(08-17-2014 07:44 AM)ODU AGGIE Wrote: [ -> ]I really don’t know anything about this web site, but to me, this is one of the best assessments of Monarch football that I have read this year.
http://www.vavel.com/en-us/ncaa/college-...archs.html
I was excited to read it after your endorsement, then I read the mistake in the first sentence ("after
six years of football").
How does anyone screw that up?
Yeah, the rest was a fair assessment.
Well, to give him the absolute benefit of the doubt, we did recruit players and have a football team for one year before we started playing -- so though not 100% accurately stated, the six years of football is correct, with five seasons of playing games.
(08-17-2014 08:28 AM)ODU AGGIE Wrote: [ -> ]Well, to give him the absolute benefit of the doubt, we did recruit players and have a football team for one year before we started playing -- so though not 100% accurately stated, the six years of football is correct, with five seasons of playing games.
Yeah but in the second paragraph he states our record, which was recorded over 5 seasons, not 6. It's minor, but it is easy to get right. He had the dates right in front of him.
(08-17-2014 07:44 AM)ODU AGGIE Wrote: [ -> ]I really don’t know anything about this web site, but to me, this is one of the best assessments of Monarch football that I have read this year.
http://www.vavel.com/en-us/ncaa/college-...archs.html
When i see that goddamned carolina game with 20-80 my heart burns with revenge Overall a good find Aggie
Great find Aggie!
The "6 year" error aside. that was otherwise a well thought out and concise analysis.
The data and the conclusions seem very sound to me.
That is a great article. Sounds right on with what most of us have been thinking. Thanks for sharing!