[chrisk]

Also, it was really, really cold on the day of the Foster Farms Bowl. 

And it was even colder at the game itself. A very strong wind made sitting in the seats impossible to do for long stretches of time; we were armed with snow clothes and blankets and we had to retreat out of the wind periodically to warm up. I won't do that again.

Yep. It was like going to a game in Green Bay or Buffalo.

Fortunately, this year's Redbox Bowl is at Noon. It should be warmer, less windy, and not interfere with NYE activities.

[chrisk]

Also, it was really, really cold on the day of the Foster Farms Bowl. 

And it was even colder at the game itself. A very strong wind made sitting in the seats impossible to do for long stretches of time; we were armed with snow clothes and blankets and we had to retreat out of the wind periodically to warm up. I won't do that again.

Yep. It was like going to a game in Green Bay or Buffalo.

Fortunately, this year's Redbox Bowl is at Noon. It should be warmer, less windy, and not interfere with NYE activities.

[BostonCard]

WSU is apparently upset at being on the outside looking in.

https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/2135474002

BC

[BostonCard]

WSU is apparently upset at being on the outside looking in.

https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/2135474002

BC

[Austroturf]

WSU is apparently upset at being on the outside looking in.

https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/2135474002

BC

I think their gripe is legitimate.  This is further proof that, in the end, it is all about the money: football blue-bloods located in high-population areas with large fan-bases certainly promise more tickets sales and eyeballs than a remote state school from Pullman.  At this point, none of the teams ahead of them in the poll is likely to tumble out of the top 12.  Washington, maybe, if they lose to Utah.  Or potentially UCF.  Of course, I really don't know whether Wazzu is better than, say, Florida or LSU.  Hmmm, might be a good match-up in a NY 6 bowl, but there are only so many to go around.  In any case, if the SEC gets two teams in the CFP and two teams in NY 6 bowls, then we know the fix is on.

[Austroturf]

WSU is apparently upset at being on the outside looking in.

https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/2135474002

BC

I think their gripe is legitimate.  This is further proof that, in the end, it is all about the money: football blue-bloods located in high-population areas with large fan-bases certainly promise more tickets sales and eyeballs than a remote state school from Pullman.  At this point, none of the teams ahead of them in the poll is likely to tumble out of the top 12.  Washington, maybe, if they lose to Utah.  Or potentially UCF.  Of course, I really don't know whether Wazzu is better than, say, Florida or LSU.  Hmmm, might be a good match-up in a NY 6 bowl, but there are only so many to go around.  In any case, if the SEC gets two teams in the CFP and two teams in NY 6 bowls, then we know the fix is on.

[2006alum]

I personally think this explains it best:

Bill Hancock, executive director of the College Football Playoff, told USA TODAY that "it’s never just one thing" with the committee's rankings. He said Florida, LSU and Penn State played more difficult schedules than WSU.

"For example, all three of Florida’s losses were to teams ranked in the CFP’s top 25 (Kentucky, Georgia and Missouri,)" Hancock said in an e-mail. "Same for LSU (Alabama, Florida and Texas A&M in that wild game Saturday night.)  Two of Penn State’s losses were to teams ranked in the top ten (Ohio State and Michigan.) Florida also defeated two CFP-ranked teams (at Mississippi State and LSU at home.) LSU has a significant victory over Georgia."

WSU's only notable win was a squeaker at home against No. 17 Utah, and they played no FBS schools OOC. I think they have a good case to be ranked ahead of Penn State (who have zero top 25 wins), but I think Florida and LSU have much better arguments to be ranked ahead of WSU.

[2006alum]

I personally think this explains it best:

Bill Hancock, executive director of the College Football Playoff, told USA TODAY that "it’s never just one thing" with the committee's rankings. He said Florida, LSU and Penn State played more difficult schedules than WSU.

"For example, all three of Florida’s losses were to teams ranked in the CFP’s top 25 (Kentucky, Georgia and Missouri,)" Hancock said in an e-mail. "Same for LSU (Alabama, Florida and Texas A&M in that wild game Saturday night.)  Two of Penn State’s losses were to teams ranked in the top ten (Ohio State and Michigan.) Florida also defeated two CFP-ranked teams (at Mississippi State and LSU at home.) LSU has a significant victory over Georgia."

WSU's only notable win was a squeaker at home against No. 17 Utah, and they played no FBS schools OOC. I think they have a good case to be ranked ahead of Penn State (who have zero top 25 wins), but I think Florida and LSU have much better arguments to be ranked ahead of WSU.

[OutsiderFan]

I must admit, I thought Texas was higher ranked than WSU now.  But let's be real about Washington State.

