Gary Parrish

I still have North Carolina ahead of Duke in the Top 25 (and one).

I'll explain why in the Poll Attacks .

AP poll: Do we suddenly believe Duke is better than North Carolina?

If so, I'm fine with it.

It's a reasonable opinion.

But most people didn't believe that in the preseason, and the majority of AP voters didn't believe it last week. Still, Duke jumped North Carolina in Monday's AP poll even though the only thing that happened between last week and this week is that North Carolina played Ohio State and Syracuse, i.e., two teams far superior to any team Duke has played. That's it. Thus, I kept UNC ahead of Duke in the Top 25 (and one) because I'm not going to vault the Blue Devils ahead of the Tar Heels -- who beat OSU but lost to Syracuse -- and rearrange the ACC's predicted order of finish simply because Duke's schedule didn't require it to play tough games before Thanksgiving.

Honestly, where would the Tar Heels be with Duke's schedule?

They'd be 4-0, right?

And where would Duke be with UNC's schedule?

Maybe 5-0. But probably 4-1. And perhaps as bad as 3-2.

Either way, if you had UNC ahead of Duke last week, and you moved Duke ahead of UNC this week despite agreeing with me that Duke would probably be no better than 4-1 against UNC's schedule, then your change atop the ACC is based on how the schedule makers at Duke and UNC did their jobs, and little more.

Again, if you think the Blue Devils are better than UNC, that's fine.

They might well be.

But if you only moved Duke ahead of UNC because Duke won last week and UNC lost last week, then your rankings have more to do with the schedules than the teams, and that's crazy.

Coaches poll: So what do you think California has to do to drop out of the rankings?

Losing a key player (Theo Robertson) to injury didn't do it.

Looking awful in two games in NYC didn't do it.

Being 2-2 with no good wins didn't do it.

So what will it take?

No question, Cal could end up being one of the best 25 teams in the country, at which point ranking the Bears 24th might make sense. But the coaches ranking them 24th now makes no sense unless what happens on the court doesn't actually matter. And it's not just that Cal lost; the nation's 24th-best team could reasonably lose to Syracuse and Ohio State. But Cal had no shot in either game, losing to the Orange by 22 points and falling behind by 24 points in the second half of an eventual loss to Ohio State. And though the absence of Robertson is a solid explanation, it's not like Robertson is back this week.

He's out indefinitely.

California should be, too.

The AP and Coaches polls make less sense than signing Allen Iverson.

I'll tell you why right now.

It's time to Poll Attack !

AP poll: Proof that the Poll Attacks are making an impact came Monday when I learned that Bill Cole ranked the Butler Bulldogs. This is a massive development because, for those who don't remember, Bill was the only AP voter who didn't have Butler on his preseason ballot, which caused me to dedicate a large portion of the preseason Poll Attacks to his inexplicable decision.

I didn't understand why Bill ranked UCLA but not Butler.

It made no sense.

I said so.

And Bill responded this week by moving Butler onto his ballot and dropping UCLA completely despite nothing of note happening with either team between the time his first and second ballots were filed. The only thing that happened is that Bill got Poll Attacked , and he adjusted his ballot to (presumably) avoid another beating. It makes me proud, honestly. I'm bringing change to America one ballot at a time.

In a related note, I'd like to take a moment to make sure Elton Alexander, Al Balderas, Pat Ridgell, Charles Goldberg and Jason Groves understand the season started last week. They all included Mississippi State on their latest ballots, this despite Mississippi State -- at best a borderline Top 25 team in the preseason -- losing its season opener at home to Rider by an 88-74 margin.

Come on, guys.

Try to keep up.

Coaches poll: Remember the preseason Coaches poll and how I pointed out that Southern California/USC getting 22 points was ridiculous? I surmised those "USC" votes must've been intended for South Carolina , and that the geniuses who tabulate the votes incorrectly credited them to Southern California.

No doubt, that's what happened.

Because Southern California got zero points in this week's Coaches poll.

That's more like it.

But what's confusing is that South Carolina got zero points, too.

It's crazy.

South Carolina got one point in the preseason Coaches poll, and if we're assuming the 22 "USC" points should've also gone to South Carolina then it's fair to assume South Carolina should've received at least 23 points in this week's poll. Instead, the Gamecocks beat Alabama A&M by 38 and lost its one point and the other 22 that we're incorrectly credited to Southern California. The only explanation is that the coaches simply wanted to avoid confusion and declined to vote for Southern California, South Carolina, USC or anything close to any of those things. Poor Darrin Horn. Guy might never be ranked again.

The preseason AP and Coaches polls were released today.

Thus, it's time for some preseason Poll Attacks .

(For those unfamiliar, The Poll Attacks are released Mondays during the season after the AP and Coaches polls are made public. It's the vehicle I use to highlight other's stupidity, and you can't imagine how much stupidity exists.)

