ESPN College Football

SEC and Big 12 folks have been tweaking the Big Ten and Pac-12's love of the Rose Bowl of late. That made me grin because the primary motivation for those tweaks was jealousy.

Don't buy that assessment? Well, then what do you make of this: The SEC and Big 12 champions, starting in 2014 after the current BCS contract expires and we presumably adopt a four-team playoff, will meet annually in a prime time New Year's Day "bowl" game.

Unless, of course, the SEC and/or Big 12 champions are selected for the four-team playoff, which one is almost certain to be and both are likely to be.

But, if one or both is selected for the playoff, then, just like the Rose Bowl, a No. 2 team from both or either conference will be selected.

So the SEC and Big 12 have adopted the Rose Bowl model in its entirety. Other than the fact that they can't play in the Rose Bowl stadium as the sun goes down over the San Gabriel Mountains.

The location has not been set. The Sugar Bowl (SEC) and Fiesta Bowl (Big 12) already have a dog in this fight, but expect bids to come from Jerry Jones and his deluxe Cowboys Stadium in Arlington, Texas, as well as a play from Atlanta.

By the way, the Rose Bowl jealousy stuff is mostly good-natured ribbing while I'm gaping at another sudden shift in college football's tectonic plates.

Folks, this stuff is amazing, and there's a stunning plot twist seemingly on a weekly basis -- Florida State to the Big 12? Notre Dame back in play?

The main take-away: This is a step closer to four power conferences, with the ACC and Big East finding their footing suddenly precarious.

And, if you want to worry, Pac-12 fans, it looks like the SEC and Big 12 are being far more aggressive -- read: expansionist -- as college football remakes itself. Keep in mind that the Pac-12 could have ended the Big 12 last September and become the first 16-team super-conference if Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech had made a jump.

Pac-12 presidents might end up regretting their decision not to expand -- and giving Oklahoma, in particular, the shaft. Newly enriched by a mega-TV deal, they might have lost track of the big picture while they were counting their money.

Commissioner Larry Scott has long held that further consolidation at the top of college football was inevitable. This is another example of him proving right, though this time without a blockbuster deal for Pac-12 folks to celebrate.

This latest news is a reason to get nervous. Or to just marvel at how quickly the game has changed.

At the Pac-12 meetings last week in Phoenix, it became clear that conference coaches and athletic directors as well as commissioner Larry Scott favor a potential four-team college football playoff including a requirement that each of the four participants wins its respective conference championship.

The reasoning for that is logical and unassailable: A national title contender should first prove it's the best team in its conference. College football folks -- coaches, administrators, etc. -- frequently talk about preserving the value of the regular season. Not requiring a playoff team to win its conference directly contravenes that.

On the other side of the playoff debate are the folks who don't want any such requirements. They say introducing one muddies things up. They say it's important to pick the "four best teams." Keep it simple and credible!

Four best teams? Er, how will we determine that? The ole BCS rankings? A selection committee?

Not acceptable.

There needs to be give and take here. If the Pac-12 and Big Ten are going to sacrifice their automatic tie-in to the Rose Bowl, that means they need to get something in return. Thankfully, Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany already has proposed an equitable plan that allows for both sides of this debate to get most of what they want.

It's the top-six plan: Conference champions would be required to be ranked in the top six of the final rankings in order to earn automatic berths in the four-team playoff. If four conference champions aren't ranked in the top six, then the highest ranked at-large teams would fill however many voids there are.

CBS Sports' Brett McMurphy went through all the scenarios. He found that, since 2004, only seven top-four teams in the final BCS standings would have missed the playoffs with this top-six plan.

Writes McMurphy:

Under this format, in the past eight years, 30 of the 32 teams in the playoff would have been conference champions. Only two teams -- No. 2 Alabama (in 2011) and No. 4 Ohio State (in 2005) -- that weren't a conference champion would have qualified for the national semifinals.

Using the conference affiliation for the schools for each season and not their future affiliation, the SEC would have had the most schools in the playoffs from 2004-11 with eight, including seven conference champions. The Pac-12 and Big 12 would have been next, each with six schools, followed by the Big Ten with five (four conference champions, one at-large), the Mountain West with four, the Big East with two and the ACC with one.

Of the Mountain West's four representatives, two were by Utah, now in the Pac-12, and two by TCU, which joins the Big 12 this fall.

That sounds about right.

The teams left out? Stanford and Texas, both twice, and Alabama, Michigan and LSU.

That sounds about right.

The best scenario to look at is 2008. From McMurphy's breakdown:

Top 6 ranked teams: No. 1 Oklahoma (Big 12 champ), No. 2 Florida (SEC champ), No. 3 Texas (at-large), No. 4 Alabama (at-large), No. 5 USC (Pac-10 champ), No. 6 Utah (Mountain West champ).

Conference champs in four-team playoff: No. 1 Oklahoma, No. 2 Florida, No. 5 USC, No. 6 Utah.

Non-conference champs in four-team playoff: None.

Top-6 teams left out: No. 3 Texas, No. 4 Alabama.

Revisionist history: The good news is that the top four conference champions are all ranked among the nation's top six teams. The bad news is No. 3 Texas and No. 4 Alabama, both of which didn't win their conference, would not be included in the playoff. Lower ranked, but conference champion, USC (No. 5) and Utah (No. 6) would have made the field.

In 2008, the top-six model would have created a far superior postseason. The most likely scenario would have seen USC, clearly the best team in 2008, beating Utah, which physically manhandled Alabama 31-17 in the Sugar Bowl, for the national title.

Wait ... did I just pull one of those "Just because" deals there, making assumptions about how good a team is?

Yes, I did. Most folks outside of the Southeast -- including Vegas bookies -- believed USC was the best team in 2008. It finished the regular season with the same record as Florida and Oklahoma, but its loss on the road against an Oregon State team that won nine games was deemed worse than the Gators' and Sooners' blemishes. That judgment was arbitrary and ran counter to what many folks believed: The Trojans in 2008 would have left a bootprint on the foreheads of either Florida or Oklahoma.

And, of course, when Utah held Alabama to 208 total yards -- 31 yards rushing! -- it's nearly impossible to say the Crimson Tide belonged in the same building. Oh, that's right, an Alabama team playing in its first BCS bowl game since 1999 was SO disappointed that it lost the SEC title game that it decided not to try hard in the Sugar Bowl. Please.

