K State's RPI was much better and Iowa has lost 6 out of 7 including two horrible losses in a row. All those teams should have been higher than Iowa.
Here's the thing, the committee PRETENDS it has criteria, they do whatever they want. If it is RPI drive, then explain how:
#10 RPI gets a #1 seed?
#8 RPI gets the last #3 seed?
#12 & #15 RPI get a #5 and #7 seed respectively?
K-State real time RPI of #51 gets a #9 seed and Iowa at #54 gets a #11 play in seed??
If RPI matters how does K-State and Iowa even get in when Missouri, Minnesota are both higher than K-State, and Florida St. is right after K-State, and before Iowa?
The committee does whatever they want and completely ignores the RPI. If it was RPI driven, they would just rank them according to RPI. But instead the committee takes teams with similar RPI (K-State, Iowa, Florida St.) all within fractions of each other, and one is a #9, one a #11 play in, and one is on the outside looking in.
I still say if you compare K-State, Iowa, BYU, Dayton, and Nebraska overall resume, there is no way that Iowa should be in a play in game......
unless you are looking at the last 10 game, then I get it. Yet they tell us they don't use the last 10 games as a criteria. So either they are lying, or they are lying. Those are the only two options.