- They have beat nobody in the Top 25 other than Utah
- Their non-conference schedule is no better than UCF's
- Against the only good defenses they faced, they scored 28, 19, and 13
- They got beat soundly on their home field in their biggest game of the season
- Are they really better than LSU, Florida, and Penn State, given they were easily handled by UW who is #11? 

The have two arguments for being #12 or higher:

1. they are 10-2 and some other higher ranked teams are 9-3
2. #12 PSU's best win of the season is maybe Iowa, which isn't as good as WSU's best win in Utah it would seem, and the have a better record on top of it

All else being equal, who do NY6 Bowl committees want more, PSU or WSU?

[OutsiderFan]

I must admit, I thought Texas was higher ranked than WSU now.  But let's be real about Washington State.

- They have beat nobody in the Top 25 other than Utah
- Their non-conference schedule is no better than UCF's
- Against the only good defenses they faced, they scored 28, 19, and 13
- They got beat soundly on their home field in their biggest game of the season
- Are they really better than LSU, Florida, and Penn State, given they were easily handled by UW who is #11? 

The have two arguments for being #12 or higher:

1. they are 10-2 and some other higher ranked teams are 9-3
2. #12 PSU's best win of the season is maybe Iowa, which isn't as good as WSU's best win in Utah it would seem, and the have a better record on top of it

All else being equal, who do NY6 Bowl committees want more, PSU or WSU?

[Austroturf]

I personally think this explains it best:

Bill Hancock, executive director of the College Football Playoff, told USA TODAY that "it’s never just one thing" with the committee's rankings. He said Florida, LSU and Penn State played more difficult schedules than WSU.

"For example, all three of Florida’s losses were to teams ranked in the CFP’s top 25 (Kentucky, Georgia and Missouri,)" Hancock said in an e-mail. "Same for LSU (Alabama, Florida and Texas A&M in that wild game Saturday night.)  Two of Penn State’s losses were to teams ranked in the top ten (Ohio State and Michigan.) Florida also defeated two CFP-ranked teams (at Mississippi State and LSU at home.) LSU has a significant victory over Georgia."

WSU's only notable win was a squeaker at home against No. 17 Utah, and they played no FBS schools OOC. I think they have a good case to be ranked ahead of Penn State (who have zero top 25 wins), but I think Florida and LSU have much better arguments to be ranked ahead of WSU.

My only problem with this logic is that it becomes a self-reinforcing circle.  Kentucky (9-3), Georgia (11-1) and Missouri (8-4) are ranked in the Top 25, hence Florida's three losses are quality losses.  And LSU (9-3) deserves its top ten ranking because it lost to top ten Florida (9-3), #1 Alabama (12-0) and #22 Texas A&M (8-4), which is now ranked because it knocked off top ten LSU.  Missouri and Texas A&M (with the same number of losses as Stanford and Oregon) slide into the Top 25 because they have quality losses to other ranked SEC programs.  By stacking the Top 25 with SEC teams, you can make any argument with quality losses within the conference.  At the same time, the SEC is famous for playing non-conference cream-puffs.  That same Florida squad with the quality losses to Kentucky, Georgia and Missouri played the following OOC schedule: Charleston Southern, Idaho, Colorado State and Florida State (5-7).  Only the last of these teams is a Power 5 squad; and Florida caught them on a down year.  The other three games were essentially gimmes.  So since Florida only plays eight conference games, they are barely above 50% in the SEC (5-3), their victories coming against Tennessee, Vanderbilt, South Carolina, Mississippi State and LSU (not an impressive list except for LSU, which has its lofty ranking propped up by a victory over Georgia).  

This has been going on for years; and the all-SEC championship game last year certainly did not weaken this bias toward the SEC.  My sense is that the SEC teams (with the exception of Alabama and Georgia) are all 5-8 spots overrated.  Kentucky at #15 seems way too high: by the same circular logic, they have a "quality" win against Florida, but also had an easy time in OOC games, facing such juggernauts as Central Michigan, Murray State, Middle Tennessee State and Louisville; and the games against CMU and MTS were one possession games until the 4th quarter.  Frankly, it's a gamed system; but as long as Alabama and Georgia continue to populate the top 4, there will be this halo effect on the rest of the conference.  And clearly, this is good for NCAA football revenues, otherwise it would not be tolerated.

Looking at Stanford, we have four quality losses to #3 Notre Dame, #11 Washington, #13 WSU and #17 Utah, but we are way down in the "other teams receiving votes" list.  One could say we have no quality wins, but if Oregon (8-4) were given the same lofty treatment as Missouri and Texas A&M (after all, Oregon did beat #11 Washington), then there could be an argument that we should be in the top 25.  Then Wazzu would have three victories over top 25 teams (Utah, Stanford and Oregon), and the cycle reinforces itself.  Washington's season-opening loss to Auburn certainly did not help matters (the Pac-12's presumptive best team lost to an SEC also-ran).  But that's one game and cannot be used to calibrate an entire conference.

