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!"