Vegas was pretty hard to take into account, but I don't think UCLA should have dropped that much, either. In an event like that with four ranked teams and where somebody has to go home 0-2 ... isn't it kind of that we are all overrated or none of us are? I hate how the pollsters reward one team for winning a game that is seen as a "big win" but then punish the very team they beat as if it was a bad loss ... I would have bumped up Illinois and Virginia the most as getting their "statement wins," barely move Baylor at all and only drop UCLA a spot or two, but I know the pollsters treat this more as some type of game than an actual ranking.
I really think you chalk it up to volatility of early season and uncertainty around the quality of most teams preseason. If this were February or March, one or two games like this have less of an impact. Rankings in November are filled with "noise". Sure UCLA will most likely have a great season, but they lost to two ranked teams with no quality wins to their account. This early on, you have no choice but to drop them a bunch of spots, as under the radar teams preseason (like Michigan State) pick up quality wins (in terms of preseason rankings). There is plenty of season to recover. With the quality of the pre-season tourneys getting better over the years, expect to see this early season volatility on a regular basis. In the past, many teams get through December undefeated; most great teams will have one or two losses by January 1 now.
This early in the season, there is no real good way of measuring the true quality of a team. For me, rankings in November and December are fun for fans, but really mean nothing further than that. Come January, these rankings will truly stabilize to show who the true top teams are.