AP Poll: Rarely would a school that returned four starters from a team that advanced to the second round of the NCAA tournament begin the subsequent season unranked. But Siena is not a part of the power structure voters respect, so the Saints got the shaft.

It's shameful.

Look, I've doubted Siena before, and I thought I had good reasons. But I'm not so stubborn that I can't adjust when I see a program advance in the NCAA tournament in consecutive seasons, which is why I adjusted and gave Siena the benefit of the doubt. The Saints deserve that considering what they've accomplished and what they return. If they flop, I'll punish them accordingly. But not getting a preseason ranking is wrong, I think.

Among those who did not vote for the Saints is Bill Cole from the Winston-Salem Journal .

He must hate non-BCS schools.

Because Cole not only omitted Siena, he also left Butler off his ballot.

Seriously, no Butler?

(Picture me YELLING that question)

The Bulldogs return every relevant part from a team that won 26 games and made the NCAA tournament for the third consecutive season. They have high-level players like Gordon Hayward, Matt Howard and Shelvin Mack, and there is absolutely no way to justify leaving the Bulldogs off a Top 25 ballot. Perhaps that's why Cole was the only of the 65 AP voters to do so. Meantime, Cole has UCLA 24th, meaning he ranked a NCAA tournament team returning just one starter 24th but did not rank an NCAA tournament team returning all five starters. Make sense of that, if you can.

Also: Cole has Kentucky ranked 12th.

I could spend 500 words telling you how off that is, but I'm ready to move on.

Coaches Poll: It took me 17 seconds of examining the Coaches poll to realize those 22 votes awarded to Southern California were probably intended for South Carolina and submitted under the label "USC." So why do you think the folks tabulating votes for the Coaches poll couldn't figure that out, too?

I mean, Southern California shouldn't be getting votes in a Top 50 poll, much less a Top 25 poll; that's why the Trojans got zero votes in the AP poll, because nobody voted for them and the people tabulating votes for the AP didn't senselessly award them points. And I'm furious if I'm South Carolina coach Darrin Horn. I'm not saying the Gamecocks deserve to be ranked, but they do deserve to get whatever votes they actually get. Mistakes like this shouldn't happen. It's embarrassing. For them, not me.

Pittsburgh should be No. 1.

I'll explain why right after I destroy some AP ballots.

It's time to Poll Attack !

AP poll: Creighton should not be getting votes.

Why is that so hard to understand?

I mean, the Bluejays shouldn't have got votes last week either, but I let that slide because they'd been playing well, and Dana Altman is a good coach, so what do I care? But now they're coming off a 24-point loss to an Illinois State team that subsequently lost in the Missouri Valley Conference tournament title game, and it looks like Creighton won't even make the NCAA tournament thanks to a body of work that has long been sketchy.

Seriously, Jerry Palm doesn't have Creighton in the field right now.

And I think Jerry's correct.

So what Phil Jardis of the Journal Inquirer in Connecticut (he ranked Creighton 23rd) and Brian Dohn of the Los Angeles Daily News (he ranked Creighton 25th) are doing is ranking a team that:

• is coming off a 24-point loss to a non-tournament team.
• has one top 45 win and seven losses outside the top 45.
• probably won't make the NCAA tournament.

Does that make sense?

Can you really rank teams that probably won't make the NCAA tournament?

Also, there's this: Weber State got five points because the Houston Chronicle's Michael Murphy ranked the Wildcats 21st -- one spot ahead of Florida State, which is hilarious on about 79 different levels. Now I know you probably don't know much about Weber State, because, well, how could you? But all you need to know to understand why it's silly to rank the Wildcats is that they are 0-2 against the top 25, 0-3 against the top 50 and 0-5 against the top 100. Swear to God, they don't have a single top 100 victory. Even worse, Weber State lost to Southern Miss and Montana State, and anybody who loses to Southern Miss (RPI 162) and Montana State (RPI 222) should be banned from AP poll consideration, perhaps for five or more years.

But Michael Murphy still ranked them 21st.

Did he rank the BYU team that beat Weber State by 30?

Of course not.

Did he rank the Utah State team that beat Weber State by 26?

Of course not.

Did he rank Utah or Arizona, both of which beat Weber State by double-digits?

Of course not.

He passed over them all for freakin' Weber State.

Man, these Poll Attacks never lack material, do they?

Coaches poll: I have the top two spots different from both the AP poll and Coaches poll.

So who's wrong?

Naturally, the AP poll and Coaches poll.

Their top two looks like this:

1. North Carolina
2. Pittsburgh

My top two looks like this:

1. Pittsburgh
2. North Carolina

Now I'm not trying to tell you this is an outrage or that there's a big difference between these teams, because it's not and there isn't. I like North Carolina just fine, and I'm pretty sure that's the school I'm picking to win the national title. But to me, rankings should be based mostly on what has happened instead of what you think might happen, and based on what has happened to this point it's pretty obvious Pittsburgh deserves the No. 1 spot.