[Austroturf]

I personally think this explains it best:

Bill Hancock, executive director of the College Football Playoff, told USA TODAY that "it’s never just one thing" with the committee's rankings. He said Florida, LSU and Penn State played more difficult schedules than WSU.

"For example, all three of Florida’s losses were to teams ranked in the CFP’s top 25 (Kentucky, Georgia and Missouri,)" Hancock said in an e-mail. "Same for LSU (Alabama, Florida and Texas A&M in that wild game Saturday night.)  Two of Penn State’s losses were to teams ranked in the top ten (Ohio State and Michigan.) Florida also defeated two CFP-ranked teams (at Mississippi State and LSU at home.) LSU has a significant victory over Georgia."

WSU's only notable win was a squeaker at home against No. 17 Utah, and they played no FBS schools OOC. I think they have a good case to be ranked ahead of Penn State (who have zero top 25 wins), but I think Florida and LSU have much better arguments to be ranked ahead of WSU.

My only problem with this logic is that it becomes a self-reinforcing circle.  Kentucky (9-3), Georgia (11-1) and Missouri (8-4) are ranked in the Top 25, hence Florida's three losses are quality losses.  And LSU (9-3) deserves its top ten ranking because it lost to top ten Florida (9-3), #1 Alabama (12-0) and #22 Texas A&M (8-4), which is now ranked because it knocked off top ten LSU.  Missouri and Texas A&M (with the same number of losses as Stanford and Oregon) slide into the Top 25 because they have quality losses to other ranked SEC programs.  By stacking the Top 25 with SEC teams, you can make any argument with quality losses within the conference.  At the same time, the SEC is famous for playing non-conference cream-puffs.  That same Florida squad with the quality losses to Kentucky, Georgia and Missouri played the following OOC schedule: Charleston Southern, Idaho, Colorado State and Florida State (5-7).  Only the last of these teams is a Power 5 squad; and Florida caught them on a down year.  The other three games were essentially gimmes.  So since Florida only plays eight conference games, they are barely above 50% in the SEC (5-3), their victories coming against Tennessee, Vanderbilt, South Carolina, Mississippi State and LSU (not an impressive list except for LSU, which has its lofty ranking propped up by a victory over Georgia).  

This has been going on for years; and the all-SEC championship game last year certainly did not weaken this bias toward the SEC.  My sense is that the SEC teams (with the exception of Alabama and Georgia) are all 5-8 spots overrated.  Kentucky at #15 seems way too high: by the same circular logic, they have a "quality" win against Florida, but also had an easy time in OOC games, facing such juggernauts as Central Michigan, Murray State, Middle Tennessee State and Louisville; and the games against CMU and MTS were one possession games until the 4th quarter.  Frankly, it's a gamed system; but as long as Alabama and Georgia continue to populate the top 4, there will be this halo effect on the rest of the conference.  And clearly, this is good for NCAA football revenues, otherwise it would not be tolerated.

Looking at Stanford, we have four quality losses to #3 Notre Dame, #11 Washington, #13 WSU and #17 Utah, but we are way down in the "other teams receiving votes" list.  One could say we have no quality wins, but if Oregon (8-4) were given the same lofty treatment as Missouri and Texas A&M (after all, Oregon did beat #11 Washington), then there could be an argument that we should be in the top 25.  Then Wazzu would have three victories over top 25 teams (Utah, Stanford and Oregon), and the cycle reinforces itself.  Washington's season-opening loss to Auburn certainly did not help matters (the Pac-12's presumptive best team lost to an SEC also-ran).  But that's one game and cannot be used to calibrate an entire conference.

[2006alum]

Perhaps. But the problem is that even when the PAC-12 scheduled good OOC games, we lost ALL of them. Washington lost to Auburn at home, Stanford and USC were creamed by the Domers, USC was also creamed by Texas, UCLA was demolished by Oklahoma, and Arizona was decimated by Houston and BYU. Oregon and Washington State didn't play a single FBS team. And even Arizona State's win against Michigan St, in retrospect, really wasn't much (and the Sun Devils barely have a winning record in conference play against the mostly much weaker division). I'd be much more willing to grouse if I actually thought our unranked teams were better than their ranked teams. But all objective evidence supports the opposite conclusion.

And all this against a backdrop of a conference that finished 1-8 in bowl games last season (and the one win was a 6-6 Utah team). Until we start winning our matchups against the other conferences, I quite frankly don't think we deserve the benefit of the doubt. We have had no team even plausibly close to the CFP semifinals in the last two seasons. IMHO, the PAC-12 needs to put up or shut up. 8- vs. 9-game conference schedules don't explain why all our teams lost their big OOC games in the first three weeks of the season.

[2006alum]

Perhaps. But the problem is that even when the PAC-12 scheduled good OOC games, we lost ALL of them. Washington lost to Auburn at home, Stanford and USC were creamed by the Domers, USC was also creamed by Texas, UCLA was demolished by Oklahoma, and Arizona was decimated by Houston and BYU. Oregon and Washington State didn't play a single FBS team. And even Arizona State's win against Michigan St, in retrospect, really wasn't much (and the Sun Devils barely have a winning record in conference play against the mostly much weaker division). I'd be much more willing to grouse if I actually thought our unranked teams were better than their ranked teams. But all objective evidence supports the opposite conclusion.

And all this against a backdrop of a conference that finished 1-8 in bowl games last season (and the one win was a 6-6 Utah team). Until we start winning our matchups against the other conferences, I quite frankly don't think we deserve the benefit of the doubt. We have had no team even plausibly close to the CFP semifinals in the last two seasons. IMHO, the PAC-12 needs to put up or shut up. 8- vs. 9-game conference schedules don't explain why all our teams lost their big OOC games in the first three weeks of the season.

[OutsiderFan]

Bill Hancock can suck a d*ck.

So gd tired of SEC and ACC teams getting an automatic win every year that nobody else gets.

At least the B1G has come around, so the Pac-12, Big 12, and B1G, all play nine conference games, and not Chattanooga in November.

Think Stanford would have gone to a playoff in 2013 (if there was one), had they played and beat UC Davis instead of losing to USC 20-17 in November when ranked #4?

This using the rankings as self-fulfilling prophecy to justify every decision, when the teams aren't playing equivalent schedules, make it way too subjective.

[OutsiderFan]

Bill Hancock can suck a d*ck.

So gd tired of SEC and ACC teams getting an automatic win every year that nobody else gets.

At least the B1G has come around, so the Pac-12, Big 12, and B1G, all play nine conference games, and not Chattanooga in November.

Think Stanford would have gone to a playoff in 2013 (if there was one), had they played and beat UC Davis instead of losing to USC 20-17 in November when ranked #4?

This using the rankings as self-fulfilling prophecy to justify every decision, when the teams aren't playing equivalent schedules, make it way too subjective.

[CTcard]

Perhaps. But the problem is that even when the PAC-12 scheduled good OOC games, we lost ALL of them.

The problem with interconference won-loss records is that there are so few games that the results are kind of random. 

For example, during the regular season last year the Pac had the best Power 5 interconference record at 6-2 (7-3 if one includes und). 
Then the bowl season happened (which is what everyone remembers) and the Pac ended at 7-9 (8-10 with und), which was fourth among the Power 5 (but just about barely behind the SEC at third). 

So far this season the Pac is 3-4 in inter-Power5-conference games, which places it third. 
(The Pac was 3-6 if one includes und. Others took a hit there as well - ACC 0-5 vs und, Big Ten 0-2, SEC 0-1).

My impression is that the Pac  has a tendency to be relatively even; weaker at the top but stronger at the bottom. That hurts it as far as having teams in the playoff, and it should. There really is not a Pac 12 team among the top 4 this year. However, it doesn't say anything about average strength. 

As to WSU, I'm not sure. 

I'd kind of like to see them in a NY6 bowl - it would help us in a couple of ways. (Money and moving up in the bowl sequence.)
I also understand why they might feel a little put out. The committee has almost always used number of losses as the primary sorter among Power 5 teams. Rarely has a two-loss Power 5 team lost out on a NY6 bowl bid in deference to a three loss team. I think it happened to WVU in 2016. It sort of happened in 2015 but I think only because of conference-bowl contracts rather than CFP rankings (in particular 3-loss Mississippi got into the Sugar Bowl because it is obligated to take the top SEC team available). 

On the other hand, WSU scheduled horrendous teams for their non-conference schedule and lived rather a charmed life this season. I suspect they are not one of the top 12 (or really top 11 Power 5) teams in the country.

[CTcard]

Perhaps. But the problem is that even when the PAC-12 scheduled good OOC games, we lost ALL of them.

The problem with interconference won-loss records is that there are so few games that the results are kind of random. 

For example, during the regular season last year the Pac had the best Power 5 interconference record at 6-2 (7-3 if one includes und). 
Then the bowl season happened (which is what everyone remembers) and the Pac ended at 7-9 (8-10 with und), which was fourth among the Power 5 (but just about barely behind the SEC at third). 

