Everything I have included is valid and researchable. If you don't like the results do your own and post it.

This has nothing to do with ECU's rating....Hell, if you made the changes I was talking about ECU could very well come out with a lower rating. My point is that this information is far from statistically valid. So my argument is that your "research" is worthless. And I am not going to spend hours out of my day trying to put together some sort of statistical model to show who is or is not worthy of joining the Big East. If your are going to put something together like this you better be prepared for people to pick it apart....Sorry.

What part of my data is worthless? You spend hours a day on here criticizing everyone who doesn't think your school is the top choice, so why not use it for something positive. Don't come here and criticize my factual data if you have nothing but sour grapes and your opinion to back your statements up. I'll stand by all the facts presented above.

Bit and pieces of your data have value....What I am saying is worthless is the final ranking tabulation because it contains flawed data. Again, like I said this has nothing to do with ECU on my part, your flawed data could actually be helping ECU's ranking. And I think you know that this is true now that your argument has gone from the validity of your rankings to ECU. I never once mentioned ECU and its ranking as my issue with your "ranking" system.

You keep mentioning flawed data yet haven't shown any of it to be flawed. What data is flawed?

Dude, I have referenced this several times and given examples, go back and read the entire thread for your answer. I am done here...We are just going around in circles now. It is what it is and that is fine, it is your ranking. But lets just call it what it is and not try to pretend it is some unbiased statistical model.....And again for the record this has nothing to do with ECU's ranking.

(05-31-2010 08:42 PM)ECU-DMB Fanatic Wrote:  

(05-31-2010 08:38 PM)buckaineer Wrote:  

(05-31-2010 08:32 PM)ECU-DMB Fanatic Wrote:  

(05-31-2010 08:27 PM)buckaineer Wrote:  

(05-31-2010 08:24 PM)ECU-DMB Fanatic Wrote:  

(05-31-2010 08:18 PM)buckaineer Wrote:  

(05-31-2010 07:58 PM)ECU-DMB Fanatic Wrote:  

(05-31-2010 07:42 PM)buckaineer Wrote:  

(05-31-2010 07:14 PM)ECU-DMB Fanatic Wrote:  

(05-31-2010 06:43 PM)buckaineer Wrote:  

(05-31-2010 06:38 PM)Theodoresdaddy Wrote:  TCU is too far away unless Syracuse and UConn are gone from the conference

I would ask -too far away for what? I live in Ohio and can fly to Dallas directly on a reasonably short flight under a couple of hours. As the Big Ten commissioner stated his conference is looking down the road at future demographics which are heading south, the Big East might be wise to do this as well. TCU is a team that could be added now and would strengthen the conference in several ways including with the BCS. If current large market teams leave, they should especially become important.

Wow... I don't know where to start with your methodology, basically this is a worthless compilation of data.....Entertaining anyway!!!

I have included academics, competitiveness, facilities, attendance, information on financial potential and future demographics, recruiting grounds, etc.. What exactly would YOU include in a search for candidates?

I am not talking about the categories you included. I think that you could, in theory, put a ranking system together that would have some validity using these measurements. The problem is how the data is compiled. My issue is you trying to present this data as some unbiased statistical measure when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. Now if you dropped your categories that have opinion involved, used the same time frames in statistical data, and removed the categories that had some incomplete data you would at least have something with some validity.

You know, I love posters like you who never present anything constructive on these boards yet use baseless critiscism for those that do. Hey, you know, you are more than free to do the research I did and compile this wonder list. It's amazing how study after study shows the same results yet you keep coming up with other things because your school doesn't come out well. Everything I have included is valid and researchable. If you don't like the results do your own and post it.

This has nothing to do with ECU's rating....Hell, if you made the changes I was talking about ECU could very well come out with a lower rating. My point is that this information is far from statistically valid. So my argument is that your "research" is worthless. And I am not going to spend hours out of my day trying to put together some sort of statistical model to show who is or is not worthy of joining the Big East. If your are going to put something together like this you better be prepared for people to pick it apart....Sorry.

What part of my data is worthless? You spend hours a day on here criticizing everyone who doesn't think your school is the top choice, so why not use it for something positive. Don't come here and criticize my factual data if you have nothing but sour grapes and your opinion to back your statements up. I'll stand by all the facts presented above.

Bit and pieces of your data have value....What I am saying is worthless is the final ranking tabulation because it contains flawed data. Again, like I said this has nothing to do with ECU on my part, your flawed data could actually be helping ECU's ranking. And I think you know that this is true now that your argument has gone from the validity of your rankings to ECU. I never once mentioned ECU and its ranking as my issue with your "ranking" system.

You keep mentioning flawed data yet haven't shown any of it to be flawed. What data is flawed?

Dude, I have referenced this several times and given examples, go back and read the entire thread for your answer.

dude, I have answered concisely to each question you've had. None of the data is flawed and I have shown this time and time again.

(05-31-2010 08:44 PM)buckaineer Wrote:  

(05-31-2010 08:42 PM)ECU-DMB Fanatic Wrote:  

(05-31-2010 08:38 PM)buckaineer Wrote:  

(05-31-2010 08:32 PM)ECU-DMB Fanatic Wrote:  

(05-31-2010 08:27 PM)buckaineer Wrote:  

(05-31-2010 08:24 PM)ECU-DMB Fanatic Wrote:  

(05-31-2010 08:18 PM)buckaineer Wrote:  

(05-31-2010 07:58 PM)ECU-DMB Fanatic Wrote:  

(05-31-2010 07:42 PM)buckaineer Wrote:  

(05-31-2010 07:14 PM)ECU-DMB Fanatic Wrote:  

(05-31-2010 06:43 PM)buckaineer Wrote:  

(05-31-2010 06:38 PM)Theodoresdaddy Wrote:  TCU is too far away unless Syracuse and UConn are gone from the conference

I would ask -too far away for what? I live in Ohio and can fly to Dallas directly on a reasonably short flight under a couple of hours. As the Big Ten commissioner stated his conference is looking down the road at future demographics which are heading south, the Big East might be wise to do this as well. TCU is a team that could be added now and would strengthen the conference in several ways including with the BCS. If current large market teams leave, they should especially become important.

Wow... I don't know where to start with your methodology, basically this is a worthless compilation of data.....Entertaining anyway!!!

I have included academics, competitiveness, facilities, attendance, information on financial potential and future demographics, recruiting grounds, etc.. What exactly would YOU include in a search for candidates?

I am not talking about the categories you included. I think that you could, in theory, put a ranking system together that would have some validity using these measurements. The problem is how the data is compiled. My issue is you trying to present this data as some unbiased statistical measure when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. Now if you dropped your categories that have opinion involved, used the same time frames in statistical data, and removed the categories that had some incomplete data you would at least have something with some validity.

You know, I love posters like you who never present anything constructive on these boards yet use baseless critiscism for those that do. Hey, you know, you are more than free to do the research I did and compile this wonder list. It's amazing how study after study shows the same results yet you keep coming up with other things because your school doesn't come out well. Everything I have included is valid and researchable. If you don't like the results do your own and post it.

This has nothing to do with ECU's rating....Hell, if you made the changes I was talking about ECU could very well come out with a lower rating. My point is that this information is far from statistically valid. So my argument is that your "research" is worthless. And I am not going to spend hours out of my day trying to put together some sort of statistical model to show who is or is not worthy of joining the Big East. If your are going to put something together like this you better be prepared for people to pick it apart....Sorry.

What part of my data is worthless? You spend hours a day on here criticizing everyone who doesn't think your school is the top choice, so why not use it for something positive. Don't come here and criticize my factual data if you have nothing but sour grapes and your opinion to back your statements up. I'll stand by all the facts presented above.

Bit and pieces of your data have value....What I am saying is worthless is the final ranking tabulation because it contains flawed data. Again, like I said this has nothing to do with ECU on my part, your flawed data could actually be helping ECU's ranking. And I think you know that this is true now that your argument has gone from the validity of your rankings to ECU. I never once mentioned ECU and its ranking as my issue with your "ranking" system.

You keep mentioning flawed data yet haven't shown any of it to be flawed. What data is flawed?

Dude, I have referenced this several times and given examples, go back and read the entire thread for your answer.

dude, I have answered concisely to each question you've had. None of the data is flawed and I have shown this time and time again.

..... Now I am really done, as you are clearly going to continue to argue in circles....We have been through this part already Have a nice night buckaineer.

(05-31-2010 08:53 PM)ECU-DMB Fanatic Wrote:  

(05-31-2010 08:44 PM)buckaineer Wrote:  

(05-31-2010 08:42 PM)ECU-DMB Fanatic Wrote:  

(05-31-2010 08:38 PM)buckaineer Wrote:  

(05-31-2010 08:32 PM)ECU-DMB Fanatic Wrote:  

(05-31-2010 08:27 PM)buckaineer Wrote:  

(05-31-2010 08:24 PM)ECU-DMB Fanatic Wrote:  

(05-31-2010 08:18 PM)buckaineer Wrote:  

(05-31-2010 07:58 PM)ECU-DMB Fanatic Wrote:  

(05-31-2010 07:42 PM)buckaineer Wrote:  

(05-31-2010 07:14 PM)ECU-DMB Fanatic Wrote:  

(05-31-2010 06:43 PM)buckaineer Wrote:  

(05-31-2010 06:38 PM)Theodoresdaddy Wrote:  TCU is too far away unless Syracuse and UConn are gone from the conference

I would ask -too far away for what? I live in Ohio and can fly to Dallas directly on a reasonably short flight under a couple of hours. As the Big Ten commissioner stated his conference is looking down the road at future demographics which are heading south, the Big East might be wise to do this as well. TCU is a team that could be added now and would strengthen the conference in several ways including with the BCS. If current large market teams leave, they should especially become important.

Wow... I don't know where to start with your methodology, basically this is a worthless compilation of data.....Entertaining anyway!!!

I have included academics, competitiveness, facilities, attendance, information on financial potential and future demographics, recruiting grounds, etc.. What exactly would YOU include in a search for candidates?

I am not talking about the categories you included. I think that you could, in theory, put a ranking system together that would have some validity using these measurements. The problem is how the data is compiled. My issue is you trying to present this data as some unbiased statistical measure when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. Now if you dropped your categories that have opinion involved, used the same time frames in statistical data, and removed the categories that had some incomplete data you would at least have something with some validity.

You know, I love posters like you who never present anything constructive on these boards yet use baseless critiscism for those that do. Hey, you know, you are more than free to do the research I did and compile this wonder list. It's amazing how study after study shows the same results yet you keep coming up with other things because your school doesn't come out well. Everything I have included is valid and researchable. If you don't like the results do your own and post it.

This has nothing to do with ECU's rating....Hell, if you made the changes I was talking about ECU could very well come out with a lower rating. My point is that this information is far from statistically valid. So my argument is that your "research" is worthless. And I am not going to spend hours out of my day trying to put together some sort of statistical model to show who is or is not worthy of joining the Big East. If your are going to put something together like this you better be prepared for people to pick it apart....Sorry.

What part of my data is worthless? You spend hours a day on here criticizing everyone who doesn't think your school is the top choice, so why not use it for something positive. Don't come here and criticize my factual data if you have nothing but sour grapes and your opinion to back your statements up. I'll stand by all the facts presented above.

Bit and pieces of your data have value....What I am saying is worthless is the final ranking tabulation because it contains flawed data. Again, like I said this has nothing to do with ECU on my part, your flawed data could actually be helping ECU's ranking. And I think you know that this is true now that your argument has gone from the validity of your rankings to ECU. I never once mentioned ECU and its ranking as my issue with your "ranking" system.

You keep mentioning flawed data yet haven't shown any of it to be flawed. What data is flawed?

Dude, I have referenced this several times and given examples, go back and read the entire thread for your answer.

dude, I have answered concisely to each question you've had. None of the data is flawed and I have shown this time and time again.

..... Now I am really done, as you are clearly going to continue to argue in circles....We have been through this part already Have a nice night buckaineer.

As I've stated numerous times, put up or shut up. You haven't questioned anything valid and I've explained all that you've asked. None of the complaints you have render anything as "flawed". If you feel you can make a better comparison rank then by all means do.

(05-31-2010 08:44 PM)buckaineer Wrote:  dude, I have answered concisely to each question you've had. None of the data is flawed and I have shown this time and time again.

I may have missed it browsing this thread...but....what does "future demographics state 2000-2030" actually mean? thanks. and for the record....ECU/Marshall is a rivalry...based on history.

(05-31-2010 08:59 PM)ECMAN79 Wrote:  

(05-31-2010 08:56 PM)ECMAN79 Wrote:  

(05-31-2010 08:44 PM)buckaineer Wrote:  dude, I have answered concisely to each question you've had. None of the data is flawed and I have shown this time and time again.

I may have missed it browsing this thread...but....what does "future demographics state 2000-2030" actually mean? thanks. and for the record....ECU/Marshall is a rivalry...based on history.

future demographics state 2000-2030 means what will the population change of a state be between the years posted. These figures are projected by statisticians. If you look at the chart you'll see that for the state ECU is in (NC) a 38.8 percent population growth is expected between 2000 and 2030.

ECU/Marshall? I have never seen ECU/Marshall listed anywhere as a rivalry on radio, tv, print or internet. Please provide links with professional media personnel referring to this as a rivalry game.

(05-31-2010 09:06 PM)buckaineer Wrote:  

(05-31-2010 08:59 PM)ECMAN79 Wrote:  

(05-31-2010 08:56 PM)ECMAN79 Wrote:  

(05-31-2010 08:44 PM)buckaineer Wrote:  dude, I have answered concisely to each question you've had. None of the data is flawed and I have shown this time and time again.

I may have missed it browsing this thread...but....what does "future demographics state 2000-2030" actually mean? thanks. and for the record....ECU/Marshall is a rivalry...based on history.

future demographics state 2000-2030 means what will the population change of a state be between the years posted. These figures are projected by statisticians. If you look at the chart you'll see that for the state ECU is in (NC) a 38.8 percent population growth is expected between 2000 and 2030.

ECU/Marshall? I have never seen ECU/Marshall listed anywhere as a rivalry on radio, tv, print or internet. Please provide links with professional media personnel referring to this as a rivalry game.

http://www.newbernsj.com/articles/strong...ville.html
wvgazette.com/Sports/200909280978

The 1970 plane crash + the GMAC bowl featuring Garrard vs. Leftwich + lots of close contests + 450 miles apart = rivalry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NCA...alry_games

above is a listing of recognized rivalries in college football. The only rivalry referencing ECU is against NC State.

Based on this list I should give two points to Southern Miss as they have a few rivalries. An interesting note is that Navy and SMU have a rivalry as well

(05-31-2010 08:58 PM)buckaineer Wrote:  As I've stated numerous times, put up or shut up. You haven't questioned anything valid and I've explained all that you've asked. None of the complaints you have render anything as "flawed". If you feel you can make a better comparison rank then by all means do.

Far be it from me to jump in someone else's pissing contest, but I have to point out to you that the criticisms that have been brought up are valid. You are presenting a lot of subjective data as objective, and defying anyone to question it. It is an argument you and I have had before, and you are on the wrong side of it. Some of your data is objective, such as revenue, endowment, school size, and market size. however, items like academic rating, recruiting, rivalries, geographic fit, and even proximity to others are clearly derived out of subjective data, and cannot be used in a quantitative measurement. You might be able to use some if you used standardized definitions to rank them. but even then, they are still subjective.

(05-31-2010 09:06 PM)buckaineer Wrote:  ECU/Marshall? I have never seen ECU/Marshall listed anywhere as a rivalry on radio, tv, print or internet.

(05-31-2010 09:14 PM)buckaineer Wrote:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NCA...alry_games

above is a listing of recognized rivalries in college football. The only rivalry referencing ECU is against NC State.

Based on this list I should give two points to Southern Miss as they have a few rivalries. An interesting note is that Navy and SMU have a rivalry as well

Since when is wikipedia considered a "professional media source"? you do realize i can go into wikipedia and put down "ECU vs. UCLA" is a rivalry? dude....it's not a reference to use in something like this.

Buc are you mad at ECU because they beat your WVU when they were ranked 8th in the nation? I heard of holding grudges but you are being a little ridiculous.

Well....according to the US Census Bureau, North Carolina will experience a 51.9 percent growth rate between 2000-2030.
New York, on the other hand, will experience a 2.6 percent growth rate. Ohio = 1.7% growth; Texas = 59.8%
West Virginia = -4.9%

table 1 of the Census site:

http://www.census.gov/population/www/pro...gesex.html

it's an excel spreadsheet.....Buckaineer....I think you misread the 2nd to last column of the spreadsheet. You have to look at column G and column I of the spreadsheet to see states and their respective growth percentages.

