Couch's AP basketball ballot explanation: On MSU, Purdue and the problem with Poll Attacks

This is the seventh installment of a weekly column in which Lansing State Journal columnist Graham Couch explains his AP Top 25 basketball ballot, which he sees as thorough independent analysis, even if it often leaves his ballot dubbed "most extreme" of the 65 AP poll voters. Read here for his criteria and further explanation.

Part of putting together a fair and honest AP top 25 ballot, I believe, is being willing to trust what you’re seeing in present day and admit you were either wrong previously or things have changed.

Sometimes quickly. Just because something was so in your analysis a week ago, doesn’t make it so now. Teams shouldn’t have to climb or fall slowly to justify earlier analysis.

And thus, Purdue is No. 6 on my AP basketball ballot this week, Michigan State is 14, and Ohio State and Michigan are in between, at Nos. 11 and 12, respectively.

Purdue is No. 3 in the collective AP rankings, which I have no issue with. MSU is No. 9. Ohio State and Michigan are Nos. 22 and 23, which is ridiculous, if MSU is No. 9.

This is the point in the season when enough time has passed that the battle between resume and today’s reality gets tricky. You shouldn’t discount resume or season-long stats and computer analytics — which love Purdue, but still have MSU comfortably ahead of Michigan and Ohio State. But this is also supposed to be a real-time snapshot of the top 25 teams in college basketball. Kenpom’s advance ratings system — the most over-cited explanation in college basketball rankings — can’t help you explain squat about toughness or matchups or guards who can create their own shot.

Purdue has all of that. I don’t know that there is any college basketball team in the country — other than Villanova — playing at a higher level than Purdue right now. And that is a matchup I’d like to see.

I was slow to become a true believer in Purdue. I saw the Boilermakers early. Then saw them against mediocrity at home and wasn’t as sold on their ceiling or resume as some other folks — especially their fans. I’m sold now. This is a Final Four-caliber club.

If you think No. 6 is still low for Purdue, you might have a case. But so do West Virginia, Texas Tech and Oklahoma, who I have at Nos. 3-5. As does Virginia, which I have at No. 8.

I also don’t necessarily believe that, come March, there will be 13 teams with a better shot a Final Four run than Michigan State, which had a dreadful seven-day stretch, losing at Ohio State by 16, before needing overtime to hold off Rutgers at home and then falling by 10 to Michigan at the Breslin Center.

If you read this column regularly, you know how I feel about road games and road wins and how telling they are compared to what a team does on its home floor. Purdue showed its grit and savvy and completeness as a roster in a road win at Michigan and then a 34-point win at Minnesota. The Gophers are falling apart. But a 34-point win on the road — and the relentlessness and maturity in which Purdue handled its business in Minneapolis — said a ton.

What Michigan then did at MSU — and how the Wolverines looked in doing so (like the stronger team from the jump) — also has to strengthen any analysis of Purdue, given what transpired days earlier.

As for the MSU-Michigan comparison, MSU’s overall resume remains stronger than Michigan’s. How each of these teams fared against North Carolina is a reminder of where they each were a month ago. Same for Ohio State. But seasons don’t stand still. When a team wins by double digits on another team’s home court and it’s no fluke, you shouldn’t rank the losing home team ahead of the road winner unless there are weird circumstances.

I didn’t give Ohio State a ton of credit for beating MSU 80-64 on Jan. 7 in Columbus. Home wins happen. So do disasters on the road. I ranked the Buckeyes 25th last week. Theirs is a flawed resume. But they are rolling right now, dismantling both Maryland and Rutgers by 22 points last week, the Rutgers win coming on the road. You hear Rutgers and might roll your eyes. I see that Rutgers just took MSU to overtime in East Lansing, beat a ranked Seton Hall squad and nearly knocked off Florida State. The brand is far worse than the team.

Ohio State also pulled away at home against Michigan. So, for now, the Buckeyes are a spot ahead. On a neutral court in New York in early March, I’d take Michigan.

Both of these teams are lower than they should be in the collective AP poll — again, 22 and 23 — because in collective voter world, you have to climb slowly over time and other teams have to lose. That is a silly way of putting together a ballot. For example, nothing about how Arizona State is playing right now suggests the Sun Devils should be ranked higher than the Buckeyes or Wolverines. But they are, at No. 16.