So far this season the Pac is 3-4 in inter-Power5-conference games, which places it third. 
(The Pac was 3-6 if one includes und. Others took a hit there as well - ACC 0-5 vs und, Big Ten 0-2, SEC 0-1).

My impression is that the Pac  has a tendency to be relatively even; weaker at the top but stronger at the bottom. That hurts it as far as having teams in the playoff, and it should. There really is not a Pac 12 team among the top 4 this year. However, it doesn't say anything about average strength. 

As to WSU, I'm not sure. 

I'd kind of like to see them in a NY6 bowl - it would help us in a couple of ways. (Money and moving up in the bowl sequence.)
I also understand why they might feel a little put out. The committee has almost always used number of losses as the primary sorter among Power 5 teams. Rarely has a two-loss Power 5 team lost out on a NY6 bowl bid in deference to a three loss team. I think it happened to WVU in 2016. It sort of happened in 2015 but I think only because of conference-bowl contracts rather than CFP rankings (in particular 3-loss Mississippi got into the Sugar Bowl because it is obligated to take the top SEC team available). 

On the other hand, WSU scheduled horrendous teams for their non-conference schedule and lived rather a charmed life this season. I suspect they are not one of the top 12 (or really top 11 Power 5) teams in the country.

[Austroturf]

Perhaps. But the problem is that even when the PAC-12 scheduled good OOC games, we lost ALL of them. Washington lost to Auburn at home, Stanford and USC were creamed by the Domers, USC was also creamed by Texas, UCLA was demolished by Oklahoma, and Arizona was decimated by Houston and BYU. Oregon and Washington State didn't play a single FBS team. And even Arizona State's win against Michigan St, in retrospect, really wasn't much (and the Sun Devils barely have a winning record in conference play against the mostly much weaker division). I'd be much more willing to grouse if I actually thought our unranked teams were better than their ranked teams. But all objective evidence supports the opposite conclusion.

And all this against a backdrop of a conference that finished 1-8 in bowl games last season (and the one win was a 6-6 Utah team). Until we start winning our matchups against the other conferences, I quite frankly don't think we deserve the benefit of the doubt. We have had no team even plausibly close to the CFP semifinals in the last two seasons. IMHO, the PAC-12 needs to put up or shut up. 8- vs. 9-game conference schedules don't explain why all our teams lost their big OOC games in the first three weeks of the season.

These are fair points, but just a couple of qualifiers.  USC did not get creamed by Notre Dame: they lost by one TD; and Stanford had a three-game winning streak going against the Irish until this year. USC and Stanford have this quality match-up every year, which is far more than most SEC teams are willing to schedule.  Georgia did have Notre Dame on the schedule last year and barely squeaked by (20-19) a team that we beat 38-20.  If that contest had gone the other way, there would have been no Georgia in the play-offs.  No wonder they don't like scheduling that kind of opposition in OOC games and would like to limit conference games to 8.  What would their CFP chances look like if Georgia and Alabama regularly met during conference play and potentially again in the title game.  No way the SEC gets two teams in the CFP.   

Yes, Texas throttled USC; but Maryland (Big Ten also-ran) throttled Texas, which beat Oklahoma.      

Washington did not lose to Auburn at home.  It was ostensibly on a neutral field, but proved to be a virtual home game for the Tigers (way down in SEC country).  

UCLA got pulverized by the Sooners, but they got pulverized by everybody early in the season.  The team we barely squeaked by last week would have turned up much stronger against Fresno State, Cincinnati and Oklahoma; but Chip was still putting the team together at that stage of the season.  I wish UCLA had made the post-season, as they probably would have been a good match-up in a lower-tier bowl.   

And Arizona has not been a model of consistency at all this year, so I don't know how much you can read into their good showings (Oregon) and poor showings (WSU).  

Now if the Pac-12 once again goes 0-for-the-world in the bowl games this season, then we can call it a conference crisis; but I still think last year was an anomaly.  In prior years, the Pac-12 has shown up much better.  Obviously, this depends on match-ups; but I think the 7 bowl-eligible teams will do fine this year (assuming no critical injuries, like Herbert at Oregon).  

Also, I am not so much defending the Pac-12 as I am criticizing the logic used by the pollsters.  If there are a slew of round-robin losses between teams that are all seen as "Top 25", then the rankings are self-validating.  Florida can be top ten with a 9-3 record because they lost to top 25 Missouri (8-4), etc.  That kind of logic just feeds itself.  I am not saying the Pac-12 deserves totally different treatment; but the logic is suspect and should be questioned by all the other Power-5 conferences.