Of course, this analysis is bothering some folks. Good. That's how the "Just because" stuff felt for the Trojans in 2008 and for Oklahoma State last year. The most certain way to ensure the new four-team playoff will foment annual controversy is to make the "Just because" element its foundation. We'll still be debating the subjectivity -- and inherent biases -- of the system for weeks as the season winds down.

See, out here on the West Coast, the top-six plan seems simple. It seems fair. It doesn't muddy anything up. It actually provides clarity: Win your conference.

It first tries to award the highest-rated conference champions for, you know, accomplishing something during the regular season, then it makes sure that we don't end up with a three-loss team in the playoff.

It's the best and most equitable endgame in the four-team playoff scenario. And the Pac-12 and Big Ten should fight for it.

PHOENIX -- Pac-12 coaches and athletic directors generally expressed optimism over the expected move toward a four-team college football playoff in 2014, but there was plenty of caution as well as a smack of defiance during the conference's spring meetings at the posh Arizona Biltmore Hotel.

Some, such as Utah coach Kyle Whittingham and Washington State coach Mike Leach, don't think four teams is enough. Some worried about losing the bowl games, particularly the Pac-12's longstanding and storied connection to the Rose Bowl. And just about everyone was concerned about the selection process.

That defiance? It's rooted in the general belief that some other conferences excel at masterful scheduling (read: avoiding challenging competition) and massaging public perception (read: creating a consensus of superiority based significantly on subjective judgments).

If the Pac-12 and Big 12 play nine conference games, and the ACC, SEC and Big Ten play eight, then those conferences are playing by different standards that have myriad measurable effects. If one conference features a majority of teams playing at least one or two tough nonconference foes a year and another features a majority of teams playing four directional schools, then those conferences are playing by different standards that have myriad measurable effects.

Even if one of those conferences has won six consecutive national titles.

"You need some competitive equity within all of the conferences if you are going to do this thing," USC athletic director Pat Haden said. "But if you're going to have a conference, it seems to me you should be playing your conference opponents rather than non-conference opponents. In USC and Stanford's case we really have 10 conference games if you include Notre Dame, because we both have a long history of playing Notre Dame."

While the sentiment is strong among the coaches to reduce the Pac-12 conference schedule to eight games, sentiments mostly lean the other way among the athletic directors. The topic was discussed this week, but commissioner Larry Scott confirmed that there is no short-term plan to reduce the conference slate to eight games.

A big reason for that: There's a wait-and-see attitude on the details of the four-team playoff. While, based on media reports, there seems to be considerable momentum behind incorporating the bowls into the new system, there is little consensus on the selection process for the four participating teams.

That is where the coaches have a dog in this fight. They don't really care where they play, but they do want to know how they get there.

"I'd hate to go to just one little group or one committee that picks the teams," Arizona coach Rich Rodriguez said. "I think it's way too important. The more people you have involved, probably the better."

Oregon coach Chip Kelly pointed out that if there was a final four in place last fall, then Stanford would have been in and his Ducks would have been out, despite their decisive win in Palo Alto. The biggest reason for that? Oregon lost to LSU in the season-opener, giving it one more defeat than Stanford. If the Ducks had played San Jose State, they almost certainly would have finished fourth.

"There seems like there are a lot of questions that still need to be answered before anybody can say, 'Hey, that's a great idea,'" Kelly said.

Therein lies the caution. And the defiance. There was a clear undercurrent with Scott, the coaches and athletic directors that they didn't want to be pushed into anything, particularly when the Pac-12 (and Big Ten) are being asked to sacrifice something -- their tie to the Rose Bowl -- while other conferences aren't. There's a widespread perception that the BCS standings favored an SEC way of doing things, and played a role in that conference's recent dominance. So how does it help the Pac-12 if the new format still relies on a BCS-like evaluation?

There's a concern that if, say, Oregon and Alabama both finish 11-1 that the Crimson Tide would benefit from a "just because" edge, one based entirely on a subjective judgment of SEC superiority. Such a judgment could give the SEC a near-annual second team in a final four while knocking the Pac-12 -- and other major conferences -- out entirely.

"I think a lot of people are going to want the human element out of it, because it would be hard for humans to make those decisions and not be biased in some way," USC coach Lane Kiffin said.

Which is why some, such as Whittingham, favor an expanded playoff.

"From my perspective, you can take it out of the hands of voting and more to on-field performance," he said.

Said Leach, "I'd like to see it more than four. My suspicion is eventually there will be. Because, five years ago, if somebody had said this was going to happen, the room would have started laughing."

Meetings here were long, and there were plenty of other topics, from officiating, to bowls, to scheduling. But the back-and-forth on the potential new playoff scenarios was the centerpiece of the week, at least in terms of intrigue.

Change is coming. That's almost certain. But the process this summer of putting together a concrete plan among entities with competing agendas figures to be contentious.

Said Washington coach Steve Sarkisian, "I think there are still a lot of conversations to go."

The Pac-12 blog's official stance on the Rose Bowl: It's awesome. Has been since 1902. If you've ever been to one, you are nodding.

If you are not nodding, you are either ignorant of the Rose Bowl experience or are untroubled by being wrong. And I mean that in the nicest possible way.

Our position on this is unambiguous. When the BCS power brokers meet in Hollywood, Fla., this week with the intention of transforming the college football postseason, the Rose Bowl must be given special status. Why? If you were to request a list from the sports' cognoscenti on the greatest traditions in college football, most would rate the Rose Bowl No. 1.

Some ACC, Big 12 and SEC fans might be shrugging. Their conferences don't play in the Rose Bowl, other than in a couple of BCS-mandated exceptional cases. Why should they care?

Well, I don't live in Egypt, but I care about the pyramids. We're talking about history, folks, about tradition, about maintaining a connection to the past. If our postseason endgame somehow ends the Rose Bowl, it would be like knocking down the Washington Monument because we feel like we can build a bigger and better pointy thing in our nation's capital.

We know that one of the four options that will be discussed -- as first reported by USA Today -- is the "Four Teams Plus" plan. It would make the Rose Bowl an automatic part of a "playoff" that would determine the national champion.

The four highest-ranked teams at the end of the regular season would meet in semifinals unless the Big Ten or Pac-12 champion, or both, were among the top four. Those leagues' teams still would meet in the Rose, and the next highest-ranked team or teams would slide into the semis. The national championship finalists would be selected after those three games.

This plan has been widely ridiculed, and for good reason. It's ridiculous. It continues to add subjectivity to the process instead of having more decided on the field of play. That's what we are trying to get rid of.

As I've said before, it doesn't seem that complicated to have a four-team playoff set, then let the Rose Bowl choose next, likely the best available teams from the Pac-12 and Big Ten.

Why should the Rose Bowl get priority? Because it's the Rose Bowl.

Should there be flexibility to the Big Ten-Pac-12 matchup? Perhaps. It's already happened without great loss of life (though there has been a bit of wincing, particularly one year in Berkeley). It might be unavoidable. The game itself, however, is the most sacred relic.

The hope here is this won't end up being only a Jim Delany and Larry Scott crusade. The Big Ten and Pac-12 commissioners obviously have the most at stake among all the pooh-bahs in Florida, but there's no reason for SEC don Mike Slive et al to go all Sun Tzu on the Rose Bowl just to score an Art of War point.

It would be great if Slive et al would take the high-grounded position and recognize the Rose Bowl's special status in college football.

There will be a lot of smart folks in Florida. Let's hope they are smart enough not to drive a carelessly placed wingtip into the game they are charged with protecting.

There are two priorities above all others as college football pooh-bahs try to restructure the college football postseason: 1. Create a better system -- read: quasi-playoff -- to select a national champion; 2. Preserve the Rose Bowl.

No. 2 is controversial.

Why? Because the Pac-12 and Big Ten play in the Rose Bowl. The other BCS conferences' champions are connected to great-but-less-great BCS bowls. So guess who wants to preserve the greatest event and asset in college football history? And who doesn't?

One of the four options that will be discussed -- as first reported by USA Today -- during the BCS meetings on April 24-26 in Hollywood, Fla., is the "Four Teams Plus" plan. It makes the Rose Bowl an automatic part of a "playoff" that would determine the national champion.

The four highest-ranked teams at the end of the regular season would meet in semifinals unless the Big Ten or Pac-12 champion, or both, were among the top four. Those leagues' teams still would meet in the Rose, and the next highest-ranked team or teams would slide into the semis. The national championship finalists would be selected after those three games.

This week SEC commissioner Mike Slive volunteered that this plan, "is not one of my favorites." A completely understandable position, too.

The biggest reason for this is simple: The SEC doesn't have a contract with the Rose Bowl. You'd guess the ACC and Big 12 have similar feelings. Meanwhile, folks over in Big Ten and Pac-12 country feel differently.

My incredibly bright, prolific and downright lovable colleagues, Adam Rittenberg in the Big Ten blog and Chris "I can't see you from behind the SEC's six crystal footballs stacked in front of me" Low of the SEC, both opined this week that this "Four Teams Plus" plan is unworkable, agreeing with Slive. You can read Rittenberg here and Low here.

I mostly agree, in large part because the "Four Teams Plus" plan, when you get down to it, is ridiculous. What it does is -- again -- set up a plan where an ultimate judgment on the two teams playing for the national title won't be decided on the field. You would have two so-called semifinal winners and a Rose Bowl winner and then you'd need a subjective system to pick two of the three.

Anyone think that might get controversial?

That said: Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott and Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany need to make something clear in Florida: The Rose Bowl must endure. Period. Then we talk playoff. Or we walk.

That might ruffle some custom-tailored pinstripe suits, but it rests on a great truth that everyone in the room needs to acknowledge: The Rose Bowl is special. No other bowl matches it in terms of history or pageantry. It is the greatest tradition in all of college football. End of story. To not admit this truth is to be ignorant or disingenuous.

How this gets done, I'll mostly leave it up to the Big Brains meeting in Florida. To me, it doesn't seem that complicated to have a four-team playoff set, then let the Rose Bowl choose next, likely the best available teams from the Pac-12 and Big Ten.

It seems very likely the college football postseason will be different in 2014. And it's likely the adopted changes will -- again -- be controversial. A perfect system doesn't exist.

But Scott and Delany should not back down on the Rose Bowl. That's what's best for college football.

What did we learn from the Pac-12 bowl games? Glad you asked.

Oregon, it turns out, can win the big one: Some folks might not want to admit this, but it's a load off the backs of the Pac-12 as well as Oregon that the Ducks broke through with a win over a very good Wisconsin team in the Rose Bowl. The Ducks, whether you like it or not, have been carrying the conference flag for three consecutive years, and their losing consecutive BCS bowl games hurt the conference's image, just as it prevented Oregon from being perceived as a legit superpower. Now, any residual doubts -- real or merely faked to annoy Oregon fans -- have no more footing. Oregon is what it has proven on the field: An elite program with two BCS bowl victories since the 2001 season.

It would have been nice for USC to be eligible: USC fans believe if the Trojans had been bowl eligible, they would have beaten Oregon in the Pac-12 title game and then won the Rose Bowl, just as the Ducks did. The Pac-12 blog believes Oregon would have won a rematch in Autzen Stadium, but it doesn't matter from our point here. The loser of the Pac-12 title game -- USC or Oregon -- would have gone to the Alamo Bowl, at which point it would have beaten Baylor senseless, perhaps scoring 100 points in the process. Washington then would have been a much better matchup with Texas in the Holiday Bowl than California was, and so-on. In other words, the root cause of a weak 2-5 bowl record is the Trojans not being there to put things into a proper pecking order.

Bowls aren't good when you fired your coach: Arizona State and UCLA both played in bowl games after firing their coach. Both looked terrible. At some point, we'll find out if they lost money while embarrassing their programs. UCLA should not have applied for a waiver from the NCAA to play in a bowl game with a losing mark. Their final 6-8 record after getting downed by Illinois -- as best we can tell -- makes them the first 6-8 team in FBS history. Wow. That's awesome. Hang that on a banner in the Rose Bowl. No matter how the Bruins playing in the Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl was framed -- a reward for the players! -- it was bad for the program. As for Arizona State, its 6-6 mark got it to a bowl game because its second-half collapse was so bad, it prevented the Sun Devils from losing the Pac-12 title game. There's just something unsavory about a team with a fired coach and a four-game losing streak playing in the postseason.