The problem with ‘Poll Attacks’

USA Today’s Lindsay Schnell gave up her vote in the AP men’s college basketball poll last week. She was tired of the stress and time that accompanied the fear of being featured in Gary Parrish’s weekly “Poll Attacks” column on CBSSports.com.

If you’re not familiar with this column, Parrish picks out a voter or two each week whose ballot he sees as illogical and, with kid gloves, shames them publicly. It’s an entertaining read and done without malice. On its surface, I don’t have an issue with it. I’ve been featured in it I think four times in three seasons as an AP voter, a couple of those times, in hindsight, deservedly so.

But I’m a fairly thick-skinned bloke who likes a fight and doesn’t mind criticism. And I’m not easily worn down by abusive personal attacks on Twitter or via email. But I don't know the experience of being a woman or person of color in this sportswriter world. Neither does Parrish. What I know from friends who do know that experience of dealing with fans and readers on social media is that it can be pretty damn awful.

There is a general lack of kindness, empathy and civility in our society. Twitter has become a safe space for anger, ignorance, misogyny and racism. And while it is safely behind a screen, it can still be hurtful, overwhelming and tiring.

Based on some of the uncouth behavior I encounter from various fan bases after my AP ballot is made public each week, I can only imagine what it would be like if I were a woman or minority.

People have said things to me on Twitter that have reduced my wife to tears. And the venom I get from some folks there is nothing compared to what others endure.

When Parrish features you in his Poll Attacks column, he is siccing the worst of fandom on to you. And a lot good folks, too — you know which category you’re in. To be clear, there is nothing wrong with disagreeing with an opinion or saying something is a dumb take. That’s not what I’m talking about here.

Back to Schnell, who previously worked at Sports Illustrated and covers college basketball and football for USA Today. She knows her stuff. She texted me last week to say she was done voting in the AP men’s top 25 poll, in part because doing both the men’s and women’s AP polls had become too time-consuming. She’s keeping her vote in the women’s poll. But she also explained another reason: Each week she lived in fear of the Poll Attacks column because of the abuse that would follow. So much so that she would compare her ballot to other writers who share theirs early online and adjust hers accordingly to make sure there were no outliers — or “extreme” votes, as they’re called at collegepolltracker.com, where all of our ballots are made public.

Schnell said she knows of other writers who do the same or have done something similar — including one who told her he takes most of Sunday each week conforming his ballot so he can avoid being Poll Attacked. In other words, Parrish’s column critiquing AP voters is also shaping the AP poll and lessening the original thought and analysis that goes into it.

As an aside, for those of you who think my ballot regularly seems “extreme,” I’d argue — and have argued — this is partly why.

The argument for Parrish’s Poll Attacks column is that his criticism of AP voters is usually warranted, never sharp in tone and, frankly, a popular read. If a voter doesn’t have the time to do this volunteer gig right or is worried about being mentioned by Parrish, there’s an easy solution. No one is forcing us to do this. We were all asked and agreed to it.

Parrish ranks the “Top 25 (and 1)” every day. So we ought to be able to do it well once a week, right? Except, it’s actually easier if you’re doing it daily and if you’re paid to do it as part of your job, like Parrish, and if you don’t also cover football, like many of us. Still, some of the choices voters make are ridiculous and/or lazy and ripe for a call-out.

I’ve got no issue with Parrish personally, even when he singles out my ballot with his megaphone — even when I disagree.

But when I’m Poll Attacked, I’m not dealing with the same level of crass vitriol as Schnell or some of the other 64 voters.

If Poll Attacks could be only what it should to be — a fun read and a slap on the wrist, there’d be no harm in it. Unfortunately a decent segment of the Twitterverse is a disgrace.

RELATED:

Couch's AP ballot and top 25 analysis, Jan. 8: Boiler Up and counter Poll Attack

Couch's AP ballot and top 25 analysis, Jan. 1: Duke is No. 1 over MSU

Couch's AP ballot and top 25 analysis, Dec. 19: On Purdue, Texas, Kansas, MSU

Couch's AP ballot and top 25 analysis, Dec. 11: No true road game, no ranking

Couch's AP ballot and top 25 analysis, Dec. 5

Couch's AP ballot and top 25 analysis, Nov. 28: My criteria for ranking teams

Couch from 2015: AP basketball voters not 'extreme' enough

Here’s my ballot for this week, with asterisks next to the “extreme” rankings, meaning those teams are five spots higher or lower on my ballot than their collective ranking. The collective AP poll ranking is to the right of each teams’ record.

