The result of the International Cricket Council's deliberations over the Decision Review System (DRS) and the Future Tour Program (FTP) is symptomatic of what is wrong with that archaic body.
Those two decisions were lumped together to hammer out a compromise to keep "everyone" happy, rather than being decided on the basis of what was best for the game. And in most cases for "everyone", you can substitute India.
The BCCI or at least some of their senior players are right to have reservations about the ball tracking system and other technologies previously used in reviewing decisions. They are occasionally flawed and in some cases involve a human hand in arriving at their conclusion.
However, instead of tinkering at the fringes with the DRS the BCCI should have pushed for genuine improvements.
The DRS should be totally under the control of the ICC and not provided by the television network covering the series. The current situation compromises the whole system.
And while they were at it the BCCI should have had the DRS placed in the hands of the umpires to review blatant mistakes. That way, it wouldn't be used as much as a tactic by the players, as a review system.
Instead, the BCCI agreed to tinker with the system in order to barter for their desired result with the FTP.
The FTP is another example of how constant compromise and not wishing to upset the BCCI make a mockery of the ICC.
In the new FTP, both Bangladesh and Zimbabwe are included but they don't play any Tests against some of the major nations. Stop the charade. Neither Bangladesh nor Zimbabwe is good enough to play Test cricket and it's time they were dropped completely from the FTP.
There should be top-level Test cricket played between the eight major nations and this should include a world championship. Then there should be a second tier of first-class matches where teams like Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and other associate nations with a desire to play the longer form of the game compete to improve their credentials for elevation to Test status.
Test cricket, when it's played between two competitive nations, is a compelling spectacle. However, when it's a no-contest, like all sport that is one-sided, it does the game no credit.
While the ICC is prepared to constantly compromise to keep peace around the table, cricket will never take the hard decisions required to improve the game's status.
As long as the whole game is financially dependent on India, it is not a healthy situation for cricket. However, it's Catch 22, because this will only change when some momentous decisions are taken to dramatically change the way the game is administered.
As long as those at the top of the administration pole feel safe in their position those decisions will not be taken. What we'll have is a continuation of what occurred at this ICC meeting; a series of compromises rather than decisions taken in the best interests of the game.