Ah, more complaints about a collegiate athletic post season:
The time has come again to break out the fluffy and extra-absorbent crying towels. Those inevitably heartbroken come Sunday evening are already preparing their manifestos of outrage that a tragically flawed system has denied them their rightful destiny.
Except, “this dance with the illogical has nothing to do with the Bowl Championship Series.”
Ladies and gentlemen, it’s March Madness!
And with March Madness comes the Ratings Percentage Index, otherwise known as the RPI. And as Drew Sharp points out in this Detroit Free Press article, there ain’t exactly a whole lot of difference between the RPI and math behind the BCS.
… The Ratings Percentage Index (RPI) exposes the vast holes in the hackneyed argument that college football should adopt college basketball’s more precise model in determining its champion.
The BCS and RPI are already mirror images of each other, in that computer infiltration has become a necessary evil in determining who gets the opportunity to play for the championship on the field. And, naturally, that sparks the subsequent cries of systematic inequities or political interference…
Before you can “settle it on the field”, as playoff advocates like to bray, you’ve got to pick who gets to show up in the first place. That’s why I continue to argue that there are flaws in any playoff format that have to be addressed before anointing it as new and improved over the current state of affairs in D-1 football.
And the bigger you make that playoff field, the more you magnify the flaws:
… But it always seems that the more money involved, the bigger the event becomes and the more fractured and disjointed the entire enterprise becomes.
And within that perspective, crowning a college basketball champion is no less controversial than crowning a football champion.