One last point: if the Pac-12 moved to an eight-game in-conference schedule and each team got to schedule another cream-puff, the overall records could look quite different.  Washington could be 10-2 (equal to Michigan), Stanford might be 8-3 with a shot at 9-3 (equal to Florida, LSU and Kentucky).  USC could be bowl-eligible at 6-6.  ASU might have avoided a 4th conference loss and exited the season at 8-4 (equal to Missouri and Texas A&M), etc.  Suddenly, on a pure W-L basis, the conference would look a lot better, so the 8- vs. 9-game conference schedule has quite an impact.

[Austroturf]

Perhaps. But the problem is that even when the PAC-12 scheduled good OOC games, we lost ALL of them. Washington lost to Auburn at home, Stanford and USC were creamed by the Domers, USC was also creamed by Texas, UCLA was demolished by Oklahoma, and Arizona was decimated by Houston and BYU. Oregon and Washington State didn't play a single FBS team. And even Arizona State's win against Michigan St, in retrospect, really wasn't much (and the Sun Devils barely have a winning record in conference play against the mostly much weaker division). I'd be much more willing to grouse if I actually thought our unranked teams were better than their ranked teams. But all objective evidence supports the opposite conclusion.

And all this against a backdrop of a conference that finished 1-8 in bowl games last season (and the one win was a 6-6 Utah team). Until we start winning our matchups against the other conferences, I quite frankly don't think we deserve the benefit of the doubt. We have had no team even plausibly close to the CFP semifinals in the last two seasons. IMHO, the PAC-12 needs to put up or shut up. 8- vs. 9-game conference schedules don't explain why all our teams lost their big OOC games in the first three weeks of the season.

These are fair points, but just a couple of qualifiers.  USC did not get creamed by Notre Dame: they lost by one TD; and Stanford had a three-game winning streak going against the Irish until this year. USC and Stanford have this quality match-up every year, which is far more than most SEC teams are willing to schedule.  Georgia did have Notre Dame on the schedule last year and barely squeaked by (20-19) a team that we beat 38-20.  If that contest had gone the other way, there would have been no Georgia in the play-offs.  No wonder they don't like scheduling that kind of opposition in OOC games and would like to limit conference games to 8.  What would their CFP chances look like if Georgia and Alabama regularly met during conference play and potentially again in the title game.  No way the SEC gets two teams in the CFP.   

Yes, Texas throttled USC; but Maryland (Big Ten also-ran) throttled Texas, which beat Oklahoma.      

Washington did not lose to Auburn at home.  It was ostensibly on a neutral field, but proved to be a virtual home game for the Tigers (way down in SEC country).  

UCLA got pulverized by the Sooners, but they got pulverized by everybody early in the season.  The team we barely squeaked by last week would have turned up much stronger against Fresno State, Cincinnati and Oklahoma; but Chip was still putting the team together at that stage of the season.  I wish UCLA had made the post-season, as they probably would have been a good match-up in a lower-tier bowl.   

And Arizona has not been a model of consistency at all this year, so I don't know how much you can read into their good showings (Oregon) and poor showings (WSU).  

Now if the Pac-12 once again goes 0-for-the-world in the bowl games this season, then we can call it a conference crisis; but I still think last year was an anomaly.  In prior years, the Pac-12 has shown up much better.  Obviously, this depends on match-ups; but I think the 7 bowl-eligible teams will do fine this year (assuming no critical injuries, like Herbert at Oregon).  

Also, I am not so much defending the Pac-12 as I am criticizing the logic used by the pollsters.  If there are a slew of round-robin losses between teams that are all seen as "Top 25", then the rankings are self-validating.  Florida can be top ten with a 9-3 record because they lost to top 25 Missouri (8-4), etc.  That kind of logic just feeds itself.  I am not saying the Pac-12 deserves totally different treatment; but the logic is suspect and should be questioned by all the other Power-5 conferences.

One last point: if the Pac-12 moved to an eight-game in-conference schedule and each team got to schedule another cream-puff, the overall records could look quite different.  Washington could be 10-2 (equal to Michigan), Stanford might be 8-3 with a shot at 9-3 (equal to Florida, LSU and Kentucky).  USC could be bowl-eligible at 6-6.  ASU might have avoided a 4th conference loss and exited the season at 8-4 (equal to Missouri and Texas A&M), etc.  Suddenly, on a pure W-L basis, the conference would look a lot better, so the 8- vs. 9-game conference schedule has quite an impact.

[ADPinWDC]

There's a lot of questionable stuff on bowl selections in this thread. 

The conference chooses the bowl selections (as Spiny noted). 

In recent years the conference records have very closely reflected the bowl pecking order. Most exceptions are where schools asked for a flip to provide a different destination for players and fans. [My memory is that Stanford lobbied for the Sun Bowl rather than the Foster Farms Bowl in 2016.]