Defenses need to get better: Washington gave up 67 points. Arizona State yielded 56. Oregon won despite giving up 38. And Stanford yielded 41. California and UCLA didn't give up many points because they faced two of the worst offenses playing in bowl games. Only Utah can get a check mark for defense, and the Utes gave up 27 to Georgia Tech. We in the Pac-12 love offense. We love skilled quarterbacks and exciting running backs. But that doesn't mean the conference doesn't need to play good defense. By the way, Washington's hiring of Justin Wilcox and Arizona's expected hiring of Jeff Casteel sends the right message: We're going to pay big money to get better on defense.

Thanks, Utah: The Pac-12 has had some shaky bowl seasons. And some good ones, too. But the addition of Utah means the conference gets a team that is 7-1 in its last eight bowl games under coach Kyle Whittingham, including, by the way, the 2005 Fiesta Bowl (shared with Urban Meyer) and the 2009 Sugar Bowl. The Sun Bowl win over Georgia Tech included a 14-point fourth-quarter comeback to force overtime. This is a well-coached team that plays with a lot of poise and consistent effort. Not every Pac-12 team can say that -- you know who you are. The Utes more than proved they can handle a Pac-12 schedule this season, ending up 8-5 despite losing their starting quarterback. And Utah's ability to show up in the postseason on a consistent basis is a valuable addition to the conference.

These are final power rankings of 2011-12. They look back and measure the totality of the season.

We're looking ahead with the next power rankings later Tuesday.

And, by the way, if you don't like where you ended up in the power rankings ... you should have played better.

Here are the Week 1 power rankings. And here are the pre-bowl power rankings.

1. Oregon: Chip Kelly and Oregon just can't win the big one. Oh, wait! They did. A thrilling Rose Bowl victory over Wisconsin capped another great season in Eugene and left the Ducks, again, atop the Pac-12 at season's end. So, in the history of the program, which is the all-time best season: 2001, 2010 or 2011? Or should we hold off judgment on that until after the 2012 campaign?

2. USC: The win over Oregon, the stomping of UCLA and the final top-five ranking were cool, but the return of quarterback Matt Barkley created major momentum heading into the offseason. And if the Trojans had been eligible for the postseason, the Pac-12 bowl record would have been better.

3. Stanford: I'm sure Stanford fans were annoyed by the stunning ignorance among pundits discussing the Cardinal before the Fiesta Bowl. It seemed like many thought Oklahoma State was going to blow Stanford out -- calling the Cardinal "overrated" in the process. You and I knew that was an absurd position. If Stanford and the Cowboys played 10 times, the series would have gone 5-5. And that's being very generous to Oklahoma State. One last thing: Goodbye and good luck Andrew Luck. You were great for Stanford and great for college football.

4. Utah: Yep, the grind of a Pac-12 schedule really wore down the Utes. Yep, the Utes just couldn't handle it. But, with all due humility, how many other conference teams won four of their final five games and a bowl game? If you're looking for a sneaky-good team in the South Division next season, you might want to cast your gaze to Salt Lake City.

5. Washington: The Alamo Bowl loss to Baylor was, at least, an offensive spectacle. Quarterback Keith Price certainly introduced himself to a national audience by outplaying the Heisman Trophy winner. But, wow, that defense. After the Huskies lost four of their final five games, it's fair to say the best thing going their way at year's end was the hiring of A-list defensive coordinator Justin Wilcox.

6. California: Cal, Cal, Cal. The Holiday Bowl was winnable against a middling Texas squad, but not with a 5-0 turnover disadvantage -- 5-zip! As Charles Barkley might say: "Turrable." If the Bears had won, they would been a candidate for "potentially sneaky-good team in the North Division in 2012." Now we're holding off judgment. On the plus side, recruiting is rolling along nicely.

7. UCLA: Another season of inconsistency in Westwood earned coach Rick Neuheisel his walking papers, and the graceful way Neuheisel handled himself after getting fired made it seem all the more sad that he couldn't get the job done at his alma mater. Jim Mora takes over a program that needs an injection of discipline and a cultural shift.

8. Arizona: Sure, the Wildcats fired their coach and finished 4-8. But they won their last two games, including a win over Arizona State, and head into the offseason with positive momentum after the hiring of Rich Rodriguez.

9. Arizona State: The Sun Devils completely collapsed, losing their final five games. They fired their coach. Their coaching search was a meandering mess, and the hiring of Todd Graham away from Pittsburgh didn't exactly inspire much celebration. Then their best player and leader, quarterback Brock Osweiler, made a fairly surprising decision to enter the NFL draft. The good news is there has to be some good news ahead, right?

10. Oregon State: A second consecutive losing season, a 3-9 one at that, has Beavers fans understandably frustrated, particularly with what's going on in Eugene. Just two years ago, coach Mike Riley seemed certain to retire as the Beavers coach. So much for certainty. The good news -- or is it an excuse? -- is Oregon State was extremely young in 2011 and should be better in 2012. The surprising late-season win over Washington also provided some consolation.

11. Washington State: The Cougars started 3-1 and looked like a bowl team that would save coach Paul Wulff's job. They then lost seven of their final eight games and Wulff got canned. The late-season win over Arizona State was nice, but the Sun Devils were in the process of waving a white flag over their season. Yes, it was another bad season, but there are more smiles today in Pullman than in years after AD Bill Moos pulled coach Mike Leach out of his hat.

12. Colorado: Colorado isn't buried in the basement here. You could, in fact, make an argument for the Buffs promotion a couple of notches: They, after all, won two of their final three games, beating both Arizona and Utah. Still, 3-10 is 3-10 and 2-7 in conference play is 2-7 in conference play. As is finishing last in scoring defense and scoring offense among Pac-12 teams. The Buffs also have some big holes to fill in their starting lineup. Further, they don't have the "New Coach Is Here to Save Us!" storyline heading into year two with Jon Embree.

The 2011-12 bowl season hasn’t been a gem in terms of attendance, even with four games yet to play. Nearly 3 percent fewer people -- 42,959 -- have attended games this season than last year.

Yet college football profits topped $1 billion last year, attendance during the regular season increased for the fourth time in five years last year, and big matchups like the LSU-Alabama game this November were huge on TV -- that game alone drew almost 6.5 million more viewers than 2010’s highest-rated matchup. So what gives with the bowl attendance?

