Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="wbbhoops278, post: 4827425, member: 12815"] I like the structure that Qs provide as a point of analysis that's deeper than a generic SoS number. That said, I definitely do agree with you. It doesn't exactly feel like Qs is doing as good of a job of that as it could. The top 100 feels a little too constraining to me given the increasing parity. I'm not saying that a bunch of teams in the 100-200 range are going to be pulling all these upsets...but, I do think that the quality of teams is better nowadays that a win against a team that might be ranked 110 still requires a team to perform to win the game. I also think that the quads should be equal...so 1-50, 51-100, etc. I also remember that we're mostly talking about teams that aren't exceptional or likely that different at the end of the day. Would I expect South Carolina to lose to a team ranked 110 this year? No. Do I think a team like Marquette or Alabama could lose that game? Absolutely. With the approach you're advocating, I think it definitely becomes more valuable in determining who should be in the tournament. Just playing out an example of why I would advocate for a bigger number of teams. [/QUOTE]