[lex24]

You know the old saying- it’s not who you play, it’s when you play them. SC was healthy and primed. SDS, I think, put a ton of focus on their Pac 12 matchups. OTOH- they got Oregon without Herbert and ASU before it turned around their defense.

Win the North. Go from theirs.  That is within their control. As to what a committee says, so be it.  And if Stanford doesn’t win the Pac-12 I don’t want another Pac12 team in the series. Why should I. I’m not about to root for Wash or SC. 

There is a fair way to do this. 6 teams - the 5 power champs and an at-large which must be an independent or from a non-power 5. Rank them 1-6. Give top 2 a bye.

Any system that leaves out one conference champ is inherently flawed. And essentially bogus. 

Southern ןɐɔ's evisceration in South Bend was the final nail in the Pac-12's coffin for a playoff berth.  Even if Washington or WSU were to somehow win the conference with 1-loss, the best OOC win the Pac-12 has to date is, uh...

Southern ןɐɔ beating Texas in OT?  It's looking quite bleak.  Now Stanford could conceivably beat ND, which would easily be the best OOC win for the conference, but Stanford would at best have two losses.

But making matters worse is that Stanford and ASU both lost to what we now know to be a mediocre SDSU team.  Arizona, who may well win the South, lost to Houston.  ASU could still win it too, but in addition to SDSU they lost to Texas Tech.

ןɐɔ lost to Washington who lost to ASU who lost to Stanford who lost to Southern ןɐɔ who lost to WSU who lost to ןɐɔ.  It just makes no sense for anyone trying to rank these teams, which is how the system works.  It's a big problem for the Pac-12 having so many teams that are competitive with each other, and I don't see it changing any time soon.

The Pac-12 could have 9 teams be bowl-eligible this year.  Only ones not: Utah, Colorado, Oregon State

[lex24]

You know the old saying- it’s not who you play, it’s when you play them. SC was healthy and primed. SDS, I think, put a ton of focus on their Pac 12 matchups. OTOH- they got Oregon without Herbert and ASU before it turned around their defense.

Win the North. Go from theirs.  That is within their control. As to what a committee says, so be it.  And if Stanford doesn’t win the Pac-12 I don’t want another Pac12 team in the series. Why should I. I’m not about to root for Wash or SC. 

There is a fair way to do this. 6 teams - the 5 power champs and an at-large which must be an independent or from a non-power 5. Rank them 1-6. Give top 2 a bye.

Any system that leaves out one conference champ is inherently flawed. And essentially bogus. 

Southern ןɐɔ's evisceration in South Bend was the final nail in the Pac-12's coffin for a playoff berth.  Even if Washington or WSU were to somehow win the conference with 1-loss, the best OOC win the Pac-12 has to date is, uh...

Southern ןɐɔ beating Texas in OT?  It's looking quite bleak.  Now Stanford could conceivably beat ND, which would easily be the best OOC win for the conference, but Stanford would at best have two losses.

But making matters worse is that Stanford and ASU both lost to what we now know to be a mediocre SDSU team.  Arizona, who may well win the South, lost to Houston.  ASU could still win it too, but in addition to SDSU they lost to Texas Tech.

ןɐɔ lost to Washington who lost to ASU who lost to Stanford who lost to Southern ןɐɔ who lost to WSU who lost to ןɐɔ.  It just makes no sense for anyone trying to rank these teams, which is how the system works.  It's a big problem for the Pac-12 having so many teams that are competitive with each other, and I don't see it changing any time soon.

The Pac-12 could have 9 teams be bowl-eligible this year.  Only ones not: Utah, Colorado, Oregon State