Bracketology Extends Its Reach

"March Madness"-type brackets can be applied to other competitions.

If you’re a college basketball fan, or even if you’re not, you’re likely familiar with the concept of March Madness, or the Final Four or Bracketology. It’s a quite popular college basketball tournament, much of which occurs during the month of March, although the final two rounds are typically played in April, but, let’s face it, “April Madness,” or “March/April Madness” doesn’t have the same alliteration or melodic ring to it that March Madness has. The tournament features the sixty-four best college basketball teams in the U.S. (actually, 68 teams, given four “play-in” games, but that wrinkle is simply too confusing to explain), and the concept is simple: those 64 teams are ranked and face off, with the winner of each game advancing into the next round - i.e. the roster of 64 teams is whittled down to 32 teams, which then becomes 16 (the first batch which collectively receives a title: “Sweet Sixteen), and then 8 teams (the “Elite Eight”), and then 4 (“Final Four”) and then the remaining two winners face off in the championship game, yielding the “National Champion” and the “Big Fat Loser” - I’m kidding, the loser in the championship game is probably called the “Runner-Up.,” although Rule of Three is open to suggestions as to a more descriptive and colorful term - feel free to share your thoughts in the comments section below. As to why the first two rounds of combatants have not been bestowed with a suitable moniker, I have no idea; perhaps we could anoint them: the “Successful Sixty-Four” and the “Thirsty Thirty-Two” (very few options when it comes to the “th” sound). Bracketology, to complete the thought here, is the scientific-sounding term applied to the extensive research and analysis conducted by participants in the many betting pools, or “brackets” completed each year. As an example, the winners in the pools in which I have participated over the years have typically chosen their winning teams based upon those whose team colors align with their own favorite colors, or they have an affinity for the mascot (Go, Terrapins!) or their brother-in-law’s cousin lived briefly in the college town in which the university is located - in other words, research and analysis means, “bupkis!”

This year’s Final Four was recently completed - congratulations to the victorious Florida Gators! I swear to you that the bracket artwork atop this column was chosen entirely at random - I’m not even sure what year it is from - the fact that the Jayhawks are reflected as National Champions clearly indicates that it does not reflect the 2025 tournament, inasmuch as the Jayhawks exited this year’s tournament, after losing in their very first game.

Lazy radio talk show hosts, late-night TV talk show hosts and columnists have turned, on occasion, to bracketology as cheap and easy programming. I have seen such topics subjected to the underlying “win and advance” concept inherent in the March Madness structure as: Halloween candy (sure, an M&M’s vs. SweeTarts first round matchup might be an interesting contest, but, let’s face it, Snickers is almost guaranteed to be cutting down the nets at the end of the tournament); movies (a Sweet Sixteen battle might feature A Few Good Men vs. The Shawshank Redemption, but I have to imagine a potential dark horse candidate to win it all might be Wedding Crashers); and attractive women (oh no, you don’t - Rule of Three is not touching that one - clearly an issue fraught with potential landmines).

In order for a topic to qualify for such treatment, there are three criteria which must be met: there must be at least sixty-four options from which to choose; the group developed must have some connectivity - i.e. members of the same class or type - you don’t want to be comparing apples and oranges, unless the category in question is types of fruit, in which case comparing apples and oranges, as well as bananas and grapefruits and pineapples is literally the definition of what needs to happen; and, those options must possess distinct characteristics, enabling pool participants to compare and contrast the combatants.

Our pledge to you is that Rule of Three would never stoop to such a level, and engage in this type of mindless tomfoolery. Unless, of course, we stumbled upon a subject which appealed to our inner Rule No. 3 (you know, the one about amusing yourself). Here are some hypothetical examples of exercises suggested by Rule of Three’s Bracketology Application department, a team dedicated to mindless tomfoolery:

• Best State in the United States - the team didn’t think this one all the way through, because, as you know, there are currently only fifty states in the United States, and even if a few others are added, like Canada, and Panama and Greenland, that still leaves us a bit short; besides, Puerto Rico should be ahead of those in the queue. A backup plan here might be “Best City in the United States” - there are certainly enough options in that cohort to mount a respectable tournament - I think Chicago would be a pretty high seed.

• Best Cereal - Cheerios would likely be one of the favorites in this bracket, but, if discontinued cereals were allowed to be entered, I wonder how Mr. T Cereal would fare in the contest. . .

• Best Automobile - speaking of allowing discontinued products to be entered, I bet my AMC Pacer Wagon (baby blue, no less, c. 1977) could make a deep run in this bracket. . .

  

• Best Single Malt Scotch - the beauty of this tournament is that, in order to effectively judge the competitors, imbibing is an imperative - win, win! McCallan and The Balvenie would be tough challenges for any single malt scotch in this bracket, but Oban might outpace them all.

• Best Steely Dan Song - in sustaining “Steely Dan Wednesday” for ninety-six straight weeks (an exercise in which I emailed Youtube links to my three children containing a distinct Steely Dan song every Wednesday, in order to further their musical education), I have demonstrated that the field is deep enough and strong enough to mount a competitive bracket. You might imagine that “Reelin’ in the Years” would be the class of the field, but I wouldn’t count out “Doctor Wu” or “Deacon Blues” to make a deep run in the tournament.

How about you? Would you stoop to such a level, and engage in this type of mindless tomfoolery? If so, what group of combatants would you like to see duke it out (a subtle nod to this year’s Final Four favorite, who alas, did not emerge as the National Champion) on the court (of public opinion, that is)? Feel free to share your suggestions in the comments section below.

And, I look forward to watching each of these Final Four champions cut down the nets at the conclusion of their respective tournament. Cue “One Shining Moment”. . .

If you chose Rule of Three as the National Champion in your "Best Weekly Humor Column" bracket, then you already know the score.  All others simply need to type their email address and click the button below to subscribe now to Rule of Three, and join the crowd - it's free, man!