Minor bowl games do not make money by visiting fan bases showing up. Most of the money is TV. Participating teams must agree to purchase a bunch of tickets, which outside of some rare cases is more than their fans will buy. That hits athletic department budgets but doesn't affect the bowl's take. 

Stanford and the Foster Farms Bowl did seem to have a bit of a beef in 2014. Whatever was the reason, it wasn't that Stanford killed their meager attendance numbers. 
Foster Farms Bowl attendance (bowl changed names a few times):
2011 - 29,878  (Illinois vs UCLA)
2012 - 34,172  (Navy vs ASU)
2013 - 34,136  (BYU vs Washington)
2014 - 34,780  (Maryland vs Stanford)
2015 - 33,527  (Nabraska vs UCLA)
2016 - 27,608  (Indiana vs Utah)
2017 - 28,436  (Purdue vs Arizona)

My understanding of the Foster Farms disappointment was that the bowl organizers expected a bump in attendance because Stanford was so close.  But it was Christmas break, so all the students were gone, and the fan-base was not bunched within convenient driving distance as with more local universities.  So there was no bump, and Maryland fans actually outnumbered the Stanford fans.  But, yes, as can be seen, the attendance numbers have flagged regardless of the participants.  If there was any other beef, I am unaware of the causes.

Here is the argument to dispel OUTSIDERS on the RedBox Fridge Bowl (Non-alums; East Coast pundits unfamiliar with the Bay Area) 
1) Please understand this:  Stanford is NOT a state commuter school -- East Coast writers just don't get this.  
2) The Stanford dorms are LOCKED up during Christmas break -- Dec. 16 - Jan. 3.  NOBODY there !!!   RedBox is NOT a home game!  
3) Levi is not our home stadium.  CAPISCE?  (Except for Pac12 Champ game, usually -- heh, heh, heh)  
4) Holiday Bowl could be a bigger draw than Alamo or Sun, or Vegas.  
     -- Bay Area Stanford alums are MUCH more likely to spend on hotels in San Diego than near Levi.  
     -- San Diego or Rose Bowl is a quick 1.5 hour flight from NorCal.  Big diff from El Paso or San Antone.  
5) More Stanford alums are from and live in Southern Calif. [check that with alumni relations; 220,000 total alums with grad schools] 
-- any SoCal game, I submit, will draw more alums than Levi.  Driving distance, or train to San Diego. Easy.  
6) This has to be tested, but the SoCal rivalry is DOUBLED:  U$C + UCLA. They are enemies. 
So, SoCal fans pay more attention to Football.  Berzerkeley is a goofy, nerd rival.

[ADPinWDC]

There's a lot of questionable stuff on bowl selections in this thread. 

The conference chooses the bowl selections (as Spiny noted). 

In recent years the conference records have very closely reflected the bowl pecking order. Most exceptions are where schools asked for a flip to provide a different destination for players and fans. [My memory is that Stanford lobbied for the Sun Bowl rather than the Foster Farms Bowl in 2016.]

Minor bowl games do not make money by visiting fan bases showing up. Most of the money is TV. Participating teams must agree to purchase a bunch of tickets, which outside of some rare cases is more than their fans will buy. That hits athletic department budgets but doesn't affect the bowl's take. 

Stanford and the Foster Farms Bowl did seem to have a bit of a beef in 2014. Whatever was the reason, it wasn't that Stanford killed their meager attendance numbers. 
Foster Farms Bowl attendance (bowl changed names a few times):
2011 - 29,878  (Illinois vs UCLA)
2012 - 34,172  (Navy vs ASU)
2013 - 34,136  (BYU vs Washington)
2014 - 34,780  (Maryland vs Stanford)
2015 - 33,527  (Nabraska vs UCLA)
2016 - 27,608  (Indiana vs Utah)
2017 - 28,436  (Purdue vs Arizona)

My understanding of the Foster Farms disappointment was that the bowl organizers expected a bump in attendance because Stanford was so close.  But it was Christmas break, so all the students were gone, and the fan-base was not bunched within convenient driving distance as with more local universities.  So there was no bump, and Maryland fans actually outnumbered the Stanford fans.  But, yes, as can be seen, the attendance numbers have flagged regardless of the participants.  If there was any other beef, I am unaware of the causes.