Bowl executives list a number of reasons for the decline. Tina Kunzer-Murphy, an ESPN executive who is also executive director of the MAACO Bowl Las Vegas and chairwoman of the Football Bowl Association, says factors include public disenchantment with football’s postseason system, the tough economy and games that feature teams which haven’t been able to draw fans. (ESPN owns seven non-BCS bowl games and the BCS broadcast rights through 2014.)

Seven bowls thus far have seen a decrease in attendance of 10,000 or more from last year. With the exception of the Taxslayer.com Gator Bowl, all have one thing in common: last year’s game featured a team whose campus was less than 300 miles from the bowl. In the cases of the San Diego County Credit Union Poinsettia Bowl, Sheraton Hawaii Bowl and Military Bowl Presented by Northrop Grumman, last year’s matchup featured a team within just 10 miles.

After posting its highest attendance ever last year at 48,049 with local team San Diego State University playing, the Poinsettia Bowl saw attendance slashed in half this year with a TCU vs. Louisiana Tech matchup. The Sheraton Hawaii Bowl saw a decline of more than 10,000 this year with its Southern Miss vs. Nevada matchup, with Nevada distributing less than 1,000 tickets to its fans.

The Franklin American Mortgage Music City Bowl, Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl and Outback Bowl each featured a team located less than 300 miles away last year, and each saw at least 11,000 fewer tickets sold this year. The local-school-tie-in anomaly: the Gator Bowl, which despite having a matchup between Urban Meyer’s former team and the team he’ll coach in 2012 -- and the University of Florida’s close proximity to Jacksonville -- the bowl saw a decline of 16,185 fans this year.

Bowls that saw increases of 10,000 or more fans this year similarly saw their fortunes tied to fan base proximity.

The Chick-Fil-A Bowl, which saw its 15th straight sellout in 2011, benefits from its proximity to the fan bases of the ACC and SEC, but that’s not the key to success, says bowl president and CEO Gary Stokan.

“Every bowl has the opportunity if they work diligently to sell tickets to local people and businesses before the teams are announced," he says. Stokan says his bowl sells approximately 38,000 tickets each year before teams are announced, leaving essentially only the team ticket allotments available.

While he says some of the bowl’s success is due to Atlanta being the “capital of college football” and home to the first- or second-largest segment of each ACC and SEC school’s alumni base, he believes the true secret to attendance success is in selling to locals, not waiting until schools are announced to sell to fans.

Will Webb, executive director of the Belk Bowl in Charlotte, says his bowl looks at fan interest level, not only proximity.

He says in addition to attending games and paying close attention to a team’s record for the second half of the season, bowl officials also monitor Internet message boards. A lot of fans calling for a coach’s head? Then the fan base probably isn’t excited enough about a bowl game to pack the house. Last year, Louisville looked like a good choice until the bowl committee noted the Cardinals’ basketball schedule. Officials saw a basketball game against rival Kentucky scheduled for the same time as the bowl game. Needless to say, the bowl passed Louisville.

Kunzer-Murphy echoed some of Webb’s sentiments with regard to the MAACO Las Vegas Bowl. Down to Arizona State or UCLA, bowl officials had to weigh UCLA’s two big losses at the end of the season and firing of head coach Rick Neuheisel. Meanwhile, Arizona State had never been selected for the bowl, had never played in Nevada, and traveling to Las Vegas would be easy.

When asked about potential changes in light of the down attendance this year, each bowl executive had a somewhat different answer, but all were open to change. Kunzer-Murphy believes change is inevitable once conference realignment is settled. Stokan likes a playoff idea that keeps the BCS bowls but also boosts the importance of the other bowls.

Has something seemed odd to you about the BCS bowls this year? Does it seem like ... oh wait, West Virginia just scored again.

Does it seem like ... wait, there goes De'Anthony Thomas. Don't think he'll get caught from behind.

Does it seem like ... wait, would somebody please tackle Justin Blackmon?

Does it seem like there have been a lot of points this bowl season?

It's not just you. There have been a lot of points. More points than ever before. And by huge quantities.

So far, BCS bowl teams have averaged a total of 77 points in the Rose, Fiesta, Orange and Sugar bowls. That, folks, is nearly 26 points more than last year (51.6). And it's nearly 11 points better than the previous high of 66.3 from 2001-02.

Perhaps pairing two SEC teams in the title game has created a black hole sucking all defensive stinginess into the LSU-Alabama rematch, which you might recall went 9-6 with no touchdowns in their first meeting. West Virginia scored 10 touchdowns -- 10! -- against Clemson. Alabama gave up 12 TDs all season.

Speaking of Clemson: ACC. Well, well, well.

After the Tigers ingloriously fell 70-33 to the Mountaineers, we got our second story from the BCS bowl season: The ACC's insistence on throwing up on itself in BCS bowl games.

The conference that was once expected to challenge the SEC is now 2-13 in BCS bowl games. That's hard to do. You'd think in 15 BCS bowls the conference could get lucky at least five or six times. But no, it insists on making ACC blogger Heather Dinich, a genuinely nice person, into some sort of Grim Reaper every bowl season.

Heck, the Big East has won seven BCS bowls -- second fewest among AQ conferences -- but it's 7-7.

Of course, this all ties together, and we're here to bring out a bow, but first a warning: If you don't want to read about how good the SEC is for the 56,314th time this year, then stop reading. I'd recommend an episode of "South Park" or perhaps a John le Carré thriller as an alternative for passing the time.

We can all agree the SEC plays great defense right? Alabama and LSU will play for the title Monday with the nation's top-two defenses. Do you think perhaps that it's not a coincidence that the conference that is 16-7 in BCS bowl games plays great defense?

The only other AQ conference with a winning record in BCS bowl games is the Pac-12, which is 11-7. The Pac-12 isn't known for defense, either, but USC was when it won the conference's last national title in 2004.

The only team to win a BCS national title without an elite defense was Auburn in 2010, but the Tigers' defense seemed to find itself late in the season. Since 1999, eight national champions had a top-10 defense. Other than Auburn, the lowest-rated defense to win a BCS national title was Ohio State in 2002. It ranked 23rd in the nation in total defense.

