I doubt you'll agree but I am skeptical you'd be complaining about NET, Kenpom, or this board's tiers if they were more highly regarding Minnesota. It is common to cherry pick methods that serve our interests. But it's best not to do it as if those argument of ours are in objective pursuit and what is good/just/true. No need to post an answer; just self-reflect on that. (This is a healthy lifelong doublecheck and goes for all of us, of course.)
Meanwhile, RPI had significant problems that are, albeit not fully erased, at least diminished with NET. One of the most famous examples regarded gaming the rankings by never/rarely scheduling anyone in the lower 1/3 of RPI.
Because RPI so inflexibly dealt with opponent and opp-opp win%, if two teams were theoretically identical and played identically well against identical top halves of the schedule but whereas Team A played 3 teams ranked ~150 whereas Team B played that many ranked ~300, despite their identical records and theoretically identical strengths, they could be displaced by 15-20+ spots in ranking position. Which was dumb. And drove a lot of goofy seeding over the years.
It's also why, moreso in the first years than this one, Rutgers was such an RPI dead weight for the Big Ten.
