(01-09-2012 09:26 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  CD, taking offense at a clown moniker is kind of silly. Clowns are amusing, make us feel better about ourselves, and are the favorites of children everywhere...

If somebody called me a clown, I'd shake their hand, laugh in their face, and hit 'em in the eye with a pie...

What you would do is asinine. The fact is, Quo routinely resorts to ad hominem attacks when he loses arguments - evidently he's the only one here that doesn't know he loses them constantly - and I'm just surprised nobody has pointed out that it's a violation of board policy. I'm not saying he gets a longer leash or anything, I'm just saying I think it's interesting and I, for one, will continue to point it out when it happens and I hope others will too.

Quote:saying someones opinion is uneducated is a factual claim

I lol'd.

(01-09-2012 09:51 AM)CD11 Wrote:  

(01-09-2012 09:26 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  CD, taking offense at a clown moniker is kind of silly. Clowns are amusing, make us feel better about ourselves, and are the favorites of children everywhere...

If somebody called me a clown, I'd shake their hand, laugh in their face, and hit 'em in the eye with a pie...

What you would do is asinine. The fact is, Quo routinely resorts to ad hominem attacks when he loses arguments - evidently he's the only one here that doesn't know he loses them constantly.

You seriously think i lost the arguments with the uneducated opinion of Bearcats and the clown who thought Vandy finished 4th in the SEC?

PS - isn't it a violation of forum policy to call a moderator asinine?

It doesn't bother me, Steve. I don't have 9 asses. There's only one. So it's not a problem...

(01-09-2012 10:00 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-09-2012 09:51 AM)CD11 Wrote:  

(01-09-2012 09:26 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  CD, taking offense at a clown moniker is kind of silly. Clowns are amusing, make us feel better about ourselves, and are the favorites of children everywhere...

If somebody called me a clown, I'd shake their hand, laugh in their face, and hit 'em in the eye with a pie...

What you would do is asinine. The fact is, Quo routinely resorts to ad hominem attacks when he loses arguments - evidently he's the only one here that doesn't know he loses them constantly.

You seriously think i lost the arguments with the uneducated opinion of Bearcats and the clown who thought Vandy finished 4th in the SEC?

PS - isn't it a violation of forum policy to call a moderator asinine?

You didn't lose your argument to me....we just disagree as to the value of the report you posted.

you think it means something....I don't. We just disagree (like usual).

Let me give you an example...people on here regularly use Sagarin to show the Big East is better than the ACC and you say the Sagarin is worthless. That's your opinion. The fact is Sagarin uses Stats just like the report us posted for this thread. You choose to believe said report means something, I don't. Just like I think the Sagarin means something, and you don't. Case closed.

(01-09-2012 10:31 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(01-09-2012 10:00 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-09-2012 09:51 AM)CD11 Wrote:  

(01-09-2012 09:26 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  CD, taking offense at a clown moniker is kind of silly. Clowns are amusing, make us feel better about ourselves, and are the favorites of children everywhere...

If somebody called me a clown, I'd shake their hand, laugh in their face, and hit 'em in the eye with a pie...

What you would do is asinine. The fact is, Quo routinely resorts to ad hominem attacks when he loses arguments - evidently he's the only one here that doesn't know he loses them constantly.

You seriously think i lost the arguments with the uneducated opinion of Bearcats and the clown who thought Vandy finished 4th in the SEC?

PS - isn't it a violation of forum policy to call a moderator asinine?

You didn't lose your argument to me....we just disagree as to the value of the report you posted.

you think it means something....I don't. We just disagree (like usual).

Let me give you an example...people on here regularly use Sagarin to show the Big East is better than the ACC and you say the Sagarin is worthless. That's your opinion. The fact is Sagarin uses Stats just like the report us posted for this thread. You choose to believe said report means something, I don't. Just like I think the Sagarin means something, and you don't. Case closed.

I do not recall saying Sagarin is worthless. I like Sagarin, and fwiw, i agree the Big East was better than the ACC this year, as indicated by my BCS Conference Comparison. But, i prefer Massey's compilation site, since no single computer formula is perfect:

http://masseyratings.com/cf/compare.htm

PS - analogizing preferences about Sagarin to this study doesn't make sense, because whereas there are no field-wide accepted principles about what should be included in a formula that ranks college football team performance, there are established principles about how to value assets, and this professor surely either followed them or else had cogent reasons for deviating from them that you nor I are qualified to judge. Thus, the better analogy is the one i invoked about you choosing to regard your medical doctor's interpretation of your blood test as merely his opinion, which you happen to disagree with (and which is silly, of course).

(01-07-2012 09:00 PM)GoCougars Wrote:  These valuations are highly suspect when I see that Rice has a higher valuation than Houston.

Rice U has a ton of money. They just choose not spend it on their sports. But the people who can give and do give to the program give in BIG AMOUNTS. If Rice ever decided they wanted to get dirty and rise up they have about $6 billion dollars at that school just sitting in their endowment pockets doing nothing. They literally could compete monetarily with a Stanford in terms of their teams getting money. It is the Student Gov't that holds them back.

