Wrong. I specifically answered everyone of your questions by providing results of games played instead of worthless opinions. I just did not try to argue without using fact and stating only ones feelings.
There you go with more blah, blah, blah.
No, you did not answer my questions. I asked how you would justify how so many SEC teams were in the top 25 when conference play began, based on their soft schedules.
Because after conference play begins, the way the RPI is set up, RPI rewards the conferences with the most top 25, because they play each other. There is minimal movement in the top of the RPI after conference play begins, no matter how teams perform from there out.
Take a look at the top 30 in the RPI in the first release.
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-NN4vbmyc...YT2OUP5QjWnwCEw/s1600/rpitop30march202017.jpg
The SEC had 10 teams in the initial RPI top 25. They had 9 in the final RPI top 25. I cited 5 SEC teams SOFT non-con schedules. Specifically I cite S. Carolina, Georgia and Kentucky. All were in the initial RPI top 25 and SC and Kentucky were in the final RPI 25.
But none of those three teams inclusion in the top 25 was justifiable based on their non-con schedules. From there out, it's hard to drop, based on the formula.
But you dance around this every time. I expect you will this time, as well.
I'm telling you, politics is your calling. You NEVER answer the pertinent questions. You deflect and change the discussion, without ever answering questions you don't want to, or can't.
Blah, blah, blah!