Let me say this right off the bat: I have no problem with those who criticize the RPI. It's not a perfect measure by any means, and it has become more fashionable than ever to point out its flaws.

But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. It seems to me that, in order to have an intelligent discussion about the RPI (or anything people don't like, for that matter), we must also acknowledge what it does right.

Many of you will offer a knee-jerk reaction: "It stinks." This doesn't surprise me, if only because at any given time the fans of maybe 40-50 teams like the RPI and the other 275 or so wish it would go the way of the drive-in movie.

I write this as a break from evaluating potential NCAA Tournament teams. Unless you're visiting this site for the first time, you probably know I make a habit of that practice this time of year. In fact, every Sunday and Monday, I spend about 20 straight hours on it.

Multiply that by 10-12 weeks of the season, over the 8-9 years I have been doing this for ESPN.com and, well, you get the idea. Not to be self-indulgent, but no one on earth spends more time at this than I do. Not even NCAA men's basketball committee members. They don't really immerse themselves in this process until March; by that point, I'll have replicated their evaluation procedures a dozen or more times over.

(Which is arguably why my final bracket has generally fewer holes than theirs, but I digress…)

Here's my bottom line: Do you really think I'd spend more than 2,000 hours (the equivalent of an entire year working 40 hours per week) using a system that was more wrong than right? And, if so, wouldn't it then be an incredible coincidence to continue projecting 63 or 64 of the eventual NCAA teams pretty much every year?

For those who suggest doing away with the RPI, I ask, "To be replaced with what?" Lord knows we don't want a college basketball equivalent of the BCS. That system has a hard enough time identifying two teams correctly, much less 65. It is also heavily dependent on the polls, and you all know what I think of those.

But don't take my word for it. Let's run the three most frequently cited rankings -- the polls, the Sagarin ratings and the RPI -- through a quick exercise. We'll scan the most recent Top 25 in each as our sample, looking for obvious contradictions between what the numbers say and what common sense suggests (assuming that you trust me enough to spot a really good team, or not, when I see one):

ESPN/USA Today, 2/17/03
5. Oklahoma (a little high at the time due to absence of a marquee win)
8. Duke (more reputation than current accomplishment)
9. Pittsburgh (no way, if you really look at it)
15. Illinois (probably on the high side)
16. Oklahoma State (low at the time)
20. California (too high)
21. Stanford (too low, despite losing at Cal)
22. Missouri (no way; who have they beaten?)
23. Purdue (maybe)
24. Connecticut (last week's voters should have been given a urine test)

Sagarin Ratings, 2/23/03
5. Pittsburgh (completely nuts; based on huge wins over lousy teams)
14. Georgia (too high for any team with that many losses)
18. Illinois (just not sold on any Big Ten team this year)
20. Saint Joseph's (way too high, and that's my school)
22. Wisconsin (you're kidding, right?)
24. BYU (no one is convinced yet)

RPI (unadjusted), 2/24/03
6. Georgia (over-rewarded for schedule)
7. Duke (not enough deducted for weak road record)
17. BYU (2-3 teams are "off" just about every year)
23. Missouri (too much schedule, not enough performance)

Remember this is one random week, selected by me, so you can argue my bias tilts the list(s) in favor of the RPI. But, ultimately, that wouldn't be necessary to make my point. Which is this:

1) Polls are little more than a beauty contest.
2) Sagarin is good, but relies far too heavily on margin of victory.
3) RPI remains the best tool in the toolbox for measuring both performance and the quality of competition faced.

Is schedule strength weighted too heavily by RPI? Probably. Does that favor the power conferences? Absolutely. Are there loopholes that certain teams and/or conferences have learned to exploit? Yes (and I'm talking mostly about the Big East). Should there be an additional factor for road and/or neutral court performance? You know it (in fact, I hope to publish exactly that data before the end of this season, and you'd be surprised at what it could do to encourage BCS members to play more games at mid-major sites).

But ask yourself this question when arguing that the RPI doesn't measure what it's supposed to, especially in the crucial split between "middle" teams from power conferences and deserving mid-majors: If Alabama, RPI No. 26 and the current poster child of the "they'll only make it because of their RPI mindset," played, say, Butler, RPI No. 39 and the most neglected mid-major of the past year, best-of-seven on a neutral court, who would win? And, more germane to this discussion, who would be favored?

We all know the answer to that question, and it ain't Butler. Now don't get me wrong: Regular readers know I'd still rather see Butler in the tournament, but that doesn't mean the RPI is flawed. It identified the better team, which is different in my mind than selecting the most accomplished or "deserving" schools for at-large bids. And this is also why the NCAA challenge -- "select the 34 best at-large teams" -- can never be met. You can, however, include the 34 "most deserving."

Ironically, the tournament committee does an unusually good job at identifying those teams for which the RPI is a less accurate measure in a given season. And they do it every year. This year, for instance, we know No. 6 Georgia isn't going to be a two-seed and No. 49 Oregon isn't going to be a 13-seed. And, yes, we all know BYU isn't the No. 17 team in the country.

But those are only three teams out of 65. The rest of the time, combined with some careful analysis thrown in by people who understand the game, the RPI really is PRI. In other words, it's probably right (at least at identifying those teams which should be seriously considered). After that, as I've always said, it's "who" you beat, "where" you beat 'em and "when."

As it should be.

Joe Lunardi is the resident Bracketologist for ESPN, ESPN.com and ESPN Radio. He may be reached at bracketology@comcast.net.