Three of the four BCS bowl games have been thrillers. Two went to overtime. We've seen big plays all over the field in the passing game and running game. Yet, if things go according to script in the title game, we'll see none of that. We might not see more than a couple of plays that go for more than 20 yards. We might not see any.

Some might call that boring. It might seem that both offenses are so paranoid of making a mistake that they are stuck in mud, both in game plan and execution.

But, snoozefest or not, when the clock strikes zero a team from the SEC will hoist the crystal football for a sixth consecutive time.

That might say something about playing better defense.

First, how about those two BCS bowl games Monday? Brilliant. Thrilling.

Second, if Stanford could just make a field goal, the Pac-12 would have finished 3-4 with two BCS bowl victories. Three teams -- Stanford, Oregon and USC -- likely would have finished in the final top five.

But if wishes were fishes then cows would fly (my dad used to say that. I have no idea what it means, but it seemed better than "would-a, could-a, should-a").

The bottom line makes you want to cover your eyes: A 2-5 bowl record.

We provided an excuse Monday morning: If USC had been eligible for the postseason, the entire bowl schedule would have dramatically shifted and the Pac-12 would have put together a much better record.

There is also this: Oregon was the only one of the Pac-12's bowl teams that was favored. It not only beat Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl, it covered. Utah also won, and it was an underdog to Georgia Tech in the Sun Bowl. Washington went blow-for-blow with No. 12 Baylor before yielding late because its defense was milquetoast.

So the Huskies fired defensive coordinator Nick Holt and, on Monday, raided Tennessee, hiring away highly respected defensive coordinator Justin Wilcox and linebackers coach Peter Sirmon.

How does a conference improve its bowl record? Play better, coach better. It's a good sign -- and an obvious benefit of the Pac-12's new $3 billion TV deal -- that the conference is hiring away good coaches from the SEC.

Still, 2-5 won't warm anyone's hearts on the West Coast, though the 3-6 Big Ten isn't feeling very good about itself either, at present.

With the two BCS bowl games to be played Monday, the Pac-12 blog is 5-0 picking bowls this year.

Thanks ... no thank you ... you are too kind ... please, stop clapping. OK, yes ... yes ... OK, you're right, I am awesome.

But I would be perfectly happy to have been wrong and eating crow served up in the mailbag. Gloating hurled at my wrongness is a Pac-12 blog tradition. It's much worse when you guys are unhappy, as it appears that is frequently my fault, and few are shy about telling me that.

The problem was when I looked at the Pac-12 bowl schedule, I saw the potential for a lot of losing. As did Vegas. Truth is, the Pac-12 is actually ahead of the game: It was underdogs in all five games played so far and it's now 1-4.

So, unless Oregon and Stanford pull a double-whammy on Monday and salvage the bowl season with a wins over top-10 teams, be prepared for plenty of trolling. The Pac-10 went 2-5 in bowl games in 2009 and that inspired plenty of tweaks. A 1-6 finish would evoke 14 times -- plus or minus -- more ridicule.

And there's little you can say. The record is the record is the record. But there is one trump card: The NCAA's shameful treatment of USC. As in most things, this is all the NCAA's fault.

If USC wasn't in the second season of a bowl ban, the Trojans would either be playing Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl or would have poleaxed Baylor in the Alamo Bowl. And if the Trojans were in the Rose Bowl -- I do think Oregon would have won a rematch in Autzen Stadium in the Pac-12 championship game, by the way -- the Ducks would have scored 200 points against the Bears.

Then Washington would have been in a favorable matchup with Texas in the Holiday Bowl, and California would have been a good match for Georgia Tech in the Sun Bowl. Utah would have likely ended up with an unhappy ending for a second consecutive season in the Las Vegas Bowl against Boise State. Arizona State in a rematch with Illinois in the Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl would have been a toss-up, and UCLA would have had little trouble with Wyoming.

In other words, the Pac-12 would have gone from underdogs in six of seven games to probably favorites in two or three more.

I know: Would-a, could-a, should-a.

But if the final tally ends up 1-6, that's all the Pac-12 will have.

The Granddaddy looks like a heck of a matchup between high-powered teams that do things very differently but equally effectively.

WHO TO WATCH: LaMichael James. He's had a brilliant career and is likely off to the NFL after this last hurrah, but the one thing lacking on his résumé is a big-time performance in a big-time nonconference game. Against Ohio State in the 2010 Rose Bowl, Auburn in last year's national championship game and LSU in the 2011 season opener, he never rushed for more than 70 yards and averaged a combined 3.8 yards per carry. Most believe, however, that the Badgers' front seven and run defense as a whole are weaker than those of any of those aforementioned teams. James needs 122 yards rushing to pass former Oregon State running back Ken Simonton and move into second place on the conference's career rushing list. If he gets that, expect the Ducks' chances to go up considerably. Another thing: Despite not being much of a factor running the ball, James was a key receiver against Auburn and LSU, catching 10 passes for 100 yards with two touchdowns in those games. So watch for James getting short dumps in space to give him a chance to do his thing.

WHAT TO WATCH: Wisconsin's offense does everything well. For real. It is balanced and efficient and almost never turns the ball over. The Badgers' one issue: pass-blocking. They have given up 1.77 sacks per game this season, which ranks 73rd in the nation. Oregon ranks third in the nation with 3.3 sacks per game. The Badgers' passing game is based on effective play-action. So the first task is slowing down the Badgers' running game and getting them into third-and-long and obvious passing downs. If that happens, the Ducks likely will open up an exotic bag of Nick Aliotti blitzes and stunts, using their superior speed to keep the huge Badgers offensive line off-balance. But if the Badgers' running game is chewing up yards and leaving them with third-and-short, the value of an effective pass rush is muted significantly.

WHY WATCH: Because this feels like it's going to be a great game, for one. It's a true clash of styles: Wisconsin's power versus Oregon's speed. It's a traditional Rose Bowl between top-10 teams from the Pac-12 and Big Ten. And there will be plenty of star power on the field from James to Badgers running back Montee Ball to Badgers quarterback Russell Wilson. Finally, both teams are smarting because they've previously fallen short in BCS bowl games. The Badgers lost to TCU here last year. The Ducks have lost two BCS bowls in a row. Both are hungry to end talk that they "can't win the big one."

