BCCI certainly looks like an angel when compared to other sports associations in India. However, the BCCI Working Committee’s endorsement of the recommendations of the technical committee gives one the impression that they believe in trial and error method.

The decisions of the technical committee are supposed to improve the standard of the game but the drastic decision of making three groups in the Ranj Trophy defies logic.

If one analyses the teams in groups, the toughest is Group B with Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Delhi, UP, Haryana and Baroda playing each other. Since only three teams can make it to the quarterfinals, three good teams will be out and that’s unfair when two weaker teams from Group C qualify for the knock-outs.

Unfair

Each of these six teams in Group B has four to five good batsmen and an equal number of bowlers.

It means that 15 good batsmen and 15 bowlers from the three teams which do not qualify for the knock-out will be deprived of quality cricket.

At the same time, two weak teams of Group C that will certainly be having players of lesser quality, will undeservingly get to play the knock-outs.

That they are in Group C itself means they are weak. How will they challenge the teams from A and B groups in the quarterfinals?

Does any team of the Group C have the capability to upset a top team in qualifying rounds? Certainly not.

Ideally there should have been 10 in Group A and 15 in Group B. Thus, there would have been an incentive for two teams from Group B to get into Group A and two teams from Group A would have been relegated to Group B.

By creating a third group of weak teams and allowing two of those teams in the quarterfinals, the board has devalued the national championship.

More opportunities don’t necessarily improve the standard of the game because the level of competitiveness reduces drastically.

With only two groups A and B, the competition would have been fierce.

State ‘A’ teams

The Board also endorsed the recommendation of the technical committee of under 25. The only difference is that those teams will be named State ‘A’ teams.

Are we to believe that the India ‘A’ team will be selected on the basis of performances of players in ‘A’ tournament?

If it’s indeed so, it is utterly senseless as we have very good performers in the group of 25 to 28.

Will they not be deprived of playing for the India ‘A’ team? Had the Board continued with under-22, this complication could have been avoided. Now a player who is just out of his teens will be competing with a 24-year-old and someone who is within the 25-28 range will not get any opportunity of playing for India ‘A’ team.

The problem is that now we have narrowed down our options of players who could play for the Indian team. The State ‘A’ teams should have been under-28 and not 25.

A find by a committee is called a recommendation because it is supposed to be a suggestion; a suggestion needs consideration before becoming a law.

Either BCCI has too much faith in its committees or is too busy not to re-examine the recommendations of its committees.

More In: Cricket | Sport