CFP strong messages

[Roethlisberge]

1. Head to head doesn't really matter.
(e.g., 4 OSU, 5 PSU, 6 UM) --PSU beat OSU, UM beat PSU) reverse order of ranking would make sense if head to head results mattered..
2. No 2-loss teams need apply (PSU & UM)
3. Winning division and conference doesn't mean that much (e.g. Oklahoma, PSU, OSU)
4. Not much consideration for strength of schedule (e.g., Washington)

What if:

OSU gets beaten badly by Clemson, AL wipes out Washington, PSU wipes out Rose Bowl opponent (USC or Colorado)

Are post game final CFP rankings adjusted to AL, Clemson, PSU?
Does anyone wonder at that point if the wrong number 3 and 4 teams were picked by CFB?

 

[Lions8286]

There are no more committee rankings once they determine the final 4. It's all decided on the field now.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

1. Head to head doesn't really matter.
(e.g., 4 OSU, 5 PSU, 6 UM) --PSU beat OSU, UM beat PSU) reverse order of ranking would make sense if head to head results mattered..
2. No 2-loss teams need apply (PSU & UM)
3. Winning division and conference doesn't mean that much (e.g. Oklahoma, PSU, OSU)
4. Not much consideration for strength of schedule (e.g., Washington)

What if:

OSU gets beaten badly by Clemson, AL wipes out Washington, PSU wipes out Rose Bowl opponent (USC or Colorado)

Are post game final CFP rankings adjusted to AL, Clemson, PSU?
Does anyone wonder at that point if the wrong number 3 and 4 teams were picked by CFB?

Strongest message they send is that Alabama should advance to the Finals regardless of whether they win or lose on the field of play in their first round game!

 

[Art]

1. Head to head doesn't really matter.
(e.g., 4 OSU, 5 PSU, 6 UM) --PSU beat OSU, UM beat PSU) reverse order of ranking would make sense if head to head results mattered..
2. No 2-loss teams need apply (PSU & UM)
3. Winning division and conference doesn't mean that much (e.g. Oklahoma, PSU, OSU)
4. Not much consideration for strength of schedule (e.g., Washington)

What if:

OSU gets beaten badly by Clemson, AL wipes out Washington, PSU wipes out Rose Bowl opponent (USC or Colorado)

Are post game final CFP rankings adjusted to AL, Clemson, PSU?
Does anyone wonder at that point if the wrong number 3 and 4 teams were picked by CFB?

There is nothing "strong" about the CFP. Should be obvious that they're making it up as they go along. Hell, for all we know, Larry the Dr. Pepper Douche gets to pick all four teams.

 

[Hotshoe]

1. Head to head doesn't really matter.
(e.g., 4 OSU, 5 PSU, 6 UM) --PSU beat OSU, UM beat PSU) reverse order of ranking would make sense if head to head results mattered..
2. No 2-loss teams need apply (PSU & UM)
3. Winning division and conference doesn't mean that much (e.g. Oklahoma, PSU, OSU)
4. Not much consideration for strength of schedule (e.g., Washington)

What if:

OSU gets beaten badly by Clemson, AL wipes out Washington, PSU wipes out Rose Bowl opponent (USC or Colorado)

Are post game final CFP rankings adjusted to AL, Clemson, PSU?
Does anyone wonder at that point if the wrong number 3 and 4 teams were picked by CFB?

Great Post.

 

[Roethlisberge]

There is nothing "strong" about the CFP. Should be obvious that they're making it up as they go along. Hell, for all we know, Larry the Dr. Pepper Douche gets to pick all four teams.

Or does SEC / ESPN get first and second pick; that is, Alabama and weakest number 4 team along with Alabama home site

 

[AWS1022]

1. Head to head doesn't really matter.
(e.g., 4 OSU, 5 PSU, 6 UM) --PSU beat OSU, UM beat PSU) reverse order of ranking would make sense if head to head results mattered..
2. No 2-loss teams need apply (PSU & UM)
3. Winning division and conference doesn't mean that much (e.g. Oklahoma, PSU, OSU)
4. Not much consideration for strength of schedule (e.g., Washington)

What if:

OSU gets beaten badly by Clemson, AL wipes out Washington, PSU wipes out Rose Bowl opponent (USC or Colorado)

Are post game final CFP rankings adjusted to AL, Clemson, PSU?
Does anyone wonder at that point if the wrong number 3 and 4 teams were picked by CFB?

