Altimore's Graphs are usually an attempt to prove a narrative that he is trying to push. I'm not sure if anyone has fact checked one of his charts though
Where Pitt ranks in CFB World
- Thread starter Hailpitt
- Start date
No, it's not.
At this point it's pretty obvious that you have no idea what the difference is between fact and opinion. Facts are simply things to be ignored if they don't fit your world view.
I’m not going to argue this whole thing again. But I would be curious to know what facts you believe directly oppose the chart.
Bruhhhh. He has stated it in this thread.
The *fact* that the reality of expansion did not come close to playing out as the chart said it should, is evidence that the chart is not remotely close to reality.
Yeah, but the facts I pointed out don't coincide with his opinion, so they don't really count.
Yeah, those facts align with the chart. So I don't see the problem you have with it.
So what you are saying is that either you can't read, or you are too dumb to understand what you are reading. Good to know.
Just look at his numbers. Which school was the 3rd most attractive in the PAC12? And what happened to them after the first two schools on the list left? That isn't the only problem with the numbers, but if you can manage to figure out the answer to that question you'll at least be on your way to having a minimal understanding.
See, that's where your "facts" go astray.
Is it a fact that Washington is essentially tied with Stanford? You ignored that fact.
Is it a fact that Washington and Oregon as a pair represent a different market than California? You ignore that fact.
Is it a fact that the B1G wanted different markets rather than just California? You have no idea.
Is it a fact that Stanford was not offered? You have no idea.
The facts are that 5 of the 6 teams that moved to other conferences were the 5 top teams in the chart (Washington so close to Stanford to be insignificant) and the 6th (Oregon) was likely chosen to have a geographic partnership, besides being essentially tied for 7th with Cal.
The fact is that attractiveness is not the sole determinant when a specific conference is looking for geographic partners.
The fact is that your argument is nonsense.
You could have saved everyone a lot of time in reading that by just posting "I have no idea what I'm talking about."
Because you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
LOL.
So what you are saying is that either you can't read, or you are too dumb to understand what you are reading. Good to know.
Buddy - your entire premise is the list is not right - but ya know - I will argue it is . Hint, if you have to say almost as equivalent, then shift criteria for the next point - it’s time to take a knee.
Saying nothing is free
throw out the meaningless Institutional Resources and Academic Success data point (as it is totally meaningless in the age of the mercenary college athlete) and re-run the numbers...
Similar threads
