Colin R.Wrubleski says:
>
>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.

Actually, Georgia was the #8 seed.

We see that the RPI is not the most significant factor in seedings and picking
the teams every year. It matters, perhaps even a great deal, but it is not the
only thing the NCAA selection committee considers. That was my point. If you
look at the seeds when they come out every year, there are teams who are seeded
VERY differently from where the RPI indicates they should be seeded. I see no
reason to debate this with you because it is obvious for everyone to see.

I would also add that if we did not have the RPI or some other strength of
schedule measure as a factor in the selection committee's decision process, then
there would beno incentive at all for anyone to play quality non-conference
opponents. You think it is hard for Gonzage, Sothern Illinois, and the other
mid-major powers to get a game with a major conference team now? Take out SOS
from the NCAA's process and you'll see some real cupcake schedules from the big
boys. That would suck.

By the way, thanks for being so cute with the way the computer auto-generates my
name. I am sure it makes you feel superior.

-Jason


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]