Another piece of evidence that conference champ doesn't matter is Washington being #4. You would think if they were that impressed by Washington winning the PAC 12, they would have put OSU at #4....but they didn't want OSU to have to open up with Bama.

 

[Upperrwestsidetrojan]

1. Head to head doesn't really matter.
(e.g., 4 OSU, 5 PSU, 6 UM) --PSU beat OSU, UM beat PSU) reverse order of ranking would make sense if head to head results mattered..
2. No 2-loss teams need apply (PSU & UM)
3. Winning division and conference doesn't mean that much (e.g. Oklahoma, PSU, OSU)
4. Not much consideration for strength of schedule (e.g., Washington)

What if:

OSU gets beaten badly by Clemson, AL wipes out Washington, PSU wipes out Rose Bowl opponent (USC or Colorado)

Are post game final CFP rankings adjusted to AL, Clemson, PSU?
Does anyone wonder at that point if the wrong number 3 and 4 teams were picked by CFB?

i agree with your post. but I think they do value strength of schedule. and sagarin had uw at 41 with only one loss. so uw had an average schedule but they blew out ten teams on it. and that is very impressive. watch uw play. they are really good. so is psu, but the committee liked uw a little better.

 

[theXbomber]

I watched Washington and they played teams with no athleticism. I don't want to be too hard on Colorado but there's a reason they finished in last place 5 years in a row. That was the slowest most unathletic team I've ever seen in a championship game. Temple had far more speed and athleticism than Colorado. It was a conference devoid of athleticism except for USC. Who handed Washington their lunch. Washington State lost lost to Eastern Washington for God's sake. I didn't even know there was an Eastern Washington. I guess it's somewhere in the Eastern part of the State.

 

[Upperrwestsidetrojan]

I watched Washington and they played teams with no athleticism. I don't want to be too hard on Colorado but there's a reason they finished in last place 5 years in a row. That was the slowest most unathletic team I've ever seen in a championship game. Temple had far more speed and athleticism than Colorado. It was a conference devoid of athleticism except for USC. Who handed Washington their lunch. Washington State lost lost to Eastern Washington for God's sake. I didn't even know there was an Eastern Washington. I guess it's somewhere in the Eastern part of the State.

pac 12 is not great this yr, but uw s very good. they had one bad game against sc. sc got lucky in that game too.

 

[AWS1022]

pac 12 is not great this yr, but uw s very good. they had one bad game against sc. sc got lucky in that game too.

If the PAC 12 is not good this year then how do we know Washington is good? The eye test doesn't work when they're playing average and mediocre teams.

 

[Mixolydian]

If the PAC 12 is not good this year then how do we know Washington is good? The eye test doesn't work when they're playing average and mediocre teams.

Don't confuse the douche.

 

[Upperrwestsidetrojan]

If the PAC 12 is not good this year then how do we know Washington is good? The eye test doesn't work when they're playing average and mediocre teams.

because they killed the teams in the conf. and it is still legit conf. for exmple, col. went on the road played close game with a very good mich team. if that game is in col, they might have son. col. is good team.

cant wait to play psu.

 

[Vermilion]

I know I am in the deep, deep minority, but I for one think they got it right-they debated between us and Washington quite a bit. I didn't want the AL game and quite frankly don't think we deserved it with two losses. These are really tough choices with arguments for all (MI/PSU) to be included. So proud of our team and will remember the game for quite some time. Walked my lab here in MN for about an hour this afternoon and smiled the whole time!

We are!

Andy '87

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

 

[AWS1022]

I know I am in the deep, deep minority, but I for one think they got it right-they debated between us and Washington quite a bit. I didn't want the AL game and quite frankly don't think we deserved it with two losses. These are really tough choices with arguments for all (MI/PSU) to be included. So proud of our team and will remember the game for quite some time. Walked my lab here in MN for about an hour this afternoon and smiled the whole time!

We are!

Andy '87

Well maybe we should avoid the Rose Bowl too because USC is supposed to be good. Maybe we can get a bowl with a 6-5 MAC team just to make sure we win.

