Not much in the way of interesting information provision here. I'm just posing a scenario and question:
The pairwise, though imperfect, seems to work relatively well for selecting the NCAA hockey tournament field. It is an objective approach (or at least it's as objective as an algorithm-like substance created by man can be), which avoids the need for committee free-wheeling-n-dealing, which is nice. And it seems to yield rankings less prone to the "Wha!?" effect than RPI. Tell me though: Why couldn't it work for CBB? Is that field of teams too large with too few interactions to fairly yield good comparisons? In which ways would Pairwise be better than the current system?
Clearly, I've only given this a rudimentary amount of thought so far. Help me take the analysis to the next step. Please and thank you.