[ColoradoTree]

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.
[/quote]

I'm with you, though I won't really have to pinch my nose to do it.  SC beating Alabama would be massively helpful for the Pac-12 as a whole, and for Stanford if we can manage to beat SC.  Now, I'm not all that optimistic about it, since I'm trying to be realistic.  Both teams have oodles of talent, but one team has Nick Saban and an impressive recent culture of winning and mental toughness, and the other one has Clay Helton and a recent culture of not living up to expectations and a marked lack of mental toughness. 

Same goes for all non-conference games involving Pac-12 teams--I want the Pac-12 to win them all.  And I want Notre Dame to beat everyone except for us and SC (and I obviously want us to beat SC). 

And yeah, I didn't mean to suggest that a 2-loss Alabama team would deserve to make it over a 2-loss Stanford team, just that such is life.

[ColoradoTree]

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.
[/quote]

I'm with you, though I won't really have to pinch my nose to do it.  SC beating Alabama would be massively helpful for the Pac-12 as a whole, and for Stanford if we can manage to beat SC.  Now, I'm not all that optimistic about it, since I'm trying to be realistic.  Both teams have oodles of talent, but one team has Nick Saban and an impressive recent culture of winning and mental toughness, and the other one has Clay Helton and a recent culture of not living up to expectations and a marked lack of mental toughness. 

Same goes for all non-conference games involving Pac-12 teams--I want the Pac-12 to win them all.  And I want Notre Dame to beat everyone except for us and SC (and I obviously want us to beat SC). 

And yeah, I didn't mean to suggest that a 2-loss Alabama team would deserve to make it over a 2-loss Stanford team, just that such is life.