PREDICTION: Wisconsin 35, Oregon 30. There are plenty of reasons to believe that Oregon will win. In the Big Ten championship game, a middling Michigan State team was able to make the Badgers' defense look slow on the perimeter. That's something that surely raised an eyebrow from Chip Kelly. This is not LSU's defense, or even Auburn's or Ohio State's. But Wisconsin's offense is the problem. It's power running, sure, but Wilson gives it an elite passing game. Expect a number of momentum shifts, but with the Badgers eventually grinding out a victory late in the fourth quarter. And, yes, a lot of this prediction is about the Ducks' needing to prove they can win one of these games. The Pac-12 blog is still smarting about picking the Ducks to win the national title game against Auburn -- and feeling an unusually high degree of certainty about it.

Time to predict the non-BCS Pac-12 bowl games after Christmas. The season record is 67-24.

Bridgepoint Education Holiday, Dec. 28

Texas 24, California 21: Cal finished strong, Texas did not, but we still worry about the Bears. You want to believe. This feels like a defensive struggle, but Texas should have enough offense to win this in the fourth quarter.

Valero Alamo, Dec. 29

Baylor 44, Washington 38: The Huskies' defense might surprise some folks early, and the offense should be able to keep up with Heisman Trophy winner Robert Griffin III for a while. Just not for four quarters.

Hyundai Sun, Dec. 31

Utah 20, Georgia Tech 17: The Utes have a good run defense anyway, but extra time to prepare for Georgia Tech's option is a big boost. And the Yellow Jackets aren't terribly strong against the run, which should give the Utes' mostly one-dimensional offense a chance.

Kraft Fight Hunger, Dec. 31

Illinois 20, UCLA 14: Both teams enter amid down circumstances — fired coaches, late-season embarrassment. Both teams have damaging player suspensions/ineligibility. The difference is that, despite everything, Illinois does something well — play defense — and UCLA does not.

Larry Scott has worked magic in many areas since taking over as Pac-12 commissioner, but one of the next key areas for him to wave his magic commissioner's wand doesn't offer any obvious solutions: Conference bowl contracts.

It's one of the most popular complaints among Pac-12 fans: Why are the conference bowl tie-ins so mediocre? Why can't the Pac-12 play the SEC in a bowl game?

Before we, again, look at that, let's consider what Ryan McGee thinks about their Pac-12 bowl tie-ins. One word: Lame. He ranks them fifth among BCS conferences.

Here's his breakdown.

5. Pac-12

Tie-ins: 7

January games: 1

Bowls: BCS (Rose), Alamo, Holiday, Sun, Maaco, Kraft Fight Hunger, New Mexico

2011 bowl teams: 7

All-time BCS at-large berths: 4

If the bowl fall-off for the Big 12 is a cliff, then for the Pac-12 it's a canyon. Win the conference, and you're headed to the Rose Bowl or better. Finish second and if you haven't secured a BCS at-large berth, which has happened only four times, then you're playing in San Antonio on Dec. 29.

Don't get me wrong, the Alamo Bowl is a solid game, but is the Big 12's third option really where the Pac-12's conference runner-up should be?

The good news is the Rose Bowl. It's the best bowl game, and it's so much better than all the others that I'd rank the Fiesta No. 3, leaving No. 2 blank so everyone understands that that the Grandaddy is the Big Daddy.

Second, nothing major can happen here for a while. The Pac-12 bowl contracts run through the 2013 season. And who knows what college football will look like heading into 2014? You might have noticed how things have been a-changing lately.

But as far as the present frustration, considered for the sake of considering it: What's the solution for the Pac-12? Get better bowl contracts, right? Which ones? Are there bowl games in this region?

That's the first problem: Geography. If the Pac-12 wants better West Coast bowls, it's either going to have to get someone to create one or elevate one of its current games to a higher level. That's complicated.

The reason the ACC rates ahead of the Pac-12 twofold: 1. Geography; 2. It's been a 12-team league for longer than the Pac-12.

Geography: The best bowls are on the East Coast, many of them close to ACC schools. And the Pac-12 negotiated its bowl contracts when it was a 10-team league (other than the New Mexico Bowl last summer).

Of course — 10 or 12 teams — the Pac-12 didn't fill all its seven bowl contracts, which is why you forgot all about the New Mexico Bowl.

The reasons the Big 12 has better bowl games is simple: The Cotton Bowl. It's a nature Texas tie-in, and bowl games love signing up the SEC. The Cotton Bowl is widely viewed as the most likely candidate to become a fifth BCS bowl destination, in large part because you can't beat the venue: Cowboys Stadium.

The Pac-12 playing in the Cotton Bowl just doesn't seem like a possibility. And the Cotton Bowl gives the Big 12 a leg up on the Pac-12 in the postseason.

Here's the reality folks: The Pac-12 as it is presently configured won't get better bowl games than the SEC and Big 10. Those conferences combined to fill 17 of the top-25 spots in the attendance rankings in 2010. Those numbers translate to bowl games in terms of travel, selling tickets and filling up hotel rooms, which is the primary task of bowls.

Of course, what I am giving you is the conventional wisdom — the why not. Scott isn't much of a conventional wisdom guy. He's a "what if" thinker.

Which means it's not unreasonable to hold out hope that the Pac-12 will have better bowl agreements in the future.

The Pac-10 and Big 12 nearly got married last year, but only Colorado ended up eloping with the now-Pac-12.

You know: The conference that can count!

But the Pac-12, which has, yes, 12 teams, and the Big 12, which has 10 teams (though it's often hard to keep up with which ones), play each other in three bowl games this holiday season.

Joy to the world.

So it seemed like a good time for the Pac-12 and Big 12 bloggers -- Ted Miller and David Ubben -- to say howdy and discuss all the coming fun.

Ted Miller: Ah, David, the bowl season. Pure bliss. Unless you’re the Pac-12, which is expected to get a whipping from your conference over the holidays. We have three Pac-12-Big 12 bowl games with the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl between Stanford and Oklahoma State, the Valero Alamo with Baylor and Washington and the Bridgepoint Education Holiday Bowl matching California and Texas. And the Big 12 is favored in all three!

Poor ole West Coast teams. What are we to do? It’s almost like the Big 12 is the SEC or something. Speaking of which, how are things with your Cowboys? Are they over not getting a shot at LSU for the national title? Are they excited about getting a shot at Andrew Luck and Stanford? We might as well start with that outstanding matchup in Glendale, Ariz.

