Bracketology is a fascinating subject – 64 teams, 63 games, 9 quintillion possible outcomes. The thrill of trying to master the madness while competing against friends and coworkers is one of the most unique fan experiences in all of sports. However, it comes at a price.

In all the hysteria of March Madness, the tournament’s supposed purpose of determining the nation’s best team is lost. The current tournament structure is better designed to promote wagering and fan interest than it is to enable the best team to prevail.

For starters, the field of 64 teams includes too many schools that are incapable and undeserving of a chance to be crowned champion. In the history of the tournament, a 16-seed has never beaten a 1-seed, and as of last year, a 15-seed had only been able to upset a 2-seed on six occasions. The point is, these early matchups are virtually meaningless, and if the NCAA was truly interested in finding the best team, it would skip ahead to games that are more evenly matched.

Of course, the reason that the NCAA insists on letting David battle Goliath is that everyone loves the idea of an underdog. I’ll admit, I love rooting for Cinderella as much as the next fan. But it’s hard to rationalize how any team that played abhorrently in the regular season deserves a shot at ruining a better team’s reputation in just one game.

Take, for instance, two of last year’s big upsets — 15-seeds Lehigh and Norfolk State knocking out powerhouses Duke and Missouri in the first round. Sure, the underdogs made a splash at the ball, but they were certainly no Cinderellas. Both teams ended up losing in the next round to weaker teams, meaning that their victories were almost certainly flukes and that two more deserving teams were eliminated from contention. Of course, there is this year’s big story of Florida Gulf Coast making history by advancing to the Sweet Sixteen following two massive upsets. Sure, many would consider it a tragedy if the Eagles had been excluded from the tournament from the start. However, with a record that consists of five losses to teams from the “esteemed” Atlantic Sun Conference as well as five additional losses to non-conference opponents, the Eagles truly didn’t deserve to dance in the first place.

The other important factor that March Madness ignores is that collegiate level basketball is a game that involves a significant amount of variability – referees blow calls, big-name shooters get cold, and no-name shooters go on hot streaks. In just 40 minutes any one of these events can single-handedly change the outcome of a game.

Because of this variability, isolation and repetition are critical in determining true superiority. This is why a better alternative would be to trim the field down to just around 16 teams that actually deserve to be competing for the title. This could be done by perhaps implementing a rating system similar to what the Bowl Champion Series  uses for football. On top of that, the final rounds could be changed to best of three series to better ensure that the best team comes out on top.

Of course, the NCAA could reward stellar regular season play by eliminating the threat of wannabe Cinderellas and cutthroat single elimination games. However, it chooses not to for the sake of shocking upsets and marketable storylines.

Admittedly, there is nothing wrong with what the NCAA is doing. It is a business, and it is trying to sell its product in the best way possible. Making these changes would reduce the thrill of March Madness that everyone enjoys, and ultimately make the sport less profitable.

However, the distinction should be made that the NCAA’s main purpose is to make money and support its brands, not to promote quality athletic competition in the interest of its athletes.

When viewed objectively, March Madness is really more of a big-top circus attraction than it is a true sports competition. While it certainly isn’t on the same scale as WWE or other sports entertainment franchises, it does use similar tactics. And when you consider how the NCAA markets its athletes without giving them any cut of the profits, you have to wonder if its motivations are any less greedy.

Ultimately, the public will decide. The excitement we get from March Madness is to be weighed against the value we put on quality competition and fairness to the athletes. Currently the former side is winning. And with the current boom of aspiring bracketologists, there is no reason to expect the NCAA will make a change anytime soon.

Andrew is a sophomore in Engineering. He can be reached at [email protected].