[CTcard]

... there is a national perception issue that could use some changing. 

Well, NOT picking a Pac 12 team to make the playoff isn't necessarily a perception that the Pac 12 isn't good. It could be a perception that the Pac 12 is stronger than the rest - and thus likely to produce losses within the conference season.

In reality it is a mix. The national perception seems to be that the Pac 12 top to bottom is very strong but the very best teams are not particularly elite. That may be a reasonable view both with respect to the nature of the Pac 12 this year and what will keep a team out of the playoffs.

Inherent in all of this is that none of the "experts" really believe that strength of schedule is a deciding factor above number of losses. That appears to be at least mostly true.

In fairness to a lot of those experts, however, they're probably not wrong that the Pac-12 champion (which 22 of the 36 expect to be Stanford) will have 2 or more losses, and thus miss out. 

Of course two losses doesn't necessarily mean you are out, just likely that you'll lose out to Power 5 conference champs with 1 or 0 losses.
How often does that happen?
Looking back I see the following years with >1 Power 5 conference champ with 2 losses or more,
2012 Clemson 2 losses, Oklahoma 2 losses (BUT und had no losses)
2011 Oregon, Michigan, Va Tech
2009 Oregon, tOSU, Ga Tech
2007 Va Tech, Oklahoma, LSU, USC
2006 Wake, Oklahoma, USC
2005 FSU, UGa
2004 Va Tech, Michigan,
2003 FSU, Michigan, Kansas State
2002 FSU, Oklahoma, WSU
2001 Colorado, LSU
2000 Purdue, Florida

So, it certainly does happen.

If in fact it comes down to a choice between a Pac 12 champ and another conference champ both with 2 losses (or both with any particular number of losses), then I think the perception of the Pac 12 as a deep conference, and one with difficult schedules, would help.

[CTcard]

... there is a national perception issue that could use some changing. 

Well, NOT picking a Pac 12 team to make the playoff isn't necessarily a perception that the Pac 12 isn't good. It could be a perception that the Pac 12 is stronger than the rest - and thus likely to produce losses within the conference season.

In reality it is a mix. The national perception seems to be that the Pac 12 top to bottom is very strong but the very best teams are not particularly elite. That may be a reasonable view both with respect to the nature of the Pac 12 this year and what will keep a team out of the playoffs.

Inherent in all of this is that none of the "experts" really believe that strength of schedule is a deciding factor above number of losses. That appears to be at least mostly true.

In fairness to a lot of those experts, however, they're probably not wrong that the Pac-12 champion (which 22 of the 36 expect to be Stanford) will have 2 or more losses, and thus miss out. 

Of course two losses doesn't necessarily mean you are out, just likely that you'll lose out to Power 5 conference champs with 1 or 0 losses.
How often does that happen?
Looking back I see the following years with >1 Power 5 conference champ with 2 losses or more,
2012 Clemson 2 losses, Oklahoma 2 losses (BUT und had no losses)
2011 Oregon, Michigan, Va Tech
2009 Oregon, tOSU, Ga Tech
2007 Va Tech, Oklahoma, LSU, USC
2006 Wake, Oklahoma, USC
2005 FSU, UGa
2004 Va Tech, Michigan,
2003 FSU, Michigan, Kansas State
2002 FSU, Oklahoma, WSU
2001 Colorado, LSU
2000 Purdue, Florida

So, it certainly does happen.

If in fact it comes down to a choice between a Pac 12 champ and another conference champ both with 2 losses (or both with any particular number of losses), then I think the perception of the Pac 12 as a deep conference, and one with difficult schedules, would help.