Interesting article from SI about realignment and big ten records

[the huskie gopher]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20.../expansion-divisions/index.html?xid=cbssports

 

[dpodoll68]

Big Ten alignment - Best article yet

Everyone who missed the earlier 3-page thread will appreciate this.

 

[RodentRampage]

From the article:

One thing I've noticed during the realignment craze is that many fans have too short a memory when it comes to the first consideration.

The truth is the opposite, many people have far too LONG a memory. We certainly shouldn't let the results of the last year or two prejudice opinions. But that's not what is going on: a college's reputation can linger on many years after their success has faded. Consider Notre Dame.

The author, after cautioning us to avoid the fallacy of recentism then goes on to look at the results from the last 17 years in order to decide how to split the conference. The author makes the same mistake that he cautions the reader to avoid, just from the other direction. Why should we think that the results from 17 years ago have bearing on today? Over the last 10 years, an east-west slplit is highly balanced.

The default is an east-west split. To deviate from that split requires that the divisions would be so blantantly unbalanced that some other choice must be made. My must we assume that Michigan will return to the success that it used to have, and why must we assume that Iowa and Wisconsin will NOT continue to be successful? To favor anything but an east-west split, you must make that assumption.

 

[jovs]

From the article:



The truth is the opposite, many people have far too LONG a memory. We certainly shouldn't let the results of the last year or two prejudice opinions. But that's not what is going on: a college's reputation can linger on many years after their success has faded. Consider Notre Dame.

The author, after cautioning us to avoid the fallacy of recentism then goes on to look at the results from the last 17 years in order to decide how to split the conference. The author makes the same mistake that he cautions the reader to avoid, just from the other direction. Why should we think that the results from 17 years ago have bearing on today? Over the last 10 years, an east-west slplit is highly balanced.

The default is an east-west split. To deviate from that split requires that the divisions would be so blantantly unbalanced that some other choice must be made. My must we assume that Michigan will return to the success that it used to have, and why must we assume that Iowa and Wisconsin will NOT continue to be successful? To favor anything but an east-west split, you must make that assumption.

I am assuming he is trying to create a balance so that Michigan and Nebraska would be considered elite programs in the Big Ten. Whether this will be true in the future is hard to tell.