Let's compare the bodies of work ...

-- PITT --

Overall record: 28-3
RPI: 1
Strength of schedule: 7
Top 30 wins: 8
Top 50 wins: 9
Top 100 wins: 16
Losses outside the top 25: 1
Details on losses: at Louisville (9 RPI), at Villanova (14 RPI), at Providence (70 RPI)

-- UNC --

Overall record: 27-3
RPI: 2
Strength of schedule: 15
Top 30 wins: 5
Top 50 wins: 5
Top 100 wins: 13
Losses outside the Top 25: 2
Details on losses: at Wake Forest (10 RPI), home to Boston College (57 RPI), at Maryland (67 RPI)

From looking at that, you can see that Pitt has a better RPI, better schedule rating, more top 30 wins, nearly twice as many top 50 wins, more top 100 wins and better losses, including no home losses. Thus, Pittsburgh should be No. 1 and North Carolina should be No. 2. Anybody ranking them differently is basically ignoring every bit of hard evidence that exists, or either they're just too lazy to pay attention.

Taylor Rochestie's game-winning shot was great this weekend, I admit.

But great enough to put Washington State on somebody's ballot?

Not. Even. Close. Bud.

It's time to Poll Attack !

AP poll: Myron Medcalf of the Minneapolis Star Tribune ranked Pittsburgh eighth, and that's not even the craziest thing about his ballot. No, the craziest thing about his ballot is that he has Washington State ranked 22nd, which would make sense if the season started Feb. 21, because Washington State has been pretty good since Feb. 21, and the Cougars deserve some credit for that.

But a national ranking?

Please.

Washington State is currently sixth in the Pac-10 standings, 8-9 in the league and 16-13 overall. That alone suggests the Cougars shouldn't be anywhere near an AP ballot, and if you look closer it gets worse. They are 0-3 against the top 25 (in the RPI), 4-8 against the top 50, 5-11 against the top 100 and 10-13 against the top 200, meaning Tony Bennett's team actually has a losing record in games where their opponent doesn't have an RPI worse than 200.

Ranking somebody with that body of work is inexplicable. And what makes it worse is the fact that Myron has Xavier ranked a spot below Washington State, which means he thinks a team that is 10-13 against the top 200 is better than a team that is 19-5 against the top 200. Come on, man. Really?

Coaches poll: The main problem with the Coaches poll is that Connecticut isn't the unanimous No. 1. As I pointed out in the Top 25 (and one) , the Huskies have more wins (27) and fewer losses (2) than anybody, and they're doing this in what I believe is the toughest league in the country. The four No. 1 votes that didn't go to UConn went to Memphis, and though I'm not here to bash Memphis because I think the Tigers are absolutely good enough to make another Final Four (remember, Tiger fans, I have you ranked in the top five!), I can't help but wonder how somebody can justify having Memphis No. 1 on a ballot given that the Tigers have losses to two of the best three teams they've played, and that they have as many Big East losses as Connecticut despite not playing in the Big East.

Seriously, Memphis is 2-2 against Big East teams.

Connecticut is 15-2 against Big East teams.

I'm not sure what that means, exactly.

But I'm pretty sure it means UConn should be ahead of Memphis on every ballot.

 

Stupidity, you are about to be exposed.

It's time to Poll Attack !

AP poll: I'm not sure how two voters moved Oklahoma from No. 2 to No. 1 on their ballots after a loss to unranked Texas. But I'll let that slide, I guess, because though it makes almost no sense, it at least makes (slightly) more sense than leaving Connecticut No. 1 after it lost on its home court to the team that should be No. 1 on everybody's ballot, namely Pittsburgh.

We all saw Pitt beat UConn last week, right?

I was there.

I wrote about it and everything.

It really happened.

And it's primarily why UConn can't be ahead of Pitt.

At least the folks placing Oklahoma No. 1 could discount the loss by claiming that Blake Griffin only played 11 minutes, and that it came on the road, and that if he wouldn't have been concussed the Sooners might've recorded the win. To be clear, I disagree, because key players play limited minutes all the time in this sport, and we don't discount losses across the board when it happens (although if you want to do it, fine, but I'll just point out that DeJuan Blair only played 20 minutes in each of Pitt's losses because of foul trouble). Plus, OU was losing at the moment Griffin was injured. So it's not like the Sooners fell apart after the injury (like Saint Mary's fell apart at Gonzaga last month after Patrick Mills went down), meaning there's nothing on this planet suggesting Oklahoma was going to win that game the other night regardless of whether Griffin played or not.

But whatever.