1. Villanova (16-1) 1

2. Duke (15-2) 5

3. West Virginia (15-2) 6

4. Texas Tech (15-2) 8

5. Oklahoma (14-2) 4

6. Purdue (17-2) 3

7. Wichita State (15-2) 7

8. Virginia (16-1) * 2

9. Kansas (14-3)

10. North Carolina (14-2) * 15

11. Ohio State (13-4) * 22

12. Michigan (15-4) * 23

13. Arizona (14-4) 14

14. Michigan State (16-3) * 9

15. Xavier (16-3) 11

16. Auburn (16-1) 17

17. Tennessee (12-4) 21

18. Arizona State (14-3) 16

19. Gonzaga (16-3) * 13

20. Miami (13-3) * 25

21. Cincinnati (15-2) * 12

22. Seton Hall (15-3) 19

23. Florida State (13-4) * 28

24. TCU (13-4) 24

25. Clemson (15-2) * 20

Here are the teams and situations on my ballot, beyond MSU, Purdue, Michigan and Ohio State, that deserve further explanation:

I have Virginia at No. 8 and think that’s where the Cavs belong: Perhaps I’ve seen this movie too many times — Virginia rises to a lofty ranking in January, only to have its limitations revealed in March. I also don’t buy this version of Virginia basketball entirely yet. Not as one of the top few teams in the country. And I’ve seen it a few times already. If folks slammed Duke for its road loss at Boston College, how come no one said a peep about Virginia’s one-point home win over BC? I hope folks realize, given the difference in environment, that 59-58 home win over BC on Dec. 30 was a worse result than the Blue Devils’ 89-84 loss in early December in Chestnut Hill.

Virginia also hasn’t done a ton on the road yet, though a 26-point win at Virginia Tech on Jan. 3 was a sound result. As was a 61-49 home win over North Carolina that same week. But that’s a contrast-of-styles issue as much as anything, given the Tar Heels’ struggle in the half court. Virginia forces teams to play that game. We’ll see about Virginia. I could be wrong. But there are at least seven teams — probably a few more — that I’d take head-to-head against Virginia on a neutral court. That includes West Virginia (which beat Virginia) and Wichita State, the Kenpom ratings be damned.

Kansas is unusually vulnerable at home and that’s making it hard to judge other teams: In previous years, if you beat Kansas at Allen Fieldhouse, you’d done something worthy of shooting into the top 5, regardless of anything else on your resume. And early on this year, that’s how we treated some teams that won there. Arizona State, at least. Texas Tech did it after Arizona State. Last week, Iowa State and Kansas State nearly did it. The Jayhawks are a good team. Not a great one. Not one capable of protecting arguably the greatest home-court advantage in college basketball.

Xavier fans, TCU fans, where art thou? At the end of this season, I’m going to do a column in which I look back at every fan base that came after me and take the ranking I had for their team that week and compare it to their collective AP ranking at the end of the season. Here’s guessing most of those teams will wind up about where I had them way back when. Maybe not Purdue. Xavier and TCU fans were vocal in their displeasure over my ranking a couple weeks ago. Now I’m not hearing anything anymore. I have TCU at No. 24 (same as the Horned Frogs’ collective ranking) after four losses in five games — all to good teams, two of them on the road in overtime. Xavier, which lost at Providence and then badly at Villanova (no shame in that) is No. 15 on my ballot, about where I had them before this. The Musketeers collective ranking is coming back to meet mine. They’re at 11 this week.

I have Cincinnati at No. 21, nine spots lower than their overall ranking: I’d love to know what the other voters see in the Bearcats that puts them so high — other than they’ve won eight straight, while other teams have stumbled against better competition. This one is on my fellow voters. There’s one quality win in there, a 77-63 victory at UCLA. And for every thumping of a lesser team by Cincy, there’s a game that gives you pause — the struggle at Temple, which isn’t very good this year, a way-too-close game in the second half against Cleveland State. It’s unfortunate that the Bearcats’ conference schedule doesn’t give them more opportunities to prove themselves. Those will come. If their better than 21, they’ll eventually show it.

Contact Graham Couch at gcouch@lsj.com. Follow him on Twitter @Graham_Couch.