(01-08-2012 06:03 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-08-2012 05:18 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(01-08-2012 03:45 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  You guys haven't offered any evidence that the study's findings are wrong. You just do not like the valuation for your favorite teams.

ditto

You like the evaluation because it plays into content you are always blathering in here....

You say it's valid...fine. We don't think so.
end of story

next....

Ditto? As if your uneducated opinion is equal to that of the expert who conducted the study?

Was it a study What are the parameters and if the same method given to another group would the conditions lend itself to repeatability. That is when a study is good. Kind of like when pharmaceutical companies say that high cholesterol is associated with risk of heart attack so you need to take this drug. But they never say that the drug, even though it lowers cholesteral has any effect on reducing heart attacks. But for a message board we are never about proving anything. Quite frankly, this is for fun and methodology makes it feel like work. I'll accept the study in a relative manner...but it has no real strength at this point.

(01-09-2012 10:00 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  PS - isn't it a violation of forum policy to call a moderator asinine?

No, sweetie, I called his actions asinine. There's a difference between calling a person asinine and a person's actions asinine.

Maybe if you'd actually gone to Georgetown instead of being a bandwagoner, you could've been a little bit more educated in these intricacies. Try to keep up next time.

(01-09-2012 11:46 PM)CD11 Wrote:  

(01-09-2012 10:00 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  PS - isn't it a violation of forum policy to call a moderator asinine?

No, sweetie, I called his actions asinine. There's a difference between calling a person asinine and a person's actions asinine.

A distinction utterly without a difference. You fooled no one.

(01-09-2012 09:21 PM)UHRedcat96 Wrote:  

(01-08-2012 06:03 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-08-2012 05:18 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(01-08-2012 03:45 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  You guys haven't offered any evidence that the study's findings are wrong. You just do not like the valuation for your favorite teams.

ditto

You like the evaluation because it plays into content you are always blathering in here....

You say it's valid...fine. We don't think so.
end of story

next....

Ditto? As if your uneducated opinion is equal to that of the expert who conducted the study?

Was it a study What are the parameters and if the same method given to another group would the conditions lend itself to repeatability. That is when a study is good.

... and what makes you think this study fails on this criterion?

Steve, I remember a study done by Harvard on chemical contamination in West Virginia's Kanawha Valley. Harvard finished their study, which was certified by the federal government, and later disputed by Dr. Basudeb DasSarma of WV State. The government felt the study fit all the criteria they had set down. The problem was the study was done haphazardly, and multiple contaminants were misidentified by the experts sent to study them and their effects on the human population living nearby. Dr. DasSarma made the folks from the government and Harvard look like idiots in short order over that study...

BTW, I helped Professor DasSarma set up his air quality testing stations on top of the WV State Chemistry building, which sits just downwind of the only plant left in the world which still manufactures the chemical that leaked at the Carbide plant in Bhopal, India, killing everyone for miles around the Bhopal plant (MIC, or methyl iso-cyanate). That was just one of the chemicals the Harvard study misidentified. Professor DasSarma began testing the air quality, and idetifying chemical leakages from that plant, starting with his arrival in Institute, WV on the WV State campus. The Harvard folks thought a quick study, with the Harvard name behind it, would be enough to whitewash over the real facts. Professor DasSarma dissuaded them of that notion in short order...

So just because something fits the criteria, it doesn't mean it's correct...

(01-10-2012 09:42 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Steve, I remember a study done by Harvard on chemical contamination in West Virginia's Kanawha Valley. Harvard finished their study, which was certified by the federal government, and later disputed by Dr. Basudeb DasSarma of WV State. The government felt the study fit all the criteria they had set down. The problem was the study was done haphazardly, and multiple contaminants were misidentified by the experts sent to study them and their effects on the human population living nearby. Dr. DasSarma made the folks from the government and Harvard look like idiots in short order over that study...

BTW, I helped Professor DasSarma set up his air quality testing stations on top of the WV State Chemistry building, which sits just downwind of the only plant left in the world which still manufactures the chemical that leaked at the Carbide plant in Bhopal, India, killing everyone for miles around the Bhopal plant (MIC, or methyl iso-cyanate). That was just one of the chemicals the Harvard study misidentified. Professor DasSarma began testing the air quality, and idetifying chemical leakages from that plant, starting with his arrival in Institute, WV on the WV State campus. The Harvard folks thought a quick study, with the Harvard name behind it, would be enough to whitewash over the real facts. Professor DasSarma dissuaded them of that notion in short order...

So just because something fits the criteria, it doesn't mean it's correct...

Obviously, a study even by experts can be bungled. But, one has to have a basis for criticizing the study. In your example, other experts scrutinized the Harvard study and generated evidence that it was flawed.

But in this case, all we have is fans of teams, none of whom are experts in finance, criticizing the football valuation study with no evidence other than that they do not like the results of the study. That is not a sound basis for criticism.

There was one finance expert that weighed in. But he seems to have been ignored, or dismissed out of hand...

(01-10-2012 10:01 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  There was one finance expert that weighed in. But he seems to have been ignored, or dismissed out of hand...

Who?

Look back in this thread. I forget the guy's name...

Bit....it doesn't matter. This study is conclusive proof the Big East sucks and we are all dead in the water. Just accept Quo's analysis. And have some more of his koolaid.

You may have a point there, dude...