The problem isn't THAC0 in and of itself. The problem is the whole system with THAC0 and descending AC, and how it gives weird effects like a ring of protection +2 lowering your AC by 2, and having a Dexterity defensive modifier of -2 also lowering your AC by 2. You can certainly learn how it works and it's not that complicated, but it's an unnecessary complication.
No more than if you group items together on what a bonus could or could not stack...
For example I could say Rings and Amulets and Capes do not stack with their bonuses,
But certain Rings and Swords and Shields do,
But Swords and Maces and Gloves do not,
But Tiara's and natural body armor and this spell does,
But Tiara's and natural body armor and this other spell do not,
Etc...etc...etc.
Of course, there's always the thought that lower is better in certain things...such as being #1 instead of #2.
Perhaps I won 10 games and your side only won 8...so does that mean you think I should be #3 rather than #1?
Obviously, that wouldn't make much sense.
There are plenty of things where one number may go up, while another goes down (rankings are a prime example of this).
At the time though, THAC0 was a LOT easier than the tables. Compare what came prior to THAC0 and you'll see THAC0 was actually a much easier and simpler formula for figuring things out. Also, any DM worth their while had already pre-calculated THAC0 out (same with BAB/AB/RAB in 3e) for what was standard...
So if your Fighter had a 17 STR with a +2 Sword and had a THAC0 of 17, we knew the real THAC0 was a 14.
You then just subtract the enemy AC (THAC0 - AC = Roll) to find out what you needed to roll to hit. Dirt easy.