BigReds, no, you are right, the definition does not specify the size of the group, but you did say that the definition says a small group [actually it
didn't say "small" group, it just said group]. And you also said this: "it does not specify what the size of the group has to be so no in
your example Rockford is "elite" and nobody else is plain and simple."
Well, BigReds, you know a group means more than 1, don't you? So you contradict yourself there. The point is, by definition, an elite group is a group of at least 2 things or persons, so in the example, Rockford and somebody else is elite, and that somebody else did not win a title. Which proves 100% that you do not have to win a title to be in the elite, and that is 100% by definition.
Searn, if you don't stay true to the definition, then there is no basis for anything, and there would just be complete anarchy. You don't have to be at the same level as the best to be elite. You have to be better than most of the other people you are competiting against. For example, in the Olympics, lets say some kind of 100 meter swimming event, it doesn't matter if the silver medalist finishes 5 hours after the gold medalist, by definition, the silver medalist is part of the elite of that race, and I would argue that the bronze medalist is also, even if they finished 5 hours after the silver medalist, but after 2, the size of the number of members it takes to be elite is up for debate. For me to stay consistent on this issue, I'd say that 90% of the members of any competitive group are the elite members. So to answer your question about your example with the math scores, I would say that the top 10 scores would be the elite students. But by definition the top 2 are in the elite.
In the context of high school football programs, I think anybody who tries to argue that in order to be considered elite within a period of time they have to win a state title, is misinterpreting what "elite" really means.
Well, BigReds, you know a group means more than 1, don't you? So you contradict yourself there. The point is, by definition, an elite group is a group of at least 2 things or persons, so in the example, Rockford and somebody else is elite, and that somebody else did not win a title. Which proves 100% that you do not have to win a title to be in the elite, and that is 100% by definition.
Searn, if you don't stay true to the definition, then there is no basis for anything, and there would just be complete anarchy. You don't have to be at the same level as the best to be elite. You have to be better than most of the other people you are competiting against. For example, in the Olympics, lets say some kind of 100 meter swimming event, it doesn't matter if the silver medalist finishes 5 hours after the gold medalist, by definition, the silver medalist is part of the elite of that race, and I would argue that the bronze medalist is also, even if they finished 5 hours after the silver medalist, but after 2, the size of the number of members it takes to be elite is up for debate. For me to stay consistent on this issue, I'd say that 90% of the members of any competitive group are the elite members. So to answer your question about your example with the math scores, I would say that the top 10 scores would be the elite students. But by definition the top 2 are in the elite.
In the context of high school football programs, I think anybody who tries to argue that in order to be considered elite within a period of time they have to win a state title, is misinterpreting what "elite" really means.
)
