A good rule to follow is that "A bad process will inevitably lead to bad results". Not that a good system will always lead to good results, or that a bad process is always wrong. But a flow system will inevitably lead to poor results, and that's why the method for getting results is so important.
Yesterday had two examples of this: The College BCS Final and The Baseball Hall of Fame.
Now, I admit I'm not a college football fan, so anything I say should be accepted with a grain of salt. But there are 120 college football teams eligible for the BCS, and they all only play 10-12 games a year. There's not enough information to try to select the two best teams and have them each other, then proclaiming the winner the champion of college football.
There's too many scenarios that can screw things up. Too many teams can be undefeated, leading to a team winning every game they can and not being in the game to detemine the champion. Or not enough teams are undefeated, leading to a formula to pick the best team based on schedule, etc. Which is great for figuring things out on paper, but they actually play the game out on the field.
This year is a perfect example. LSU was ranked #1, and Alabama was ranked #2. Alabama already had one loss- to LSU. So teams like Stanford and Oklahoma State, who also only had one loss, were locked out of "the title game". Alabama beat LSU, and now Alabama is crowned the champion.
And they might be the best team in college football. But I'm sure the fans of the other schools wanted the opportunity to find out, but did not have the opportunity.
Flawed system, flawed result.
Same with the baseball Hall of Fame. The system is simple- writers with enough experience are allowed to vote on eligible candidates. If a candidate gets 75% of the vote, they are enshrined in the Hall of Fame.
Here's the problem- the writers can use any criteria they want to make their choices. And a lot of the writers are biased or uninformed.
For instance, a large bloc of writers have decided not to support any candidate who has been caught with steroids. So Mark McGwire, who in a different era would be a first ballot Hall of Famer, can't crack the 20% line.
And Alan Trammell, who is one of the best ten shortstops of all time, can't make the Hall of Fame- while Catfish Hunter sailed in on the first ballot.
And now, Jeff Bagwell- probably a top five first baseman- only received 56% of the votes. So 44% of the writers don't think he belong in the Hall of Fame.
They don't need to explain their votes, or justify. You can't argue with them, because they can say "I don't fell he's a Hall of Famer". And that's enough.
Flawed System, Flawed Results.
