"Yes! Oh my god, yes! I like the way John thinks. Every Saturday I wake up, check the college slate, and immediately scan for the little ranking numbers. If I see one ranked team is playing another, that's the one I'm gonna tune into first. And if both teams are ranked in the top 10, oh my god TODAY IS JUDGMENT DAY. Never mind that rankings have been bunk my entire life, nor that they barely have any meaning in the playoff era."
"If I haven't shed this flawed instinct at age 49, I'm never going to. Don't even want to. The numbers make everything more fun. This is true in both college football and college basketball, both of which then up the ante with little seed numbers once the postseason begins. Again, these numbers mean very little. But if an eight seed beats a one seed in March? MADNESS! ALL OF THE MADNESS! The illusion of rankings is a powerful one, not to mention enjoyable."
"So yes, let's make sure that every team in every game has a proper ranking affixed to it. Force the AP to rank them, or consult some nerdy nerd CPU ranking. Like the Sagarin ratings! Remember those? They still exist! Only this week's batch has Notre Dame ranked second overall. I'm sorry Jeff Sagarin, but your rankings are flawed. Please reorder them."
Rankings and seed numbers drive viewer interest by creating instant hierarchies and must-see matchups. Many fans scan game listings for ranking badges and prioritize ranked-versus-ranked contests as appointment viewing, especially top-10 clashes. Rankings often lack predictive accuracy and seeding has limited real-world meaning, but the narrative and spectacle around upsets amplify entertainment value. Seed numbers in postseason tournaments heighten emotional stakes and generate 'madness' when high seeds fall. Fans willingly maintain imperfect ranking instincts, treating numeric labels as signals of quality and excitement even when the underlying metrics are questionable.
Read at Defector
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]