The thing about college basketball is with 350 or whatever number of teams there are, there can be a huge gap in non-con SOS but there really is little practical difference.
You play a stretch of games against teams that are 300+ vs a bunch of teams that are 150-200 you should win them all comfortably as a good P6 team. There should also be a cap on even ranking teams in terms of SOS.
Agreed.
Does it really matter if you kill a team by 20 vs killing them by 40? They were both (likely) won with ease, with (as you stated) the 200 level opponent not making an appreciable difference vs a 300 ranked opponent. They both suck and should both be easy wins.
I was just specifically pointing out SOS ranks don't properly reflect the risk/reward from playing REALLY good teams. When you play those teams the odds of losing increase exponentially, meaning winning those games should comprise a much larger bump than I think they do. What's more difficult, playing 10 teams ranked 70-80 or playing 4-5 teams ranked in the top 20-30 and playing 5-60 ranked worse than 150? At current it seems SOS views the former as the tougher schedule when in reality it's the latter,
Then there is the argument of relativity, meaning that my previous scenario is probably flipped for team that sucks. If you are ranked 150 and play the first schedule, with the top 20-30 teams being likely blowouts, with the other games being potential wins, it's probably "easier" than playing 10 teams 70-80, teams that are all better than you and all likely losses. At that point it gets more complicated than what it's probably worth and the lesser teams aren't the teams these metrics were designed for.
In judging and ranking the cream of the crop, ergo tournament quality teams, I think they need to change the way they rank and evaluate these things. No way Kansas's non-con schedule wasn't top 10 in terms of difficulty.