 

[Mixolydian]

1. Head to head doesn't really matter.
(e.g., 4 OSU, 5 PSU, 6 UM) --PSU beat OSU, UM beat PSU) reverse order of ranking would make sense if head to head results mattered..
2. No 2-loss teams need apply (PSU & UM)
3. Winning division and conference doesn't mean that much (e.g. Oklahoma, PSU, OSU)
4. Not much consideration for strength of schedule (e.g., Washington)

What if:

OSU gets beaten badly by Clemson, AL wipes out Washington, PSU wipes out Rose Bowl opponent (USC or Colorado)

Are post game final CFP rankings adjusted to AL, Clemson, PSU?
Does anyone wonder at that point if the wrong number 3 and 4 teams were picked by CFB?

I agree with all except 1.

OSU beat UM so its hard to do anything with head to head alone when comparing those 3 teams. Now if you break it down to just OSU vs PSU , then it looks like head to head was trumped by 1 vs 2 losses in the committees eyes.

 

[Langmuir]

There is no message about what is important to the committee other than they will pick who they want regardless of any guidelines.

 

[BuckeyeLegion]

1. Head to head doesn't really matter.
(e.g., 4 OSU, 5 PSU, 6 UM) --PSU beat OSU, UM beat PSU) reverse order of ranking would make sense if head to head results mattered..

Really? I mean, UM beat PSU who beat OSU...so in your example it should be 4) UM, 5) PSU, 6) OSU. But wait...OSU beat UM who beat PSU, so it really should be 4) OSU, 5) UM, 6) PSU. Hold on, we'll get to the bottom of this...

 

[AWS1022]

Really? I mean, UM beat PSU who beat OSU...so in your example it should be 4) UM, 5) PSU, 6) OSU. But wait...OSU beat UM who beat PSU, so it really should be 4) OSU, 5) UM, 6) PSU. Hold on, we'll get to the bottom of this...

So how about this...UM had the best win of the three then PSU then OSU...so there's your order based on head to head.

 

[VestalNYLion]

1. Head to head doesn't really matter.
(e.g., 4 OSU, 5 PSU, 6 UM) --PSU beat OSU, UM beat PSU) reverse order of ranking would make sense if head to head results mattered..
2. No 2-loss teams need apply (PSU & UM)
3. Winning division and conference doesn't mean that much (e.g. Oklahoma, PSU, OSU)
4. Not much consideration for strength of schedule (e.g., Washington)

What if:

OSU gets beaten badly by Clemson, AL wipes out Washington, PSU wipes out Rose Bowl opponent (USC or Colorado)

Are post game final CFP rankings adjusted to AL, Clemson, PSU?
Does anyone wonder at that point if the wrong number 3 and 4 teams were picked by CFB?

It's rigged, totally rigged.

 

[maxxedout]

Committee chose to value win-loss record. Seems reasonable.

 

[AWS1022]

Committee chose to value win-loss record. Seems reasonable.

And last year they chose to value SOS and the year before it was conference championships. The next time they're consistent will be the first.

 

[Tom McAndrew]

Hell, for all we know, Larry the Dr. Pepper Douche gets to pick all four teams.

LMAO. Portland Cement COTW candidate there. Very well done.

 

[northernbuck]

1. Head to head doesn't really matter.
(e.g., 4 OSU, 5 PSU, 6 UM) --PSU beat OSU, UM beat PSU) reverse order of ranking would make sense if head to head results mattered..
2. No 2-loss teams need apply (PSU & UM)
3. Winning division and conference doesn't mean that much (e.g. Oklahoma, PSU, OSU)
4. Not much consideration for strength of schedule (e.g., Washington)

What if:

OSU gets beaten badly by Clemson, AL wipes out Washington, PSU wipes out Rose Bowl opponent (USC or Colorado)

Are post game final CFP rankings adjusted to AL, Clemson, PSU?
Does anyone wonder at that point if the wrong number 3 and 4 teams were picked by CFB?

1. It does, but it is only 1 factor.
2. In the 3 years history of CFP, that is correct.
3. They went with MSU last year. They beat OSU in miserable conditions on a last second field goal. Alabama destroyed MSU. OSU would have been a much better matchup.
4. Again, only 1 factor.

Congratulations on a great season.

 

[AWS1022]

1. It does, but it is only 1 factor.
2. In the 3 years history of CFP, that is correct.
3. They went with MSU last year. They beat OSU in miserable conditions on a last second field goal. Alabama destroyed MSU. OSU would have been a much better matchup.
4. Again, only 1 factor.

