I just don't see any logic in weighting the non-conference equally to what a team has evolved into by the end of the season. Hearing these analysts talk, that's exactly what they do with all of their non-conference RPI/SOS babble. How do you justify a team who tore through a good non-conference schedule in November and December but falls flat during their conference season, the most critical time of a team's evolution during a season. Why do they not weight the conference portion heavier than the non-conference?
For instance, Team A goes 12-2 through a pretty solid non-conference schedule but then goes 6-10 in league with no great wins. Which Team A do they expect will show up in March? There is a high probability that the 6-10 league play team is going to show up to their regional site in the NCAAs. The most current performances are almost always going to be the most accurate. They also don't consider that this team may have appeared to have a strong non-conference showing only after their decent wins turned into great wins when the teams they beat tear through their own conference seasons yet those teams were really still developing in the non-conference and no where near what they evolved into. Yet, Team A gets credit for beating that team as if they had played them at their peak in conference play.
The equal weighting just baffles me. If you're not playing your best ball from February through early March, I don't see why that team should be awarded for too much of anything they did in November or December to make up for it. Sure, the non-conference should be considered but equal weighting with all of these factors of teams developing or devolving is madness to try and give merits for so early in the season. This is where football gets it right and basketball fails in evaluating teams for the post-season.
