During the Neoproterozoic, a supercontinent commonly referred to as Rodinia, supposedly formed at ca. 1100 Ma and broke apart at around 800-700 Ma. However, continental fits (e.g., Laurentia vs. Australia-Antarctica, Greater India vs. Australia-Antarctica, Amazonian craton [AC] vs. Laurentia, etc.) and the timing of break-up as postulated in a number of influential papers in the early-mid-1990s are at odds with palaeomagnetic data. The new data necessitate an entirely different fit of East Gondwana elements and western Gondwana and call into question the validity of SWEAT, AUSWUS models and other variants. At the same time, the geologic record indicates that Neoproterozoic and early Paleozoic rift margins surrounded Laurentia, while similar-aged collisional belts dissected Gondwana. Collectively, these geologic observations indicate the breakup of one supercontinent followed rapidly by the assembly of another smaller supercontinent (Gondwana). At issue, and what we outline in this paper, is the difficulty in determining the exact geometry of the earlier supercontinent. We discuss the various models that have been proposed and highlight key areas of contention. These include the relationships between the various 'external' Rodinian cratons to Laurentia (e.g., Baltica, Siberia and Amazonia), the notion of true polar wander (TPW), the lack of reliable paleomagnetic data and the enigmatic interpretations of the geologic data. Thus, we acknowledge the existence of a Rodinia supercontinent, but we can place only loose constraints on its exact disposition at any point in time.