(05-31-2010 09:15 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(05-31-2010 08:58 PM)buckaineer Wrote:  As I've stated numerous times, put up or shut up. You haven't questioned anything valid and I've explained all that you've asked. None of the complaints you have render anything as "flawed". If you feel you can make a better comparison rank then by all means do.

Far be it from me to jump in someone else's pissing contest, but I have to point out to you that the criticisms that have been brought up are valid. You are presenting a lot of subjective data as objective, and defying anyone to question it. It is an argument you and I have had before, and you are on the wrong side of it. Some of your data is objective, such as revenue, endowment, school size, and market size. however, items like academic rating, recruiting, rivalries, geographic fit, and even proximity to others are clearly derived out of subjective data, and cannot be used in a quantitative measurement. You might be able to use some if you used standardized definitions to rank them. but even then, they are still subjective.

A yes, Adcorbett here to criticize. Where exactly did I not answer any questions that have been asked? Name data that is subjective other than the academies endowments which are explained and have been more than once? Academic rating-from official sources not subjective on my part at all (another incorrect statement by you), recruiting-from official site that quantifies such information, not subjective on my part at all (another incorrect statement by you), rivalries--again can be factually checked-(another incorrect statement by you), geographic fit--all explained precisely 1 for yes, 2 for yes if certain contiguous programs are added, 3 for no, no matter who you add they don't match up geographically with anyone as in being in the same or contiguous state--again all of this can be simply factually checked--(another incorrect statement by you). Once again you make false, incorrect statements with nothing to back any of them and derogatory statements about me without anything to back that up. Every single thing in the above charts can be factually checked. Could items be added to this list from other sources? yes as with any study. Does that make what is presented "flawed"? No.

For example, no one can make any of the current Big East states, or states added if any of these candidates are, contiguous to North Carolina. Therefore ECU received a 3 for not a geographic fit. Are you disputing the recruiting information provided? Then give factual information to back this up and contact the official source providing the information with your conclusions. I could go on, but I've already gone over this and there is no point.

ECU and Marshall aren't rivals? Really??

(05-31-2010 09:36 PM)HowardD11 Wrote:  ECU and Marshall aren't rivals? Really??

It may not have a trophy associated with it...like "keg of nails"....but.....due to sheer history....it most certainly is a rivalry.

(05-31-2010 09:23 PM)ECMAN79 Wrote:  Well....according to the US Census Bureau, North Carolina will experience a 51.9 percent growth rate between 2000-2030.
New York, on the other hand, will experience a 2.6 percent growth rate. Ohio = 1.7% growth; Texas = 59.8%
West Virginia = -4.9%

table 1 of the Census site:

http://www.census.gov/population/www/pro...gesex.html

it's an excel spreadsheet.

The chart I used is also a US Census bureau spreadsheet. I will take a look at the spreadsheet again and check that I accurately posted the data, if not I will correct when I can.

(05-31-2010 09:37 PM)ECMAN79 Wrote:  

(05-31-2010 09:36 PM)HowardD11 Wrote:  ECU and Marshall aren't rivals? Really??

It may not have a trophy associated with it...like "keg of nails"....but.....due to sheer history....it most certainly is a rivalry.

Not recognized by an official source as one, therefore I won't post as such.

(05-31-2010 09:31 PM)buckaineer Wrote:  Name data that is subjective other than the academies endowments which are explained and have been more than once? Academic rating-from official sources not subjective at all (another incorrect statement by you), recruiting-from official site that quantifies such information, not subjective at all (another incorrect statement by you)...

Did you even read what you quoted? I never said endowments were subjective; I specifically said they were objective. Then, I listed several items that were subjective. Regardless of what you think, it is an indisputable fact that academic ratings are purely subjective, even if they use some objective data. And did you really say that recruiting rankings are not subjective? I hope you never leave the house without wearing a helmet. I am not even going to continue dissecting your ridiculous post at this point. I will let the others finish you off.

(05-31-2010 09:39 PM)buckaineer Wrote:  

(05-31-2010 09:37 PM)ECMAN79 Wrote:  

(05-31-2010 09:36 PM)HowardD11 Wrote:  ECU and Marshall aren't rivals? Really??

It may not have a trophy associated with it...like "keg of nails"....but.....due to sheer history....it most certainly is a rivalry.

Not recognized by an official source as one, therefore I won't post as such.

I posted two sources....two print journalists.......that's what you asked for.