[CrazedZooChimp]

[quote author=CTcard link=topic=15543.msg169292#msg169292 date=1472759462]

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.

I think this is exactly right.  Perception of conference depth means a 2-loss Pac-12 champ likely gets in over a 2-loss ACC or Big 12 champ.  But my concern is that right now, Clemson and Florida State are miles ahead of the rest of the ACC, so the likelihood that one of them ends up with two losses is smaller than the chance Stanford takes two losses.  I tend to think Oklahoma will survive its schedule with no more than one loss (the only preseason-ranked team it travels to face is TCU).  The Big Ten might be a hot mess at the top, so I could see a 2-loss champ there, but that'd make me nervous. I think we lose out to a 2-loss Alabama or LSU conference champ.

And I agree with your statement that not picking a Pac-12 team for the playoff isn't reflecting a perception that the Pac-12 isn't good; I think most people see the Pac-12 as a deep conference but one without elite teams right now.  And it's the latter perception--we don't have an elite team capable of rising above the fray--that I meant to highlight as needing changing.  I'm just concerned that it's not a wrong perception.
[/quote]


In that case it might depend on who the losses are to. Which is why I'm pinching my nose and rooting for $C this weekend. Stanford/U$C/UCLA and even Oregon to a lesser extent should be further bolstered in any of these comparisons (should one of them be the Pac-12 champ) by the fact they all play 2 power-5 (or equivalent) non-conference games. Compare this to, say Alabama, who should be commended for playing $C and should be punished heavily for playing WKU, Kent State, and Chatanooga. They play only 9 Power 5 schools, vs 11 for Stan/UCLA/U$C/Oregon. A 10-2 Stanford should probably be above a 10-2 Alabama. Of course, that probably won't happen but still.


Your last point is the real concern. I'm not sure the Pac-12 champ won't be a three loss team, especially since 4 of the 5 teams most likely to win the conference are playing 11 power-5 teams. Hopefully we prove the perception wrong, though, and go 13-0. Then we won't have to worry.

[CrazedZooChimp]

[quote author=CTcard link=topic=15543.msg169292#msg169292 date=1472759462]

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.

I think this is exactly right.  Perception of conference depth means a 2-loss Pac-12 champ likely gets in over a 2-loss ACC or Big 12 champ.  But my concern is that right now, Clemson and Florida State are miles ahead of the rest of the ACC, so the likelihood that one of them ends up with two losses is smaller than the chance Stanford takes two losses.  I tend to think Oklahoma will survive its schedule with no more than one loss (the only preseason-ranked team it travels to face is TCU).  The Big Ten might be a hot mess at the top, so I could see a 2-loss champ there, but that'd make me nervous. I think we lose out to a 2-loss Alabama or LSU conference champ.

And I agree with your statement that not picking a Pac-12 team for the playoff isn't reflecting a perception that the Pac-12 isn't good; I think most people see the Pac-12 as a deep conference but one without elite teams right now.  And it's the latter perception--we don't have an elite team capable of rising above the fray--that I meant to highlight as needing changing.  I'm just concerned that it's not a wrong perception.
[/quote]


In that case it might depend on who the losses are to. Which is why I'm pinching my nose and rooting for $C this weekend. Stanford/U$C/UCLA and even Oregon to a lesser extent should be further bolstered in any of these comparisons (should one of them be the Pac-12 champ) by the fact they all play 2 power-5 (or equivalent) non-conference games. Compare this to, say Alabama, who should be commended for playing $C and should be punished heavily for playing WKU, Kent State, and Chatanooga. They play only 9 Power 5 schools, vs 11 for Stan/UCLA/U$C/Oregon. A 10-2 Stanford should probably be above a 10-2 Alabama. Of course, that probably won't happen but still.


Your last point is the real concern. I'm not sure the Pac-12 champ won't be a three loss team, especially since 4 of the 5 teams most likely to win the conference are playing 11 power-5 teams. Hopefully we prove the perception wrong, though, and go 13-0. Then we won't have to worry.