That's a good point, though, by Respect, and it's a decision all those who rank teams or participate in polls have to make: Do you make your decision based on your subjective opinion of who would win a game tonight, or based on the objective records of the teams in question, including early-season games?
The problem with the first course of action is that to make that fair, you have to see all the teams you're considering on a fairly regular basis. If, for example, I haven't seen Oak Ridge play this year, and I've seen Carondelet four times, how can I have a subjective opinion of who would win if they played tonight? And even more to the point, I don't have an injury report for each team so I don't know if their strength has been altered by an injury/illness/whatever.
Along the same line, sometimes if you see a team too many times, you focus on its weaknesses. Then that team you saw once, and played really well, looks so much better in your mind even though you haven't seen them nearly as much and thus perhaps haven't noticed their flaws.
Especially on the national scene, the second option is the best, even though it too is biased and unfair. Teams that can't travel, for whatever reason, or suffer one crushing upset, have it much tougher than a team like Mater Dei, say, which plays a lot of quality teams and can offset that crushing upset by pulling off one of its own.
Even regionally, it's difficult. How good is Presentation, for example? Have you seen them play? The same for Antelope, or Pleasant Valley, or Menlo-Atherton. I doubt even RespectBB has seen all those teams more than once, and if you haven't done that, how can you rank them fairly?