Congratulations on a great season.

So what you're saying is there's no consistency and they only use the criteria that fits who they want to get in. Ok, that's easy to follow. So in other words, unless you go undefeated or your Bama or OSU, you're going to need help. Sounds fair.

 

[EPC FAN]

I watched Washington and they played teams with no athleticism. I don't want to be too hard on Colorado but there's a reason they finished in last place 5 years in a row. That was the slowest most unathletic team I've ever seen in a championship game. Temple had far more speed and athleticism than Colorado. It was a conference devoid of athleticism except for USC. Who handed Washington their lunch. Washington State lost lost to Eastern Washington for God's sake. I didn't even know there was an Eastern Washington. I guess it's somewhere in the Eastern part of the State.

Colin Cowturd is an alumnus of Eastern Washington. Their football field is RED.

 

[northernbuck]

So what you're saying is there's no consistency and they only use the criteria that fits who they want to get in. Ok, that's easy to follow. So in other words, unless you go undefeated or your Bama or OSU, you're going to need help. Sounds fair.

I am telling you how I believe the committee thinks. Last year, the B1G champ got in and got destroyed. There was a better B1G team. That may have led the committee to lessen the need to be conference champ. If PSU had 1 loss, they would be in.

 

[Langmuir]

I am telling you how I believe the committee thinks. Last year, the B1G champ got in and got destroyed. There was a better B1G team. That may have led the committee to lessen the need to be conference champ. If PSU had 1 loss, they would be in.

PSU has been snubbed too many times in the past for us to believe that is true.

 

[AWS1022]

I am telling you how I believe the committee thinks. Last year, the B1G champ got in and got destroyed. There was a better B1G team. That may have led the committee to lessen the need to be conference champ. If PSU had 1 loss, they would be in.

No one knows if OSU wouldn't have gotten smacked just like MSU did last year. And what's to say if PSU had one loss it wouldn't be the same thought process...well, MSU got crushed last year so we're not going to make that mistake again, we'll put OSU in. The problem is there is no consistency and no one knows what's important. They can't change the rules every year and expect people to remain interested. And if viewership is down this year they will come up with 1,000 excuses except the fact that people want something more than the AP poll plus two more teams, which is what we have now.

 

[fairfaxlion2]

I am telling you how I believe the committee thinks. Last year, the B1G champ got in and got destroyed. There was a better B1G team. That may have led the committee to lessen the need to be conference champ. If PSU had 1 loss, they would be in.

In other words, nothing has changed in college football at any point ever and it remains a good ole boys network where they will create whatever matchups they want as long as they can pull together a story that creates a veneer of reasonableness (or not). The contenders for the national championship (which is not even a real national championship, LOL) are still decided in conference rooms and not on the field.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

In other words, nothing has changed in college football at any point ever and it remains a good ole boys network where they will create whatever matchups they want as long as they can pull together a story that creates a veneer of reasonableness (or not). The contenders for the national championship (which is not even a real national championship, LOL) are still decided in conference rooms and not on the field.

As opposed to the B1G East Division Championship and the B1G Championship which absolutely are determined on the field by OBJECTIVE pre-set criteria and PSU beat daO$U head-to-head on the field of play, won the B1G East Division Championship over daO$U on the field of play, won the B1G Championship on the field of play and recorded the best outright overall record in B1G play over daO$U on the field of play......yet Delany stated on College Gameday the MORNING OF THE B1G CHAMPIONSHIP GAME which daO$U wasn't even playing in that daO$U was "unequivocally" the best team in the B1G Conference??? How on earth does PSU and Barber allow this UNJUST AFRONT and raping of PSU's student-athletes in favor of daO$U to stand without public statement and condemnation is really baffling and PSU's student-athletes deserve better especially what these empty-suits are being paid to do their job!!! Just truly PATHETIC that PSU allows a POS like Delany to run around perpetrating bull$hit antics like this to the SEVERE DETRIMENT of PSU's student-athletes and in favor of completely UNDESERVING athlete's from daO$U?!?!

 

[CJsE]

And last year they chose to value SOS and the year before it was conference championships. The next time they're consistent will be the first.

In 2014 they had....an undefeated team and a bunch of 1-loss teams to decide between.

Last year they had.....an undefeated team and a bunch of 1-loss teams to decide between.

