The "change" column reflects the change from the data set that did not include the RR to the data set that does (in other words, the change from post-Wake results without the RR to post-Wake results with). As a result, relatively few teams show much of any change. I might only leave this up for a short time, then post the data that shows the change as if the RR had been included all along.
A few things to note:
1. The only team that was substantially affected was Kansas CK, who had an exceptionally poor Run for the Roses. I can only hope that they don't still play "You Can't Always Get What You Want" after each round is announced. Below you can see the difference between the two ratings, the blue line representing the ratings that didn't include the round robin and the red line representing those that did. Time periods represent blocks of tournaments (1 = season openers, 2 = Kentucky & Weber, 3 = UNLV & Harvard, 4 = Wake).
2. Harvard BS dropped from 2nd to 4th with the inclusion of the RR, falling behind Harvard DH and Michigan AP, although they're all quite close. Harvard DH and Michigan both had quite strong round robins (1st and 2nd respectively). Still, some might question whether they should jump ahead of BS, who has had an exceptional season so far (32-3 record at included tournaments). This is certainly debatable. However, it should be noted that BS's unadjusted rating is still the best of the three. It's just that they have fewer debates and so their deviance is currently higher, which drops their adjusted rating (for more on why the rankings are based on the adjusted ratings, check the FAQ. Over time this discrepancy should even out. By the end of the season, most active teams end up with deviances fairly close to one another.