I'm not here to make that point.

I'm more concerned with how somebody could leave UConn ahead of Pitt, because in this case we have two teams with similar bodies of work (though Pitt's is clearly better, and I'll explain that momentarily) and a recent head-to-head match-up to settle the debate. Again, Pitt just beat UConn. At UConn. And when you combine that with the fact that Pitt has the exact same overall record (25-2) against a better schedule, plus a better CBSSports.com RPI ranking, better ranking at KenPom.com, more quality wins, better losses and no home losses (UConn has two), then it's pretty clear that Pitt should be ranked No. 1 in the country.

I mean, I took all that time to explain it Saturday night.

The least the AP voters could do was listen.

And do you want to guess who it was that voted UConn No. 1 and Pitt No. 2?

(Seriously, you're going to love this.)

It was our old friend George Geise from Montana, a future first-ballot Poll Attack Hall of Famer who has been featured in this blog many times for his inexplicable voting habits. You can read some of his past transgressions here and here and here and here . And when you go to sleep tonight, pray for him, because at this point it's clear George needs all the help he can get.

Coaches poll: Why is Saint Mary's getting votes?

I was fundamentally against the idea even when Patrick Mills was playing because of a lack of quality wins, though I could tolerate it because I believed the Gaels were Top 25-ish. But now Mills is hurt, and Saint Mary's is 4-4 since the injury, 20-5 overall against Division 1 opponents and saddled with more losses outside the top 50 (three) than it has wins inside the top 50 (two).

Does that sound like a top 25 team?

Of course it doesn't.

But the Gaels still got four points in the Coaches poll.

Only thing dumber than that is Utah State getting 22 points.

I mean, Utah State has a body of work even less impressive than Saint Mary's, and at least Saint Mary's has an excuse. You watch, if Utah State doesn't win the WAC tournament, the Aggies -- who just lost to a Mills-less Saint Mary's team, by the way -- are going to miss the NCAA tournament, and people will go crazy. But then somebody else -- it'll probably be me -- will point out how Utah State has exactly one top 50 victory and a 3-3 record against the top 90 of CBSSports.com's RPI, and then all those people will have to be quiet because they'll have nothing tangible to back their argument, and I'll look so smart I won't know what to do with myself.

HARTFORD, Conn. -- Note to all voters: Washington must be ahead of Arizona State and UCLA.

At least until I tell you otherwise.

Let's do the Poll Attacks .

AP poll: Today, we explore the ballot of the Boston Globe 's Michael Vega.

Why?

Because it's too good to pass up, that's why.

He has Butler ranked sixth and Dayton ranked seventh, and nevermind that those two schools only have four top 50 wins between them. Michael does not care about quality wins, because how else could he justify having Duke ranked 25th? The Blue Devils have seven top 50 wins, and if you want to understand how they stack-up nationally I'd encourage you to click this link and read the Dear Gary from earlier today.

I could go on forever with this ballot, but I don't have the time.

Pittsburgh-Connecticut is about to tip.

I've got to get to the court.

But all you need to know is that there is an AP voter -- again, Michael Vega is his name -- who has Butler ranked sixth, Dayton ranked seventh, Wake Forest, Louisville and Villanova way lower than any reasonable person could have them (i.e., 16th, 17th and 21st), Davidson 22nd and Duke 25th.

Seriously, Butler, Dayton and Davidson combined have five top 50 wins.

Duke has seven.

This might be the craziest ballot I've ever seen.

Coaches poll: I thought for sure that I was the last person to properly recognize Washington. But, as always, I forgot about those crazy coaches, who have the Huskies ranked behind two other Pac-10 schools, which makes no sense whatsoever.

First, Washington is atop the Pac-10 standings.

The coaches saw that, right?

But if not, they still should've noticed that No. 19 Washington has a better RPI (22nd) than No. 11 Arizona State (27th) and No. 15 UCLA (32nd), and that Washington is actually 2-0 against Arizona State and UCLA, having beaten each school once. So regardless of whether you're into league standings, RPIs or head-to-head match-ups, there's no way to conclude that Washington is worse than Arizona State and UCLA. But somehow the coaches concluded as much, which is both silly and wrong.

There's an anti-Big Ten bias going on.

Or something.

I'll explain in the Poll Attacks.

AP poll: There are a lot of goofy ballots out there this week. But today I want to focus on the 23 AP voters who have Michigan State ranked outside their top 10, because once I breakdown the Spartans' body of work I think they'll see the error of their ways and react accordingly, which is sort of the point of the Poll Attacks.

Here's Michigan State's key information ...

-- MICHIGAN STATE --

Overall record: 19-4
RPI ranking: 7
Strength of Schedule ranking: 7
Wins against the top 50 (at CollegeRPI.com): 8

Looks pretty good without any explanation, doesn't it?

