Greetings, fellow collegerpi group members:

Once again, it's that time of year, for furious discussions of the
various merits of teams based primarily on their R-P-I. Given how
important said index is for the seeding of the NCAA tournament, or
even for being included in same, WHY ON EARTH is the formula so badly
flawed? It rewards teams far more for scheduling (supposedly) strong
teams than for actually beating them. Two particularly egregious
example from a few years ago---> a highly mediocre Charlotte team
rewarded for scheduling 9 teams in the top 50 of the RPI,
notwithstanding that it lost 8 (EIGHT!) of those nine games, or a 16-
14 Georgia team getting a very favourable seed. Clearly, then, since
the index is so important, a decent formula is vital. However, there
doesn't seem to be the wherewithal to fix something that is so badly
flawed. Why???

Well, anyway, in this commentator's MHO (Most Humble Opinion), the
current 25-50-50 ratio has got to go. To use a prairie idiom, it
totally sucks sloughwater. The revised "Canadianbucko" formula is as
follows. It's somewhat more complicated, but in this day and age of
sophisticated computers and number-crunchers, that shouldn't pose a
problem. Here it is:

RPI == 4V + 3X + 2Y + 1Z,

where V denotes the team record, X denotes the team's opponent's
record, Y denotes the opponent's opponent's record, and Z denotes the
opponent's opponent's opponent's record.

Further, there will be a new "points index", tabulated separately,
that will give teams points for achievements such as neutral court
wins and road wins, and correspondingly subtract points for demerits
such as home losses and neutral court losses. The details of
this 'Points index" need to be ruminated upon by "Canadianbucko" for
some time, and will be unveiled in the future.... (^-_-^)