Comments on: BYU no longer fittest… http://www.bloggernacle.org/byu-no-longer-fittest/ Sat, 26 Mar 2011 19:45:28 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 By: Clark Goble http://www.bloggernacle.org/byu-no-longer-fittest/#comment-14413 Clark Goble Thu, 26 Oct 2006 05:21:38 +0000 http://www.bloggernacle.org/?p=466#comment-14413 To add, since that came off whiney, I was pretty skeptical of last year's ranking of BYU as well. To add, since that came off whiney, I was pretty skeptical of last year’s ranking of BYU as well.

]]> By: Clark Goble http://www.bloggernacle.org/byu-no-longer-fittest/#comment-14410 Clark Goble Thu, 26 Oct 2006 05:21:00 +0000 http://www.bloggernacle.org/?p=466#comment-14410 KSL had a story earlier this week on this story. They tried to contact the magazine to see what had changed in the criteria but no answer was given. Something smells fishy about the whole survey if you ask me. KSL had a story earlier this week on this story. They tried to contact the magazine to see what had changed in the criteria but no answer was given. Something smells fishy about the whole survey if you ask me.

]]> By: John Mansfield http://www.bloggernacle.org/byu-no-longer-fittest/#comment-14137 John Mansfield Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:45:32 +0000 http://www.bloggernacle.org/?p=466#comment-14137 This year's #1, Dickinson College, wasn't in last year's top 25 either. There's not much overlap between the two years' lists. I think it means that last year they were hoping to get their magazine noticed in one set of communities, and this year the marketing is directed at a new set. This year’s #1, Dickinson College, wasn’t in last year’s top 25 either. There’s not much overlap between the two years’ lists. I think it means that last year they were hoping to get their magazine noticed in one set of communities, and this year the marketing is directed at a new set.

]]> By: BrianJ http://www.bloggernacle.org/byu-no-longer-fittest/#comment-14098 BrianJ Tue, 24 Oct 2006 13:22:29 +0000 http://www.bloggernacle.org/?p=466#comment-14098 <i>"availability of...fitness trainers."</i> Seems like a silly criterion. I get the reasoning, but I think if you want to measure fitness, "access" is a poor way to do it. (Three of my good friends are orthopedic surgeons; does that mean my knees are healthier than yours?) “availability of…fitness trainers.”

Seems like a silly criterion. I get the reasoning, but I think if you want to measure fitness, “access” is a poor way to do it. (Three of my good friends are orthopedic surgeons; does that mean my knees are healthier than yours?)

]]>