The Spartans are 19-4 against the nation's seventh-toughest schedule (according to CollegeRPI.com), and only Oklahoma has more top 50 wins. That's strong. But it's even stronger when you consider that two of the losses (Maryland and North Carolina) came during a five-game stretch where Goran Suton was injured and unavailable, and that the other two (to Northwestern and Penn State) have come while Raymar Morgan battles pneumonia. Ailing, Morgan scored just one point in 18 minutes against Northwestern and no points in three minutes against Penn State, the latter performance being enough to convince Tom Izzo to sit Morgan until he fully recovers, which is why the junior has missed the past two games and isn't expected to play Tuesday night at Michigan.

Bottom line, there's no way to have Michigan State outside the top 10 with that body of work.

And would you believe it if I told you one AP voter actually has the Spartans all the way down at 19?

(It's true)

The voter's name is Ed Graney.

He has one of those goofy ballots I was talking about.

Ed works at the Las Vegas Review-Journal, which is kind of close to Utah. I point this out because that's the only explanation for having Utah State ranked 15th, i.e., four spots ahead of Michigan State. Seriously, Ed has a team with just one top 50 win (against Utah) and a misleading overall record ranked ahead of a team with eight top 50 wins and a two-game lead in the Big Ten (which is the second-toughest league in the country, according to CollegeRPI.com).

That's insane.

On the other hand, perhaps he's just into win totals and loss totals, and that's how he makes sense of having Utah State so high, because he really likes the 23-1 record and doesn't care that it's a direct result of playing a schedule rated 189th nationally. Fine. Whatever. But then how could he explain having Gonzaga ranked 18th, i.e., one spot ahead of Michigan State when the Zags have two fewer overall wins than Michigan State, one more loss, five fewer top 50 wins and a schedule rated 51 spots worse?

(Sigh)

Coaches poll: When I ranked Ohio State 17th I assumed I'd have the Buckeyes higher than either poll.

And I was OK with it.

Because I can defend the ranking.

But do you think the coaches can defend not ranking OSU at all?

If you saw the Dear Gary entry from earlier today you should have a better understanding of how I rank teams. Sure, I look at how a team is playing now, what it just did, etc. But more than anything I focus on bodies of work, and Ohio State's body of work is pretty damn solid by any measuring stick.

-- OHIO STATE --

Overall record: 17-5
RPI ranking: 21
Wins against the top 50 (at CollegeRPI.com): 6
Losses outside the top 25 (at CollegeRPI.com): 0

So to summarize: Ohio State is 17-5 with six top 50 wins and no losses outside the top 25.

Also, the Buckeyes are on a four-game winning streak.

But somehow the coaches chose not to rank OSU and instead rank two Pac-10 schools I did not rank.

Here are the bodies of work of those two schools ...

-- No. 18 ARIZONA STATE --

Overall record: 18-5
RPI ranking: 39
Wins against the top 50 (at CollegeRPI.com): 3
Losses outside the top 25 (at CollegeRPI.com): 4

-- No. 24 WASHINGTON --

Overall record: 17-6
RPI ranking: 18
Wins against the top 50 (at CollegeRPI.com): 4
Losses outside the top 25 (at CollegeRPI.com): 5

So, again, to summarize: Ohio State has roughly the same record as Arizona State and Washington, but more top 50 wins and fewer losses outside the top 25, and for the life of me I can't figure out how anybody could digest all this information and reach the conclusion that Arizona State should be 18th, Washington should be 24th and Ohio State should be unranked. But that's precisely what the coaches did, which is why the Poll Attacks work every single week.

Northern Iowa got a vote.

That's more questionable than Utah State over Dayton.

Let's do the Poll Attacks .

AP poll: I was going to use this space to explain why I think Utah State should not be ranked 25th, but I've decided against that now because it'll just come off like I'm beating up on a WAC school, and I'm not interested in coming off that way. Plus, my entire argument would be based around the idea that the Aggies haven't really beaten anybody (unless you count Utah as somebody). And though it would be a fair argument, that's the same argument that had me doubting Davidson last season , and we all know how that worked out.

So I'll let Utah State slide for now.

Instead, I'll focus on Northern Iowa.

Seventy-one of the 72 AP voters omitted Northern Iowa from their ballots, which means 71 of the 72 AP voters did at least that one thing correctly. Then there's Steve Pivovar of the Omaha World-Herald (which is in a Misouri Valley Conferece city, it's worth noting), who ranked the Panthers even though they've beaten fewer good teams than Utah State.

Guess how many Top 50 wins Northern Iowa possesses?

(Hint: It rhymes with nero .)

Yep, zero.

Which means Steve ranked a team with no Top 50 wins and six losses -- including a 30-point loss to Marquette, a 19-point loss to Iowa, a nine-point loss to Wyoming, and three other losses (Iowa State, Illinois-Chicago and Indiana) to teams ranked outside the Top 125 at CollegeRPI.com.

