Article about Texas goaltenders

[atb9]

Fraternity and Sorority rush is taking place this week.  Classes resume next week.

[BCrespi]

I'm a little worried about turnout this weekend.  You never know, but there's definitely a good number of people up here.  I suppose we'll just have to wait and see which scares me for such an enormously important weekend.  

Let's Go Red

[marty]

[Q]atb9 Wrote:

 Fraternity and Sorority rush is taking place this week.  Classes resume next week.[/q]

I have wondered for the last few years whether any on the students try to make their season tickets available so that they could make a few dollars and so that alumni could could buy them.  This type of session break ticket exchange could be worth looking into.

I hope I remember to bring it up in '06.

[marty]

[Q]billhoward Wrote:

 One can think of Albany as a pleasant enough .... Meanwhile do some good there.

[/q]

The greatest good would be an expose concerning a certain D-1 program that since 1994 has had a competent assistant coach masquerading as a head coach.  RIP.

[atb9]

If there are games at the end of rush like there are this weekend, some fraternities group their pool of tickets to take rushees to the games for a last minute push.  For the students not involved in rush, the games come after add/drop so I would suspect most students will be back on campus.  I don't think you have to worry about turn out...but it is a hectic week for students involved in rush so this large population won't be involved in the build up to the games.

[jeh25]

[Q]KeithK Wrote:
Obviously as the price of fuel increases the value of fuel efficiencies increases as well.

If the discrepency is due to using out of date data then it's bad reporting (and lack of understanding of how to use data), not bad math.
[/q]

True, except that if you reread my original post, you'll see they stipulated $2/gallon, not me, so who knows...

[jeh25]

[Q]Steve M Wrote:
no one seems to have much to say, either here or on USCHO, about this weekend's big games against Dartmouth and Vermont.  I haven't seen Ari's column either.   [/q]

Without comment, there can be no woofing....  :-)

[jeh25]

[Q]Al DeFlorio Wrote:

 [Q2]jeh25 Wrote:
Anyway, unless they made some really wierd ass assumptions, I just don't see how they arrived at 40k miles. You can't drive more than 100% highway. And if they made wierd ass nonintuitive assumptions, they should have told us so.[/Q]
If maintenance costs were higher with the diesel, it would push out the breakeven point.[/q]

It would indeed. I can't speak to that directly. All I know is that my Jetta gets a $6 filter and $22 of full synthetic Delvac 1 every 10k miles per OEM instructions. Not exactly a wallet buster.  

[Al DeFlorio]

[Q]jeh25 Wrote:

 [Q2]Al DeFlorio Wrote:

 [Q2]jeh25 Wrote:
Anyway, unless they made some really wierd ass assumptions, I just don't see how they arrived at 40k miles. You can't drive more than 100% highway. And if they made wierd ass nonintuitive assumptions, they should have told us so.[/Q]
If maintenance costs were higher with the diesel, it would push out the breakeven point.[/Q]
It would indeed. I can't speak to that directly. All I know is that my Jetta gets a $6 filter and $22 of full synthetic Delvac 1 every 10k miles per OEM instructions. Not exactly a wallet buster.[/q]
I don't know either.  I'm told diesels require "less maintenance," but that term could not be applied to any Benz I ever owned. ::uhoh::

Some of the German manufacturers give--or used to give--free maintenance up to so many tens-of-thousands miles.

[ben03]

thread drift is a wonderful thing  ::yark::

[KeithK]

[q]True, except that if you reread my original post, you'll see they stipulated $2/gallon, not me, so who knows... [/q]Ah, I missed that - I wrongly assumed it was your number.  OK, I'm more inclined to agree that this is a math error now.  Or else they used some widely disparate mileage figures.

The thread can stop drifting this way now :-)

[jeh25]

[Q]KeithK Wrote:

The thread can stop drifting this way now  :-) [/q]

Just a final thought to wrap it and bring it back to the journalism accuracy angle so we can stop drifting before Doyle yarks.

We've ruled out fuel cost assumptions. We've ruled out city/highway mix. And upkeep cost angle seems rather unlikely given Al's scuttlebutt, my experience and the fact the nothing was mentioned in the article.

So this means that the guys at the WSJ either:
a) used non EPA numbers, which they should have told us, or
b) can't do simple math.

Either way, the clue by four is in order.

fin

[Steve M]

Hey, at least I tried to get the thread back on Cornell hockey.  ::help::