This year they had....an undefeated team and 3 1-loss teams plus a bunch of 2-loss teams to decide between. They chose the 1-loss teams. See a pattern?

 

[demlion]

There are no more committee rankings once they determine the final 4. It's all decided on the field now.

You must be wrong. There has to be one more meeting after the playoff to choose the National champion, right?

They're not going to let the result on the field dictate, are they? What about the eye test?

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

In 2014 they had....an undefeated team and a bunch of 1-loss teams to decide between.

Last year they had.....an undefeated team and a bunch of 1-loss teams to decide between.

This year they had....an undefeated team and 3 1-loss teams plus a bunch of 2-loss teams to decide between. They chose the 1-loss teams. See a pattern?

You keep making this same stupid point.....U-dub and PSU both went 9-1 in their Conference Play, had the best absolute records in their respective Conferences and won both Division And Conference Championships in their respective conferences. PSU did it in a Division and Conference that had 3 and 4 of the top 7 ranked teams! PSU played a 10-3 AAC Conference Champion, an 8-4 ACC team that beat two top 7 teams and a 3-9 MAC team (the combined record of PSU's OOC teams was 21-16). U-dub played a 3-8 FCS team, a 2-10 Rutgers team and an 8-4 Sunbelt team! Laughable to claim that U-dub proved they were a better team than PSU by beating 2-10 Rutgers, 3-8 Portland State and 8-4 Idaho......while PSU played a 10-3 AAC Conference Champion, an ACC team that beat #3 ranked Clemson and 3-9 Kent State. Just beyond laughably stupid to claim that it makes sense to reward U-dub for going 9-1 in the Pac12 and winning the Pac12 Championship (which is what the Selection Committee did, because they sure as hell didn't give them a birth for beating 3-8 FCS Portland State, 2-10 Rutgers and 8-4 Idaho!), but not reward PSU for going 9-1 in the B1G, having the best absolute record in the B1G and winning both the B1G East Division and Conference Championships when the B1G was LIGHTYEARS more difficult than the Pac12, especially the B1G East Division!!! The rationale the Selection Committee expresses makes zero sense when they apply a completely different standard to PSU.

 

[Upperrwestsidetrojan]

You keep making this same stupid point.....U-dub and PSU both went 9-1 in their Conference Play, had the best absolute records in their respective Conferences and won both Division And Conference Championships in their respective conferences. PSU did it in a Division and Conference that had 3 and 4 of the top 7 ranked teams! PSU played a 10-3 AAC Conference Champion, an 8-4 ACC team that beat two top 7 teams and a 3-9 MAC team (the combined record of PSU's OOC teams was 21-16). U-dub played a 3-8 FCS team, a 2-10 Rutgers team and an 8-4 Sunbelt team! Laughable to claim that U-dub proved they were a better team than PSU by beating 2-10 Rutgers, 3-8 Portland State and 8-4 Idaho......while PSU played a 10-3 AAC Conference Champion, an ACC team that beat #3 ranked Clemson and 3-9 Kent State. Just beyond laughably stupid to claim that it makes sense to reward U-dub for going 9-1 in the Pac12 and winning the Pac12 Championship (which is what the Selection Committee did, because they sure as hell didn't give them a birth for beating 3-8 FCS Portland State, 2-10 Rutgers and 8-4 Idaho!), but not reward PSU for going 9-1 in the B1G, having the best absolute record in the B1G and winning both the B1G East Division and Conference Championships when the B1G was LIGHTYEARS more difficult than the Pac12, especially the B1G East Division!!! The rationale the Selection Committee expresses makes zero sense when they apply a completely different standard to PSU.

yes, but psu was crushed by mich. and lost a second game to a solid pitt team. and barely beat a highly ranked wisc team. and only blew out 5 teams on their schedule. whereas uw never got blown out, blew ten teams out themselves, only lost one game, and blew out a highly ranked col team to win the pac 12. plus, chris petersen has an outstanding record of putting very high caliber teams on the field. i think those are some of reasons that uw got in. dont you agree with any of that? do you think these are valid points?

