With one game left in the regular season, here are the RPI/PRR of a few teams. Anyone else see an issue? Should the RPI and PRR be that far off? Is the new system that's in place that good or the RPI that far off? Or a combination of both?

TEAM A    RPI 179 PRR 126
TEAM B   RPI 65   PRR  29
TEAM C   RPI 85  PRR  44

*My apologies for the caps in the subject title.

1. I think the new system is better.  

We also have  a similar situation in RL. If the season ended today, seeds based on RPI would be:

#2 Seton Hall
#4 So. Mississippi
#5 Temple
#6 Dayton
#6 Colorado State

None of those teams would be anywhere near that seeding. In fact 'Bracetology' has projected the seeds to be:

#7 Seton Hall
#12 So. Mississippi
#10 Temple
#9 Dayton
Colorado State- NIT

And where would you seed #9 Murray State, still undefeated? Their RPI is 33 and Backetology has them with a #7 seed.

quality wins is what it is all about....

I thought they mentioned somewhere the margin of victory had a major impact..

Team B didn't have any quality wins in their first 10 games, they went 10-0, defeated everyone by at least 30 each game and had a similar RPI/PRR as they do now.

I'm kind of sick of people trying to assess the projections/seedings by analyzing only W/L and/or RPI. 

It's pretty clear those aren't the only items used in making seeding determinations, nor should they be.

If you want to have any type of productive discussion, give us ALL of the info on these teams.

wizard, RPI is flawed and easily manipulated.

I definitely think that the new system is superior to both RPI and the old system. I don't think it's perfect, but I do believe it to be a clear improvement.

I agree - I really like the new system, especially with the projection reports in place. It makes the game more true to life. 

It seems that the ones complaining about the new system are those in which their teams are left out of the big dance.

Since I know one of those teams is mine... might as well contribute.

Team B's wins:
First 10, jokes.
Other wins: (RPI/Ranking): 24/UR, 94/UR, 22/17, 9/1, 107/UR, 75/UR, 107/UR, 53/UR.
The losses:  9/3,6/16,17/3,5/8,6/16,17/7,1/2

The RPI is no longer the magic system to manipulate.  But let's go with real world.

A team plays 10 joke teams, then beats Kansas State, Colorado, Virginia, Kentucky, #107 RPI twice, Virginia Tech and Iowa State.  They lost to Ohio State, Indiana (twice), Temple, Kansas, Syracuse and Kentucky.  Is that an NCAA team?  That same team went 9-7 in the #1 conference.

Congrat Asher, it appears your team will be able to make it in. I tried to protect your identity.

Ahser, do you remember your RPI vs RPP after 10 games. If I recall correctly, your RPP was the much better ranking? If so, it would indicate that margin of victory is a huge factor, since there were no quality wins.

I like the new system as well, I was a shock however to see teams that were around a 70 RPI not make the PIT, that took me a bit off guard at first.

This is purely off of memory 2 weeks later-

I think my RPI was around 130, my SOS was 2nd from last, and my projection was around 90... but that's off memory.

IM(very uneducated)HO, I think that early in the season, early losses impact the projection report more when it's first released, and it eventually catches up later (which I think is a function of the fact that RPI's aren't very real that early, for example IIRC, the teams I played early were all 200+ RPI's).

I don't think it's margin of victory though, I think it's simple winning.  I've found (playing the So-Cal helped this one), that you can no longer go .500 against a tough schedule if you only beat the crappy teams, so if you want to beat crappy teams, you have to beat a lot more.

Just my observations, and I've build all of my team's schedules that have decent to hard conference schedules.  San Diego St. seemed to not work so well (21-2, RPI 43, still on the bubble).  I know, it's 'gaming' the system, but I'm trying to find the new 'schedule all road games' way to get into more NTs.