In reply to one of Canadianbucko's previous posts, "Evans, Jason (CNN
HLN)" wrote the following:

'Teams at the middle and even some at the bottom of those leagues
could post very impressive W-L records if they played the same
schedule as these Mid-major powers'.

Later, in the same post, this--- 'The only thing I would change is I
would try to force the major conference teams to at least
occassionally play some of the smaller conference powers in a home-
and-home or a neutral court situation. That is the one fix which
would end most of these arguments. If we had a few more common games
by which to judge how the Southern Illinois and Kent States of the
world would do against bubble teams like Rutgers, Notre Dame, Vandy,
Maryland, and Oklahoma, then it would make all this a bit easier.'

The first statement is NOT as valid as Evans, Jason would think.
That's a hypothetical claim that may or may not be proven to be true.
An interesting analysis I read recently stated that even most TOP B(C)
S teams cannot rival the achievements of some non-BCS teams (e.g.,
Gonzaga, who have defeated high-ranking BCS teams ON THE ROAD, while
other BCS teams struggle to beat those same vanquished teams at
home), so it's unlikely the mid-rank or bottom-rank BCS teams would
be all that dominant.

E,J's second statement is, of course, one with which I am more
sympathetic. The BCS teams are not going to risk having their
artificially inflated rankings exposed by playing strong non-BCS
teams on the road UNLESS the NCAA forces them to do so.

The strongest disagreement I have with "Evans, Jason" is, however,
the first comment he makes. He says that the committee DOESN'T treat
RPI as the be-all and end-all. I wish that were true--- WIN-LOSS
record should be the most important factor--- but it isn't. Teams
from the BCS with favourable RPI make the dance, even with an
egregious number of losses. I still will NEVER comprehend the
situation from a few years ago, where a 16-14 Georgia team not only
made the dance (??) but was given a 9-seed. That's utterly absurd.
The only thing that was used to justify that was a high (and
obviously artificially inflated) RPI.

Perhaps, looking ahead, not only does the RPI formula need to change,
but the whole conference structure. There needs to be a substantial
restructuring so that all conferences will be judged to be roughly
equal in strength, or at least so that a win is credited as a win and
a loss treated as a loss. Does CB have ideas for this restructuring?
Of course! Stay tuned for (a) future post(s) on this subject.
(^-_-^)