I've always felt that the way that the resumes are assessed is absurd. If RPI or NET or whatever ranking process the committee uses is good enough to group teams to establish the resume, shouldn't it be good enough to rank the teams? Otherwise, you get into a situation where a neutral site game against a team with ranking of 50 is treated vastly differently than one against a team ranked 51.

I also think it provides an advantage to inconsistent teams. For example, Rutgers gets a lot of credit for its "good" wins, but if it is that good, how did it manage to rack up all those "bad" losses?

My opinion was that the RPI was originally used to give cover to the selection committee when it brought in the teams that it wanted to. Then guys like Jerry Palm started publishing the RPI and the selection committee's internal deliberations led to these complicated rationale as to why one team was better than another. I don't think there was anything deceitful in place; it's simply that the committee "knew" that Team X was better than Team Y and then came up with ways that showed what they knew.

I think we'd be much better off if the committee just said "we're going to go into the room and come out with the top 36 teams that did not receive automatic bids."