 

[CJsE]

You keep making this same stupid point.....U-dub and PSU both went 9-1 in their Conference Play, had the best absolute records in their respective Conferences and won both Division And Conference Championships in their respective conferences. PSU did it in a Division and Conference that had 3 and 4 of the top 7 ranked teams! PSU played a 10-3 AAC Conference Champion, an 8-4 ACC team that beat two top 7 teams and a 3-9 MAC team (the combined record of PSU's OOC teams was 21-16). U-dub played a 3-8 FCS team, a 2-10 Rutgers team and an 8-4 Sunbelt team! Laughable to claim that U-dub proved they were a better team than PSU by beating 2-10 Rutgers, 3-8 Portland State and 8-4 Idaho......while PSU played a 10-3 AAC Conference Champion, an ACC team that beat #3 ranked Clemson and 3-9 Kent State. Just beyond laughably stupid to claim that it makes sense to reward U-dub for going 9-1 in the Pac12 and winning the Pac12 Championship (which is what the Selection Committee did, because they sure as hell didn't give them a birth for beating 3-8 FCS Portland State, 2-10 Rutgers and 8-4 Idaho!), but not reward PSU for going 9-1 in the B1G, having the best absolute record in the B1G and winning both the B1G East Division and Conference Championships when the B1G was LIGHTYEARS more difficult than the Pac12, especially the B1G East Division!!! The rationale the Selection Committee expresses makes zero sense when they apply a completely different standard to PSU.

#1. You say absolute record like that's an actual thing. As if that is a phrase that has ever been used in the history of sports...or well anything. That's not a thing, nor has it ever been a thing.

#2. No one disputes that you had a tougher ooc schedule, as well as overall SoS. But people keep throwing around numbers like Washington having the 127th ooc schedule that just aren't backed up by any metric that I have been able to find. Washington is usually around 60th, not great by no 2nd to last.

#3. It's usually pretty close when you look at overall SoS. Penn State usually has the edge by single digits over Washington. Some like Sagarin have it further apart 16th to 41st, but it's never all that far. How far justifies an extra loss? I don't know.

#4 Yes the Big Ten is the hardest at the top of the conference, but it's also by far the worst at the bottom. In the past 10 years, no team ranked in the top 15 has been beaten by a team outside of the top 90. The Big Ten has 3 teams ranked outside the top 90, no other conference has more than 1 and the PAC has 0. Games against Rugters, Purdue and Illinois are basically statistical forfeits in favor of a top 15 team, 2 of which were conference games for PSU and UM, but 1 for OSU.

Here is a breakdown taken from a composite of 74 different ranking systems. Conference Power Rankings

 

[NitneLiun]

yes, but psu was crushed by mich. and lost a second game to a solid pitt team. and barely beat a highly ranked wisc team. and only blew out 5 teams on their schedule. whereas uw never got blown out, blew ten teams out themselves, only lost one game, and blew out a highly ranked col team to win the pac 12. plus, chris petersen has an outstanding record of putting very high caliber teams on the field. i think those are some of reasons that uw got in. dont you agree with any of that? do you think these are valid points?

Context is everything.

Washington's OOC SOS was 127th. Penn State's was 12th. They should damn well have a better record.

Colorado sucks. I lived in CO for quite a few years and used to follow them, but they are one of the slowest and least athletic teams I've watched this year.

As for the blowout loss to Michigan, we had 11 starters out and were using third team and walkon players at many of those positions.

 

[Lions8286]

You must be wrong. There has to be one more meeting after the playoff to choose the National champion, right?

They're not going to let the result on the field dictate, are they? What about the eye test?

My sarcasm meter is turned off, so I'm not sure if you're serious or not. Here is the official protocol linked below. Last weekend was their final meeting. Everything else is decided on the field.

http://d30ratpzqzalg7.cloudfront.ne...Protocol.pdf?tV3FOZ68If3qops3X7XJQFmkEd00PiAY

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

There is no message about what is important to the committee other than they will pick who they want regardless of any guidelines.

yes, but psu was crushed by mich. and lost a second game to a solid pitt team. and barely beat a highly ranked wisc team. and only blew out 5 teams on their schedule. whereas uw never got blown out, blew ten teams out themselves, only lost one game, and blew out a highly ranked col team to win the pac 12. plus, chris petersen has an outstanding record of putting very high caliber teams on the field. i think those are some of reasons that uw got in. dont you agree with any of that? do you think these are valid points?

No. The PAC 12 isn't a very good conference and in fact is the worst of the Power 5. They look good because the bar isn't very high. They'd be fourth in the B1G East.