-- As suggested, I think a team should get away from scheduling the maximum (hello, Duke) or minimum (hello, Irish) on their schedules. Suggesting a mid-point certainly would be a prudent idea.
-- As for "objective" criteria, just what are these: RPI? SOS? Polls? Some weighted combination thereof?
-- And then there probably should be another element to it:
“We may need to recognize that we need a subjective, human-based element to the selection criteria.”
— Lars Tiffany (UVA Coach)
Running off winning streaks at the end of the day could be considered, as could taking the #1 team to the limit, as ND did.
Working on the criteria is something that requires working with other teams and institutions. ND can help its case with scheduling.
And IIRC, they played the same number of games as ND. Under those circumstances, I'm not entirely comfortable saying that playing only 12 games was fatal to ND, but it certainly didn't help. Playing 12 left ND with very little margin for error. ND should have scheduled an additional two games even if those games dropped overall SOS. I think 10-4 would have looked much better to the Committee than 8-4.
are those that actually watch ALL the teams, how they play, how they match up, and how they are currently playing. Consider what your "expert" partners - those broadcasting the games are saying. Also when you play in almost unplayable weather as we did when we lost to OSU, that should be a consideration - all those factors RPI apparently doesn't "see" (although according to RPI, we should have been in anyway).
You'll never convince me that the committee even watched any games.
I am biased, but I saw enough games to know the selection and seedings were biased towards the Ivey league.
One obvious matchup that should have been an indicator - Syracuse lost in overtime to Cornell. ND beat that same Syracuse team 22-6 and 18-11.