NET vs RPI

[hykos1045]

I feel as though the NET is fundamentally flawed because it isolates the P6 schools from having or wanting to schedule mid majors  and gives them an unreasonable advantage for doing so. The RPI, while it wasn't always perfect system, reminds me of the Electoral College (metaphorically speaking) and how it would allow the small states to have some Winner take all ability to at least factor in to a national result. That means if you win your conf (regular season) you get a bump up, however insignificant that conference might be in the national landscape. If you beat other winners you get a 50% bump up. If you schedule and play other winners even if you don't beat them you get 25% credit for scheduling up. This current system is not keeping the P6 honest, IMO. It's allowing them to get credit just for scheduling P6 games. THEY DIDN'T NEED THAT INCENTIVE, THEY ALREADY PLAY THE p6 teams 20-25 times  YEAR.

/rant.

[JoeFedorowicz]

The RPI was mathematically perfect. Will die on that hill.

[diehardexplorer]

imo, the biggest problem with the net is it rewards teams for margin of victory, so the p5 schools run the scores up in their buy games.  rpi is without a doubt a better and more accurate way to rate teams.