I finally had a chance to read through this. As a fan, love it. Because what's not to like about getting deceptively good under-the-radar match-ups in February?
Trying to view it as programs would: I see how it benefits some programs. Or at least, I see why it's probably a big "Hey, why not?" for a lot of programs. I'm not sure though that the benefit for the programs it's supposed to most benefit isn't being overstated a little. It does take two games that you were theoretically already playing in November and moving them to February, thus taking some of the guesswork out of "Is this opponent going to be any good by the time we play them?" But as we saw at times with the original BracketBusters, there can be a bit of a cannibalization effect with games like this. "Oh cool, two potential non-power bubble teams meeting in February" we all say. But how is a loss (much less, a sweep!) in those games going to affect their chances as opposed to the normal scheduling format: run through your non-con, build some buzz, take minimal damage in your league, watch bloated mediocre power teams kill each other to the tune of 8-10 conference records, grab that 10-seed!
Honestly, I think Norlander was just super giddy about the use of an algorithm. Also, while this would certainly be larger if 22 entire leagues were involved, I think he forgot just how bloated the BracketBusters event was by the end. There were teams involved who hadn't seen a bracket since they moved up from the NAIA in the 70s.