Here's a great case study I noticed when I lost my CT final.

American U: 24-5 (13-3 conf,) conf champ, 9-1 last 10, 11-3 road, 0-0 against top 25, 3-1 against RPI <50, RPI 41, SOS 148, not ranked

U of Vermont: 24-5 (14-2 conf,) conf champ, 9-1 last 10, 11-2 road, 0-0 against top 25, 3-3 against RPI <50, RPI 24, SOS 83, rank 33

Both teams received an 8 seed. So with very similar résumés (except for the RPI) resulting in the same seed (Vermont's was with the #4 1-seed, Am U's with the #1 team,) it seems safe to conclude:

Winning your CT final can make up for about 15 points in the RPI when it comes to seeding in the NT.

I admit, there might be some evidence of some wackiness going on with teams getting in, so it would not surprise me.

Case in instance, 65-70 RPI teams getting into the tournament. This has been very noticeable over the past few months, likewise with winning the conference tournament getting a higher seed.

It would appear there was an unannounced update, but I could be wrong.

...what? I'm not pointing out wackiness at all - I think the seeding was perfectly reasonable.

George Mason and their 60 plus RPI and really weak SOS got in the Allen NT as well.

Last season, a 14-13 team in my conference that ended up with a 61 RPI, lost their only game of the CT and got an at large bid to the NT. This is rather ridiculous to me because winning doesn't hold as much weight as it should. You shouldn't be rewarded for merely playing a tough schedule and losing, especially if you're getting blown the eff out.

George Mason, 61 RPI/277 SOS made the NT in Allen, all because they were 24-3. And they lost in the quarterfinals of the CT to a SIM. If anything, too much emphasis is put on win-loss record, especially when a team plays a cupcake schedule.