Perhaps Jon's analysis has merit. However, it still seems that the
committee places more emphasis on RPI than it says it does. Notice
that when a team's accomplishments are listed, it's ALWAYS expressed
in terms of Wins X (or losses Y) against teams in the top Z OF THE RPI
[with X, Y, and Z being any integers you like] --- NOT expressed as
Wins(losses) against teams with a favourable win-loss percentage. The
latter expression seems vastly preferable to me; again, "Just Win,
Baby", NOT "Just Schedule, Baby"....

It is also entirely possible that the committee is, to use a
euphemism, "wrapping insulating material around its collective
buttocks." It's not P.C. to blatantly point out how heavily populated
the committee is by representatives of the so-called "power"
conferences, and how teams from the power conferences benefit
thereby. At least the committee is at pains to not rub people's noses
in it when a deserving team from a minor conference is deprived at
the expense of a mediocre team (from a power conf.) sporting numerous
losses....

The case of Butler a few seasons ago is instructive. 25W-5L. 3 of
those 5 losses at the buzzer. However, an RPI of 77. Ergo--- slam
dunk: a perfect opportunity for the committee to shaft them so a soft
BCS team could go instead. Now tell us the RPI is "severely
overstated". Absolute rubbish!! The RPI was the ONLY thing in that
situation that was used to discredit Butler's achievements, but it
proved enough in the minds of the committee. Suspicious, what?