Thank you for your email and I do acknowledge your statement that it's "an accepted term" in college football. Perhaps it is for some people. Not for me and I know for a fact that it's not for many other college football fans, especially for many fans of ECU. ECU does not benefit from this type of branding. And that's all it is. It's Marketing 101 where those involved attempt to achieve differentiation of the product(s) or service(s) being marketed. I don't understand why you think it's perfectly fine to write articles about ECU football and use this label which minimizes ECU. In articles that discuss our recent games involving teams from the ACC and SEC, just write truthfully that ECU has proven it can compete very well against teams from the ACC and SEC. You don't need to use any other label or branding. In my opinion, you and other journalists writing articles with this branding makes you complicit with the conferences you mention, in conjunction with TV, in an attempt to monopolize revenue generated from TV coverage. These activities sure seem to me to involve group actions that create barriers to entry and restrain open competition (perhaps a violation of the Sherman and Clayton Antitrust Acts). My hope is that, at some point soon, people of integrity (perhaps in Congress or the DOJ) will pursue an antitrust investigation. Division I-A football deserves a level playing field all all members meeting established membership criteria. With regard to your articles, I'm sure you want as many readers as possible who are fans of ECU football. Well, I can tell you, I stop reading when I see this type of branding. And I'm not alone. Thanks for you time.

Would you kindly cease using the term Power 5 opponent. There is no such classification. As soon as I see that in an article, I cease reading.

Thank you for pointing that out. I look forward to never hearing that again.

A mind bogging game - after the first 17 minutes of play, it looked like a rout by SC was taking place. Very proud and surprised how we played so well and practically won the game if not for the turnovers and penalties. GG))>>>PPIRATES!!!.

Would you kindly cease using the term Power 5 conferences. There is no such classification.

Shawn Armstrong with Cleveland Indians

Your "Rushing Leaders" lists NC State's players and their stats - not the Gamecock's stats...

We certainly were capable of beating South Carolina last week; I am pretty sure that VT is a better team. With some luck and good play , we are capable of beating Tect but we can't aford the mistakes of last week. GGOO....PPIRATES!!!

Ah yes... Va. Tech in 2013. Forgot about that one. Same math applies though.

@Dick Paddock... They keep saying that because they are right. The streak against NC State dates back to 2010. Three in a row vs them but only 2 of those wins have been since the ECU lost to UNC (2012). Therefore the streak against the ACC is 6. Follow the math now? They've won 6 straight games against the ACC since the loss to UNC in 2012. Hope that helps.

Because one of those three straight victories over State came in 2010. ECU has lost to other ACC teams since then, such as Virginia Tech in 2013.

Amen ......

The players are and will always be a direct reflection of the head coach. As we watch the Pirates play now we are expecting good things to happen every play, not guessing what might happen, maybe it is the difference Discipline , preparation and organization makes. Wow what a concept!

Watching the Pirates will always be exciting and winning makes it so sweet, but when #11 Mr. Summers takes the field I"m captivated. He is a Man among boys. What a player. I to think he could play linebacker, DE, kick, hold for kicker-- where ever he lines up good thing will happen. I sure hope he gets more touches!!!

Brian, the ECU Pirates have won 7 in a row against the ACC in football. They've won 3 in a row against NC State, 2 in a row against Virginia Tech, and 2 in a row against North Carolina. Why does everyone keep saying they've won 6 in a row???