Does that sound like the body of work of a Top 25 team? Of course it doesn't, and the reason is because Northern Iowa isn't a Top 25 team as much as it's a nice team that's stringing wins in a one-bid league, which makes Northern Iowa a lot like Utah State, I guess.

Coaches poll: Again, I'm not complaining about the Utah State Aggies being ranked.

If you want to rank them, rank them.

I'm OK with it.

But what I don't understand is how somebody could rank Utah State (21-1) but not Dayton (20-2).

Dayton has a better win (over Marquette) than any Utah State win, plus four Top 70 wins as opposed to Utah State's one (over Utah). Furthermore, the Flyers have 13 Top 200 wins as opposed to Utah State's eight, and that's because 13 of Utah State's wins have come against schools ranked outside the Top 200 and/or non-Division I teams. That's why the Aggies' strength of schedule rates 205th nationally, why their RPI is 40th (Dayton's strength of schedule rates 155th nationally, its RPI is 32nd). It's also why I'm skeptical of the WAC favorite, and why I don't understand how the coaches could rank them 22nd while leaving Dayton out of the Top 25, because though Utah State and Dayton both have suspect bodies of work, I can't see how anybody could look at the two bodies of work and conclude that Utah State's is more impressive.

UCLA being in the top 20 of both polls makes no sense.

And how did the AP voters shun Minnesota?

Here come the Poll Attacks .

AP poll: More than half of the AP voters -- i.e., too many to name -- didn't include Minnesota on their ballots.

That means more than half of the AP voters missed badly on Minnesota.

Seriously, what's the deal?

The Golden Gophers are 17-3 overall with wins against No. 7 Louisville, Wisconsin and Ohio State. Furthermore, none of their losses (to Michigan State, Purdue and at Northwestern) are bad considering all three of the schools that beat Minnesota are ranked in the top 40 at CollegeRPI.com.

Is that body of work not better than No. 21 Villanova's body of work? The Wildcats have one top 50 win (Minnesota has three) and four total losses (Minnesota has three). Is that body of work not better than No. 22 Saint Mary's body of work? The Gaels have no top 50 wins (Minnesota has three) and a loss to a school well outside the top 50 (No. 99 UTEP). Is that body of work not better than No. 23 Washington's body of work? The Huskies have two top 50 wins (Minnesota has three) and four total losses (Minnesota has three), including one to a school well outside the top 50 (No. 125 Portland).

I'd argue Minnesota should be ranked ahead of each of those schools.

Which is why I ranked Minnesota ahead of each of those schools.

Anyway, like I said, there are too many AP voters who didn't rank Minnesota to list them all. But because you guys like it when I single-out voters (or at least you tell me you like it), what I did was click on the very first voter on the alphabetical list who didn't vote for Minnesota and examined his ballot.

His name is Andrew Aragon.

He works at the Deseret Morning News in Utah.

He has Washington, Saint Mary's and Villanova (the three schools I referenced above) ranked 16th, 18th and 20th.

He has UCLA ranked 19th.

And now I'll explain why that's crazy, too.

Coaches poll: The 16th-ranked team in the Coaches poll is UCLA, and I understand why, I guess. It's because UCLA has some talented players (Darren Collison, Jrue Holiday, etc.) and Ben Howland has proved worthy of the benefit of the doubt. But at some point voters should care about results more than anything else, and there's no way to rank UCLA 16th (or even 25th, honestly) if you're paying attention to results.

Don't believe me?

Just look at UCLA's body of work ...

-- UCLA --

Overall record: 15-4
Record against the Top 25 at CollegeRPI.com: 0-1
Record against the Top 50 at CollegeRPI.com: 1-4
Record against the Top 100 at CollegeRPI.com: 4-4

Now I ask: Does that look like the body of work of a team that should be ranked 16th?

Or 19th?

Or 25th?

I mean, more than half of the season is over and UCLA's best win is against Miami-Ohio! So while I agree that the Bruins have potential and could be a team to watch in March, they've done nothing in November, December or January to deserve the ranking they got on this Monday. Put another way, the coaches goofed this up. But to their credit they have Minnesota ranked 24th. So if nothing else, they're doing better than the AP voters, at least this week.

Here's Tuesday's Dear Gary ...

Dear Gary: I was really disappointed to not find George's rankings in this weeks "Poll Attacks". So, Gary, what did George do?

-- TDM

George -- who has been this season's star of the Poll Attacks -- produced a underwhelming ballot this week, which is to say it wasn't nearly as wild as usual. Of course, Xavier is still trying to get back to No. 12, i.e., where the Musketeers were on George's ballot three weeks ago. Since then, they've gone 6-0 but netted a four-spot drop. So that doesn't make much sense. But we've been over this before.

