State of the Pac-12

Honestly, as we near the end of the season, the Pac-12 looks more or less the same as it did at the beginning: Two or three elite teams at the top, followed by a mass of mediocre teams logjammed in the middle, and then a handful of stragglers bringing up the rear.

The Good:

1) Oregon Ducks (9-2, 7-1) - I know that, technically, the Ducks ought to be behind Stanford, based on record, and USC, based on head-to-head record, but I would still pick the Ducks as the best team in the Pac-12. They also have the clearest path to the Rose Bowl, needing home wins against Oregon State and UCLA.

2) Stanford Cardinal (10-1, 8-1) - Can the Cardinal obtain an at-large bid to the BCS? They'll need a win tomorrow against Notre Dame, and end in the Top 4 in the final BCS standings, where they are currently 6th. Stanford has to fight against their inability to draw a large crowd at road games - i.e., in last year's Orange Bowl - and their weak schedule. Honestly, their best non-conference win is against Duke. At football.

3) USC Trojans (9-2, 6-2) - Will USC be back next year, when their bowl ban is lifted, but they will still have scholarship limitations? I will admit to being impressed by their showing this year, not just because they beat the Ducks but also because of their triple overtime loss to Stanford, and because of their outstanding consistency following their shaky 19-17 win over Minnesota to open the season. Having said that, how bitter sweet must it be for them to watch UCLA take their spot in the Pac-12 Championship?

The Middling:

4) Washington Huskies (6-5, 4-4) - I kept expecting Washington to make a move this year in the Pac-12. Both QBs Keith Price and Nick Montana have looked good this year, and both should be back next year. However, they're going into tomorrow's Apple Cup on a three game losing streak, and will need a win to preserve a winning season.

5) California Golden Bears (6-5, 3-5) - Here are Cal's records going back the past five years: 2006 (9-3) 2007 (6-6) 2008 (8-4) 2009 (8-4) 2010 (5-7). The Golden Bears never have been able to cross that threshold to an actual national power; and now, after a second consecutive year with at least five losses, they seem as far away from that goal as ever. What I am saying is that, in order to be considered an elite conference, the Pac-12 needs another elite program, and that program is supposed to be Cal.

6) Arizona State Sun Devils (6-5, 4-4) - But this year, at least, the Sun Devils were supposed to be that fourth elite team. Look at their schedule, and you can find at least three winnable games that they lost. (I would say at Illinois, at UCLA, and vs Arizona.) Arizona State lost those three games by a grand total of 8 points. How different would not only the conference, but the national, landscape be, if ASU were 9-2 and going back to Eugene for a rematch? Biggest disappointment of the year.

7) Utah Utes (7-5, 4-5) - Despite losing their first three Pac-12 games, Utah has served themselves very well in their first year in a BCS conference, recording wins against Oregon State, Arizona, UCLA, and Washington State. They also may have the most impressive non-conference schedule of any Pac-12 team thus year, notching wins against BYU and Pittsburgh. They flopped when they needed a win the most, however, giving UCLA the division win with their loss to 3-10 Colorado, as well as laying an egg at home against Arizona State in a 35-14 loss that ended up going a long way in deciding the division. Here's betting that Utah will be a force in the South Division for a while to come, though.

8) UCLA Bruins (6-5, 5-3) - I have already documented the travesty that has allowed the 6-5 Bruins to reach the inaugural Pac-12 Championship Game. However, that's not the Bruins fault, who have actually improved considerably over the last couple of years. Unfortunately, they may be being set up for failure this year; if they lose to USC tomorrow, and then lose to Oregon/Stanford in the championship game, they will actually not qualify for a bowl game. Rose Bowl or bust, eh?

The Bad: