UCLA's High Ranking a Classic Example of How Bad Poll Voting Really Is

For yet another week I sat and watched college basketball. For yet another week I saw UCLA struggle. And yet for another week I've seen poll voters in both the AP Poll and the Coaches' Poll barely penalize the Bruins. But the question you ask is, why is UCLA ranked so high?

Well, there are three simple answers for that, and none of them deal with good play.

First and foremost is their name. UCLA has made three straight Final Fours, and people feel their prominent name deserves recognition.

Second is the Preseason Polls. Because the Bruins made three straight Final Fours, people were compelled to vote the Bruins fourth in both polls even though no games had been played in this season.

Thirdly, teams who are ranked so far down at the beginning of the season have a harder time climbing up the polls come conference play, causing these teams to be labeled as "Bubble Teams." A classic example of one of these teams is Florida State.

Florida State is 16-4 overall and 3-2 in ACC play but received just minimal votes in the AP and ZERO votes in the Coaches. The main reason? Not poor play, but instead because the Seminoles received zero votes in both polls at the beginning of the season.

I thought I would go more in depth with both teams and compare both teams' résumés.

UCLA: 15-4 (5-2) RPI 39 SOS 81

Record vs. RPI top 25: 0-1
Record vs. RPI top 50: 1-4
Record vs. RPI top 100: 3-4

Best Wins: Miami (OH), USC, Arizona, Washington St.
Losses: Arizona St., Washington, Texas, Michigan

Florida State: 16-4 (3-2) RPI 17 SOS 30

Record vs. RPI top 25: 0-2
Record vs. RPI top 50: 2-4
Record vs. RPI top 100: 6-4

Best Wins: Florida, California, Cincinnati, Maryland, Western Kentucky
Losses: Duke, Pittsburgh, Miami (FL), Northwestern

The ACC, as we all know, is much more superior than the Pac-10. Four of the five wins UCLA currently has against the Pac-10 are against the four bottom cellar teams in the league.

Now with these simple facts provided, please tell me how a team like UCLA is so much higher in the rankings than Florida State. It makes no sense whatsoever. Florida State has wins over three teams who look like they will easily make the NCAA Tournament, while UCLA has ZERO. Florida State has multiple good wins, while UCLA has ZERO.

UCLA's best win to date was a five-point victory over Miami (OH) who is currently at 10-7 and will not make the tournament unless they win their conference championship.

So how does a team like Florida St. receive zero votes in one poll and still sit in a vulnerable position wondering if they'll make the tournament? How does a team like UCLA, who currently is beaten in every category by Florida State, still rank as high as 16th? Maybe you should ask the voters.

But the thing is, how can the voters really know how good a team is? The coaches who vote are too focused on their games during the week and the weekend that they can't possibly watch and evaluate every team to determine how much a team should rise or fall. So they fill out their polls at the last second and these things happen.

So I beg and I plead to the NCAA Tournament Committee come March not to make the same mistake the voters make week in and week out and don't look at the name, but rather look at the play of the team, because the fact of the matter is, Florida State isn't the only team deserving more recognition, and UCLA isn't the only team way overrated.

The two main polls that are the AP Poll and the Coaches' Poll should be in a poll themselves ranking how good poll voting is. When the season ends, the polls with the most votes become the primary polls the following season.

And as far as I'm concerned, the AP Poll and Coaches' Poll sit on "The Bubble" and are receiving zero votes.