If you want me to nitpick, UCLA lost at home to Arizona State and moved from 11th to 10th on George's ballot. That's odd. But all in all, it was a pretty solid week for our friend from Montana, and he has Wake Forest in the top spot, which automatically makes him better than some voters.

There is somebody who thinks there are three teams that deserve to be ranked ahead of Wake Forest.

This is why the Poll Attacks are easy, folks.

Let's do this!

AP poll: I explained in great detail over the weekend why Wake Forest had to be the No. 1 team in the country. On Monday, 68 of the 72 AP voters agreed with my way of thinking, meaning 68 of the 72 voters at least have the top slot on their ballots filled out correcty.

And then there's John Wilner of the San Jose Mercury News.

Holy crap, does he have a goofy ballot.

Would you believe Wilner has Wake Forest -- the nation's only undefeated team with wins over No. 5 North Carolina and No. 10 Clemson -- ranked behind Duke, Michigan State and Oklahoma, i.e., three teams that can't possibly match Wake Forest's body of work? I mean, even if you forget the obvious fact that Wake Forest has remained perfect while Duke has a loss (at Michigan), Michigan State has two losses (to Maryland and UNC) and Oklahoma has a loss (at Arkansas), it's important to recognize the Demon Deacons have two wins over teams currently ranked in the AP Top 10.

Now I know what you're thinking:

How many wins over teams currently ranked in the AP Top 10 does Duke have, Gary?

Zero.

The Blue Devils' best win is over No. 12 Georgetown.

How many wins over teams currently ranked in the AP Top 10 does Michigan State have, Gary?

Zero.

The Spartans' best win is over No. 14 Texas.

How many wins over teams currently ranked in the AP Top 10 does Oklahoma have, Gary?

Zero.

The Sooners' best win is over No. 14 Texas.

So to summarize, Wake Forest has no losses and two wins better than any win Duke, Michigan State and Oklahoma possess, and yet Wilner has those three schools ranked ahead of Dino Gaudio's Demon Deacons. There is no logical way to defend such a ballot. But Wilner also has Tennessee ranked 20th and Clemson unranked, and he couldn't possibly defend that either. So perhaps logic doesn't matter as much as I like to pretend.

Coaches poll: I was ready to ride Arkansas all the way to the SEC West title after the Hogs beat Oklahoma and Texas, because I loved Courtney Fortson and Michael Washington and just the general make-up of the team. I defended them to no end. But now I must question how they are getting two points in the Coaches poll, because they should no longer be getting any votes in any poll unless it's a poll about the most disapointing starts to league play.

Arkansas has dropped three straight -- to Ole Miss, Mississippi State and Florida -- and is tied with Georgia for last place in the SEC's overall standings, and my general rule in ranking basketball teams is that if you happen to be tied with Georgia in any form you must be eliminated from consideration.

Who could argue with that?

Here's Wednesday's Dear Gary ...

Dear Gary: Is George Geise a plant, trying to pay off a debt to you by making himself a target on par with a sloth or GW Bush late in his second term? Or is it that he is a purist, relying on newspapers mailed to him in Montana thereby arriving 1-3 weeks late just in time to make his vote insane? Has he heard of the world wide interweb (it is like a system of tubes)? Or has he established a fundamentally flawed but valiant effort to undermine the BCS system?

Should we have an intervention?

Should you interview him?

Should I interview him?

-- Eric

I've actually received a bunch of emails suggesting George -- the crazy AP voter and star of the weekly Poll Attacks -- might be just goofing around to have fun with me, and I can understand why folks would think that way. The alternative is to believe he really is that out-of-touch with what's happening in college basketball, but I'm afraid the latter is true.

Remember, I only discovered George because his ballot was so wacky.

It's remained that way every week.

So I think he really is just, well, not very good at filling out an AP ballot, although there might be something to the theory that he is relying on newspapers mailed to him for results. I know that sounds silly, but if you check his ballots he really is about a week behind the times -- evidence being how he moved Boston College from 25th to 19th the week after the Eagles lost to Harvard and Miami instead of the week after the Eagles beat North Carolina.

You got that?

Boston College went 0-2 last week but advanced six places on George's ballot.

That makes no sense unless he thought BC should've been 25th before the UNC win and 19th after the BC win, meaning he really is operating a week behind reality, which would be wild. Short of that, I have no idea what's happening up there in Montana. But the dude is a gift sent from God to the Poll Attacks, and if you decide to interview him, Eric, be sure to let me know how it goes, because I'm curious to understand George's way of thinking just as much as anybody.

George from Montana has outdone himself this week.

(Seriously, you have no idea)

Let's do the Poll Attacks, shall we?

