mbinebri

Yes, and both were transparent attempts to justify why Upton, specifically, isn't on the list. Have you heard of Occam's razor? We can all try to rationalize her non-inclusion, or we can accept the explanation requiring the fewest assumptions: she's not on the list of the world's highest-paid models because - get this - she's just not one of the world's highest-paid models. We're talking about the entertainment industry - money is everything, and people talk. Agents, managers, publicists - hell, any intern filing away a newly-signed contract can leak details. This belief that only Upton herself could be responsible for any knowledge of her finances, and that she's too proper or whatever to do that, is just silly. If this homerism was being committed three or four years ago by another fan of another model, I wouldn't even be doing this - you would have torn that poor editor a new one before I could even get here.

Seriously, Pretty? You justify the rankings (or non-rankings) of a number of models without hesitation, yet as soon as it comes to Upton not being on it, the list is either complete BS or she's too smart and classy to be on it?

Young Hollywood: Extra TV: Access Hollywood:

^ Thanks!

E! News

Thanks for the adds, guys! Marisa + Baltimore Ravens players at the ESPYs... nice! In contributions, I can only offer up this link - http://www.myfoxla.com/story/22859424/marisa-miller - with a local LA news station interview.

Marisa will be on "NFL Total Access" on the NFL Network today @ 7 ET.

Thanks for the vids, Pink! It's cool to see Marisa getting featured this much, plus doing promo like Leno. When it was first announced she was in the film, I thought it would be the usual throwaway part models get.

^ I clicked on the 10-1 link, saw Julie Henderson at #10 and didn't even bother with the rest of the list.

^ Well, I said ten points for a cover and five for a non-cover appearance. On further thought, I'd probably go with a 3:1 point ratio as opposed to 2:1. I'm too lazy right now to figure out how the top 20 would look then. As I've said before though, with these types of rankings, I think there has to be a legacy factor involved, which of course is hard to judge.

I read your response and thought that about you. We obviously have different ways of looking at this, so rather than just restate ourselves over and over, let's just agree to disagree.

Does having more models in later issues make them greater models? It seems, as indicated by the bolded sentence, that the straight-forward application of a numerical value based on ranking demonstrates the bias you're trying to disprove. But I would argue against the merits of your system, as assigning numerical values based on ranking only works if you assume the rankings are objective in the first place. They're not. In your system, Mcpherson has 50 points and Decker has 44. Does Decker have 88% the greatness as Macpherson as an SI model? If you disagree (as I'm sure most would), this method falls apart. If you applied values to objective criteria - say 10 points for a cover and five for a non-cover appearance - these rankings would likely be very different. Plus, assigning values based on rankings is really only a way of comparing rankings relative to one another, not analyzing a model's worthiness of inclusion on the list in the first place, which is what I and a lot of other people would argue is the problem with having so many newer models who have yet to establish legacies with SI. This is your ultimate method of analysis, but it's irrelevant, IMO. The over-representation of recent models - which is the problem - in the bottom half of the rankings will naturally bring down the average of the most recent decade's models. It doesn't prove that their rankings or inclusion are justified. On top of that, the only reason this over-representation of recent minor models balances out to a seemingly appropriate average is because the more recent covermodels are all ranked suspiciously high. Personally, I still feel SS's point about a third of the listed models having appeared in the issue within the last five years is valid.

The last three covermodels are already in the top 10 of an all-time list. If the SISE staff put together a greatest musical artists of all time list, I have a feeling they would rank Taylor Swift and Justin Bieber alongside The Beatles, Bob Dylan, and Elvis.

Ireland, Macpherson, Brinkley, and Tiegs should all be top 10, if not top 5. Throw in Klum and Banks and you have the royalty of SI models. But these types of lists are always guilty of "recentism," so I'm fully prepared to see Upton at #1 simply because she's what's hot right now.

^ I think your framing of these things as apparent failures shows you're giving too much credit to people on tFS who want Marisa to look bad. I'm sure if you asked Marisa she would tell you she's perfectly happy with the way things have gone. Specifically as for VS, she walked the show several times, did a few commercials, got the Fantasy Bra... she'd been modeling for them for nearly a decade. What else was there to do than be another VS hanger-on (during a time when being an Angel gets less prestigious by the day)?

I've skipped quite a few pages in catching up in this thread, but I still feel confident in saying Ashley Sky is hotter (at least body-wise) than every Casting Call girl profiled so far combined. Honestly, I'd probably rather see a random Hooters calendar girl over most of these models.

I know this is belated but...

I bet Marisa is thrilled the '9ers are in the Super Bowl.

^ No, don't be one of those people!