Seth Davis' college basketball rankings: Who's the new No. 1?

Creighton and Washington State move up, Alabama and Dayton move down, Wake Forest barely misses the cut.

Welcome to the most correct and comprehensively explained college basketball rankings to be found on this here internet. As a public service, I am offering this content free of charge. I only ask that you share my brilliance with the college hoops fan in your life.

As you can see below, not only have I included my top 25 and where I ranked each team last week, I am also listing their positions in the main four metric rankings: the NET, KenPom, KPI and BartTorvik (in that order). The NET is the NCAA’s official organizing tool and blends efficiency, strength of schedule, and results. KenPom is the most respected predictive metric (hi gamblers!) and includes data from the past five seasons. KPI places strict emphasis on this season’s results and schedule. And BartTorvik is similar to KenPom but has been filtered to include only this season’s games. If you want to play this game yourself, I highly recommend using Bracketologists.com, and especially their Compare Resumes feature.

Here, then, is the correct order of the top 25 college men’s basketball teams, as filed to the Associated Press Sunday night:

• Dropped out: Michigan State (20), Texas Tech (22), Colorado State (23), New Mexico (24)

• Almost Famous: Boise State (33-42-34-39), Gonzaga (23-20-67-21), Mississippi State (28-26-23-26), TCU (36-33-43-34), South Florida (91-99-60-108), TCU (30-25-43-30), Wake Forest (25-20-32-24)

NOTES ON THE VOTES

* The biggest change is at the top, where for the first time all season I have Houston No. 1. You could make a case for any of the top three teams, but here was the progression that got me to this momentous decision.

First, UConn, last week’s No. 1, lost at Creighton by 19 points. It wasn’t a bad loss, but it was decisive. I felt it needed to be accounted for. I left Purdue at No. 2 last week despite its loss at Ohio State, but while the Boilermakers did win twice last week, Houston’s two wins (over Iowa State at home and Baylor on the road) were far more impressive than Purdue’s wins over Rutgers (home) and Michigan (road).

Leapfrogging Houston over UConn wasn’t a no brainer, because the Cougars also got dominated at Kansas three weeks ago. The two things that sealed it for me were Houston’s impressive road wins – the Cougars have also won at BYU, Texas and Cincinnati, while UConn hasn’t beaten a ranked team on the road since 2014 – and Houston’s status in the metrics. The Cougars have dominated these rankings across the board all season, and I figured it’s about time I paid them heed. And if I’m being totally honest, I like the idea of installing a new team at the top. It’s good for the sport, and it’s the right thing to do.

* Arizona and Washington State were tricky decisions. If Team A sweeps Team B, as the Cougars did in Tucson Thursday night, I will almost rank Team A ahead. The Cougars have been elite over the last month, ranking No. 21 in overall efficiency and No. 3 in Wins Over Bubble, per BartTorvik. But Arizona is No. 7 overall and No. 18 in WAB during that same span. If the Cougars could have survived at Arizona State on Saturday, I would definitely have ranked them ahead of the Wildcats. That loss forced me to lean a little more on the metrics. If I went by where Washington State stands in the four main rankings, they wouldn’t be on this ballot at all. They’ve earned their spot at No. 13, but Arizona earned the right to be higher.

* Creighton’s week forced me into a choice: Do I lean into the Bluejays’ big win over top-ranked UConn? Or did their loss at St. John’s on Sunday negate it? I chose the former. The loss at St. John’s was a Quad 1 loss in the NET, which means the Jays still don’t have any losses below Quad 2. I like what I am seeing from this team, so I put them ahead of where their metric rankings would otherwise dictate.

* I’ve been ranking Alabama below its metrics position for most of the season. The Crimson Tide were dominated on Saturday by a Kentucky squad that has had a hard time winning at home lately and was coming off a dispiriting loss at LSU. There’s no shame in losing at Rupp, but with a little over eight minutes to play Alabama was trailing by 37. Does that sound like the eighth best team in the country? The Tide also only have three Quad 1 wins, which is fewer than many bubble teams have. Alabama’s next Quad 1 game is at home on Saturday against Tennessee. I will be curious to see if the Tide look like a top 10 team in that one.

* Kentucky is all over the place, but I was sufficiently impressed with Saturday’s performance that I put the Wildcats on the high side of their metrics range. Auburn only had one game this week, which it won at Georgia, but as I’ve been writing for weeks the Tigers’ resume does match their metrics. They are 1-6 in Quad 1 and undefeated in the other three.

* South Carolina is back on my ballot after winning at Ole Miss on Saturday. As you can see, most of the Gamecocks’ metrics rankings are very low, but they are No. 21 in KPI, which puts the heaviest emphasis on this season’s results. Also in the last month, per BartTorvik, the Gamecocks are 12^th in WAB. A road win over a ranked team goes a long way with me, so the Gamecocks are still getting mileage for their win at Tennessee on Jan. 30. Their one-point loss at home to LSU last Saturday doesn’t look so bad after the Tigers beat Kentucky. (LSU has four Quad 1 wins, by the way). We will continue to find out just how good South Carolina as three of its final four regular season games are in Quad 1, beginning with Wednesday’s tilt at Texas A&M.

* I thought about dropping Dayton altogether after its loss at George Mason. The Flyers are now in third place in the Atlantic 10. Their No. 11 ranking in KPI kept them afloat, but this team is out of mulligans. I also studied the teams tied atop the league standings, Richmond and Loyola Chicago, but their metrics weren’t even close. I don’t think either of those teams can get an at-large bid no matter what they do, but they are both playing great basketball right now.

* The wild and wooly Mountain West cannibalized itself last week as Colorado State lost twice (at New Mexico and UNLV) and New Mexico lost at home to Air Force. So both of them dropped out. Ditto for Michigan State following its home loss to Ohio State. Those games allowed the O.G. metrics darling, BYU, to climb back in courtesy of its home win over Baylor, though of course the Cougars were a completely different team on the road in losing at Kansas State.

* I took another close look at Clemson and was surprised at how well the Tigers held up under scrutiny. Yes, they have two Quad 3 losses, but those were hardly terrible – by three points at home to Georgia Tech, by one point at home to N.C. State. The Tigers have a road wins at Alabama and North Carolina, and their home win over South Carolina on Dec. 6 looks even better in the rearview mirror. And you can see how strong they are in the metrics, especially that No. 9 spot on KPI.

* I came very close to ranking Wake Forest for its home win over Duke, but that was the Demon Deacons’ first Quad 1 win, and they’ve been poor on the road. My No. 25 team, Utah State, is 8-5 vs. Quads 1 and 2; Wake is 6-10. Gonzaga has a big week ahead with Quad 1 road games at San Francisco and Saint Mary’s. If the Zags can earn a split, I think they’ll be in great shape for an at-large bid. Were it not for the their terrible ranking on KPI, the Zags probably would have had a number next to their name.

* It pained me to leave out South Florida. The Bulls clinched the regular season title in the AAC, and they are No. 7 on BartTorvik over the last month in WAB. But when you look at ther overall metrics, I could not rank the Bulls over a Utah State squad that beat San Diego State and is tied for first atop the Mountain West Conference. What Amir Abdur-Rahim is doing in his first season at USF is amazing, but this team has not played a Quad 1 game this season and won’t the rest of the way. It’s possible they can get an at-large bid if they don’t win the AAC tournament, but I wouldn’t recommend taking that chance.