AP poll: Whenever I see a strange vote in the AP poll, particularly a strange single vote, I immediately go to ballots from the state of the school receiving the strange vote, because there is a certain "homer" factor that goes along with this stuff, and I've always found it interesting.

So that's what  I did when TCU got a vote this week.

I went straight to the ballots from Texas.

Kate Hairopoulos of the Dallas Morning News?

Nope, she's good.

Michael Murphy of the Houston Chronicle?

Nope, he's good.

Randy Riggs of the Austin American-Statesman?

Nope, he's good.

Jeff Walker of the Lubbuck Avalanche-Journal?

Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner!

I promise you, it never fails. The craziest single votes are always John Feinstein throwing some love at a Patriot League school or somebody taking care of an in-state program. With Walker, we have the latter, because there's no way TCU should be appearing on anybody's ballot, and I'm somebody who thinks Jim Christian was a good hire who will do good-to-great things in the future. But weekly AP ballots are supposed to be about the present, not the future, and TCU is presently a team with an 11-5 record featuring losses to Clemson (no shame there), Charleston, Nebraska, Indiana and Louisiana Tech.

Indiana is 5-10.

Louisiana Tech is 7-10.

So while TCU's weekend victory over UNLV was nice, that is the Horned Frogs' best win by far. And when your best win by far is against UNLV, that's not enough to offset five losses, particularly when two of those losses came to teams with losing records. Bottom line, TCU shouldn't be on Walker's ballot or any ballot unless we're talking football. But if the Horned Frogs somehow win at BYU on Tuesday night, I'll be open to re-evaluating the situation.

And now it's time for our weekly George Geise update, otherwise known as the "Curious Case of George Geise (and his handling of Xavier)": For those unfamiliar, check out last week's Poll Attacks, where I detailed how George (an AP voter from Montana) dropped Xavier from 12th to completely out of his Top 25 even though the Musketeers DID NOT lose in that particular week. Xavier fans no doubt let George know the error of his ways, and I'm happy to report he is now ranking Xavier 17th, which means Sean Miller's team moved up at least nine places (depending on how far they were off of George's ballot) after victories over Saint Louis and Fordham, but they have still somehow dropped five spots over the past two weeks despite a 4-0 record in that span.

Confused?

Join the club!

But that's not even the worst of it.

Would you believe that George had Boston College ranked 25th last week, and that he moved the Eagles up to 19th this week following losses to Harvard and Miami? Yes, that really happened. Also, last week, George did not have West Virginia ranked at all. But then the Mountaineers went out and lost to Connecticut and  Marquette, so, naturally, they broke into George's ballot at No. 25. And finally, there's Gonzaga, which was 16th on George's ballot last week. The Zags then beat Tennessee and Portland, but George clearly was not impressed, because he dropped Mark Few's team completely off his ballot while leaving Tennessee at No. 16.

My God.

Coaches poll: I don't doubt Saint Mary's is good, and that it might even be one of the best 25 teams in the country. As I've said many times, I don't think there's a whole bunch of difference between No. 15 and No. 40 this season. So if you'll accept that premise, and you believe Saint Mary's is one of the best 40 teams in the country, then I suppose it's OK for the Gaels to be 25th in the Coaches poll.

But I still must ask: What have they done to deserve it?

They aren't in possession of a good victory (unless you want to count Providence, which I don't), and they probably haven't even played a team that'll make the NCAA tournament. Likewise, the Gaels aren't obviously great despite quality wins like, say, UCLA. And it's not like they're perfect either, because they have a 13-point loss to UTEP.

So, I'll ask again, what has this team done to climb into the Top 25 besides play a simple schedule?

Correct answer: Nothing, really.

Every other ranked team -- save perhaps, UCLA, which falls into the "obviously good" category because of the roster featuring Darren Collison, Jrue Holiday and Josh Shipp -- has a victory better than Saint Mary's victory over Providence, and so I guess my point is just that I'm not a big fan of rewarding teams for playing bad schedules. It's why I would've never ranked Illinois State even if it moved to 20-0, why I had Pittsburgh ranked lower than just about everybody until it won at Georgetown, and why I have UCLA ranked lower than the AP and Coaches polls now.

Bottom line, I want to know who you can beat.

And as of Jan. 12, 2009, Saint Mary's hasn't beaten anybody.

I've been traveling all afternoon, just landed back home after last night's North Carolina-Wake Forest game.

Have I seen the rankings?

Yes.

But I haven't had a chance to really go through the ballots and find out the names of the crazy people still voting for Boston College, and I don't feel properly equipped to Poll Attack until I do that. So hang tight; let me get home. And I'll be back in a little while to highlight stupidity and explain why I strongly disagree with Saint Mary's being 25th in the Coaches Poll.

Till then, just chill.

Watch "24" or something.

And if you choose something, choose something on CBS.