Here is the argument to dispel OUTSIDERS on the RedBox Fridge Bowl (Non-alums; East Coast pundits unfamiliar with the Bay Area) 
1) Please understand this:  Stanford is NOT a state commuter school -- East Coast writers just don't get this.  
2) The Stanford dorms are LOCKED up during Christmas break -- Dec. 16 - Jan. 3.  NOBODY there !!!   RedBox is NOT a home game!  
3) Levi is not our home stadium.  CAPISCE?  (Except for Pac12 Champ game, usually -- heh, heh, heh)  
4) Holiday Bowl could be a bigger draw than Alamo or Sun, or Vegas.  
     -- Bay Area Stanford alums are MUCH more likely to spend on hotels in San Diego than near Levi.  
     -- San Diego or Rose Bowl is a quick 1.5 hour flight from NorCal.  Big diff from El Paso or San Antone.  
5) More Stanford alums are from and live in Southern Calif. [check that with alumni relations; 220,000 total alums with grad schools] 
-- any SoCal game, I submit, will draw more alums than Levi.  Driving distance, or train to San Diego. Easy.  
6) This has to be tested, but the SoCal rivalry is DOUBLED:  U$C + UCLA. They are enemies. 
So, SoCal fans pay more attention to Football.  Berzerkeley is a goofy, nerd rival.

[cardcrimson]

One factoid that seemingly gets overlooked every year is number of road games a team plays.

For example:

5 of 14 SEC schools played 5 away games, 9 played only 4 away games (note, there were a couple of neutral site games in the South that didn't count as an away game.) Almost all of the OOC games played by SEC teams were at home. Two thirds of the conference play twice as many home games as away games!

In contrast, 5 of 12 Pac-12 schools played 6 away games, 7 played 5 away games (note, Washington played one neutral site game in Atlanta). Just under half the teams play an equal number of home and away games.

The amount of home games SHOULD be considered in the rankings, but never seems to be. . . .

And FWIW. . . .

Add to that the average miles a team travels, and the Pac-12 tops the Power 5 at an average of 7478 miles per team, while the SEC is last of all conferences at 3588 miles per team. . . .

[cardcrimson]

One factoid that seemingly gets overlooked every year is number of road games a team plays.

For example:

5 of 14 SEC schools played 5 away games, 9 played only 4 away games (note, there were a couple of neutral site games in the South that didn't count as an away game.) Almost all of the OOC games played by SEC teams were at home. Two thirds of the conference play twice as many home games as away games!

In contrast, 5 of 12 Pac-12 schools played 6 away games, 7 played 5 away games (note, Washington played one neutral site game in Atlanta). Just under half the teams play an equal number of home and away games.

The amount of home games SHOULD be considered in the rankings, but never seems to be. . . .

And FWIW. . . .

Add to that the average miles a team travels, and the Pac-12 tops the Power 5 at an average of 7478 miles per team, while the SEC is last of all conferences at 3588 miles per team. . . .

[Spiny_Norman]

One factoid that seemingly gets overlooked every year is number of road games a team plays.

For example:

5 of 14 SEC schools played 5 away games, 9 played only 4 away games (note, there were a couple of neutral site games in the South that didn't count as an away game.) Almost all of the OOC games played by SEC teams were at home. Two thirds of the conference play twice as many home games as away games!

In contrast, 5 of 12 Pac-12 schools played 6 away games, 7 played 5 away games (note, Washington played one neutral site game in Atlanta). Just under half the teams play an equal number of home and away games.

The amount of home games SHOULD be considered in the rankings, but never seems to be. . . .

And FWIW. . . .

Add to that the average miles a team travels, and the Pac-12 tops the Power 5 at an average of 7478 miles per team, while the SEC is last of all conferences at 3588 miles per team. . . .

Example 1 - The last time Florida played a non-conference game at an opponent's stadium outside of the state of Florida was 1991. I believe the last time it played a non-conference game at an opponent's stadium outside of the eastern time zone was 1983.

[Spiny_Norman]

One factoid that seemingly gets overlooked every year is number of road games a team plays.

For example:

5 of 14 SEC schools played 5 away games, 9 played only 4 away games (note, there were a couple of neutral site games in the South that didn't count as an away game.) Almost all of the OOC games played by SEC teams were at home. Two thirds of the conference play twice as many home games as away games!

In contrast, 5 of 12 Pac-12 schools played 6 away games, 7 played 5 away games (note, Washington played one neutral site game in Atlanta). Just under half the teams play an equal number of home and away games.

The amount of home games SHOULD be considered in the rankings, but never seems to be. . . .

And FWIW. . . .

Add to that the average miles a team travels, and the Pac-12 tops the Power 5 at an average of 7478 miles per team, while the SEC is last of all conferences at 3588 miles per team. . . .

Example 1 - The last time Florida played a non-conference game at an opponent's stadium outside of the state of Florida was 1991. I believe the last time it played a non-conference game at an opponent's stadium outside of the eastern time zone was 1983.