Just a few thoughts on the "unfair" RPI.  Any ranking formula will
have strength of schedule or it will not.  If the NCAA only considered
winning %, then there would be no incentive to play Michigan or Maine
when you could schedule Kent State or US international instead (names
picked to avoided getting flamed).  We would see the kind of silly
nonconference scheduling that we used to see in college hoops.  On the
other hand, I cannot think of a system that rewards strength of schedule
that could avoid the leap-frogging problem.  If team A beats a better
team than team B, they will get more credit.  It is always possible then
that if they were already close, team A could pass team B.  In the
case at hand there really isn't a problem anyway, all CC need do is win
on Friday.  What I think is really makes the MN case unusual is that
the OPP % of .55 is really very high.  I think it's really impossible
to construct a computer ranking which correctly deal with a situation
like this.  My suspicion is that all the rankings (save CHODR)
really are very similar, they just weigh strength of schedule in different
amounts.  Apparently, HEAL weighs it the most and YAM2 the least (One
must think in terms of standard deviations).  In the end, how much
schedule strength should be weighed is a matter of opinion.
Perhaps the real problem is that the coaches have little trust in the
committee and the committee doesn't want to face heat for subjective
decisions.  Hence, they've taken it out their own hands and have relied
on a computer.
I don't really know how good MN is and neither does anyone
else.  They've done just "OK" with a very difficult schedule (They
also played 18 conference road games vs. 14 at home).  This is why we
have playoffs.  May the best team win!
 
Gary Hatfield
 
"RAH! RAH! RAH! for SKI U MAH!  RAH! RAH! RAH! RAH!
RAH! for the U of M!"