David Ubben: You know, I was actually a little surprised. I stuck around Stillwater for the BCS bowl selection show announcement, and the players took the news pretty well. They found out an hour before, but there wasn't a ton of down-in-the-dumpiness from the Pokes. When you've never been to this point before, it's a bit difficult to develop a sense of entitlement. If Oklahoma had OSU's record and was passed over by Alabama and sent to the Fiesta Bowl for the 17th time in the past six years, you might have had a different reaction.

But Oklahoma State's first trip to the BCS and first Big 12 title aren't being overlooked. These players are looking forward to this game. There's no doubt about that.

I know the Big 12 seems like the SEC, but I have a confession, Ted. I wasn't supposed to tell anybody, but I can't hold it in anymore. When the Big 12 began back in 1996 ... wow, I'm really going to do this ... then-SEC commissioner Roy Kramer graciously allowed the league to keep two of his teams. The league made a similar arrangement with the Big Eight a century ago, and the Southwest Conference around the same time. Missouri and Texas A&M are really wolves in sheep's clothing: SEC teams just pretending to be in other leagues. So that might explain the Big 12's recent dominance.

These should all be fun games, though. I ranked two of the matchups among the top three in my bowl rankings.

As for the big one, they say you learn more by losing than by winning. Stanford got its first BCS win after last season. How do you think that experience plays into this postseason's game? I hate to ruin the surprise, but Oklahoma State's a bit better than the Virginia Tech team Stanford beat last postseason. OSU's loss to Iowa State this season is bad, but it's nothing like the Hokies' loss to James Madison last season.

Ted Miller: Not only is Oklahoma State better than Virginia Tech, it's still questionable whether this Stanford team is better than last season's. Since we're going all crazy and whispering about the SEC, there was a feeling out West that by the end of the 2010 season the Cardinal might not only be the best team in the Pac-12 but also in the nation. They were big and physical, and quarterback Luck actually had a solid receiving corps with which to work. After a loss to Oregon in the fifth game of the season, they didn't lose again until playing, er, Oregon in this season's 10th game. If we could go back in time and have the Cardinal play Auburn, I think Stanford would have won the national title.

But that's 2010. The differences this season are the season-ending knee injury to middle linebacker Shayne Skov, who was an All-American candidate, and a slight step back on the offensive line and a lack of top-flight receivers. But if Oklahoma State fans are looking for something to worry about it is this: Stanford's running game.

The Pokes are bad against the run, and they haven't faced a team that is as physical and creative in the running game as Stanford. As much as folks talk about Luck's passing, it's his run checks that often ruin a defense's evening.

The Fiesta Bowl matchup looks like a great one, perhaps the best of the bowl season. But I’m excited to see Mr. Excitement, Robert Griffin III, in the Alamo Bowl against Washington. Of course, I’m not sure that the Huskies, their fans and embattled Huskies defensive coordinator Nick Holt are as thrilled. First, tell us about what Washington should be most worried about with Griffin. Then tell us about Baylor in general. Such as: Can the Bears stop anyone?

David Ubben: Nope. Not really.

Oklahoma State's defense unfairly gets a bad rap. Baylor's bad rap is earned. This is the same team that won five consecutive games late in the season -- but became the first team ever to win four consecutive in a single season while giving up 30 points in each.

That, if you ask me, says plenty about both the defense and the power of RG3. The Bears have a lot of athletes on the defense, but when four of your top five tacklers are defensive backs, well, you need a guy like RG3 to go 9-3.

The man is a nightmare. Top to bottom, he's the most accurate passer in a quarterback-driven league. Then you add in his athleticism, which he doesn't even really need to be extremely productive. It sets him apart, though, and forces defenses to account for it, and it buys him time in the pocket. How many guys break a 20-plus-yard run then hit a receiver for a game-winning 39-yard score to beat a team like Oklahoma for the first time?

How do you think Washington will try to slow him down? What has to happen for it to have some success?

Ted Miller: This game matches the 99th (Washington) and 109th (Baylor) scoring defenses. It has a 78-point over-under, the biggest of any bowl game. The offenses are going to score plenty, at least that's the conventional wisdom.

How does Washington stop RG3? His name is Chris Polk. He's a running back. Baylor gives up 199 yards rushing per game. Polk right, left and up the middle is a good way to contain Griffin. The Huskies' best hope is to reduce Griffin's touches with ball control. They also need to convert touchdowns, not field goals, in the red zone. The Huskies are pretty good at that, scoring 36 TDs in 45 visits to the red zone.

The Huskies also have a pretty good quarterback in Keith Price, who set a school record with 29 touchdown passes this season. He and a solid crew of receivers have prevented teams from ganging up against Polk. But Polk is the guy who burns the clock.

Should be a fun game. As should, by the way, the Holiday Bowl. David, Cal fans are still mad at Texas coach Mack Brown and his politicking the Longhorns into the Rose Bowl in 2004. Every team wants to win its bowl game, but the Old Blues really want to beat Brown.

Of course, neither team is what it was in 2004. Cal has an excuse. It's not a college football superpower. Sure you've been asked this before, but give me the CliffsNotes version of why the Longhorns have fallen so hard since playing for the national title in 2009.

David Ubben: Cal fans are still mad? Really? I'd suggest they get over themselves. What's anybody on that Cal team ever done, anyway? It's not like the best player in the NFL missed out on a chance to play in the Rose Bowl. Now if that were the case, we might have a problem. But honestly, I don't think Tim Tebow cares all that much about the Rose Bowl.

As for Texas' struggles …

The easy answer is quarterback play. Texas relied on Colt McCoy and Jordan Shipley more than anyone realized. When they were gone, Texas couldn't run the ball, and quarterback Garrett Gilbert never made it happen. Two seasons later, the Longhorns still don't have a quarterback.

The other big answer last season was turnover margin. Gilbert threw 17 interceptions, and the Longhorns were minus-12 in turnovers, which ranked 115th nationally.

They were still only 90th this season, and without solid quarterback play in a Big 12 dominated by passers, they scored five, 13 and 17 points in three of their five losses. Texas keeps people from moving the ball and runs the ball better this season, but without a solid passing game and a defense that changes games, it's tough to rack up wins in the Big 12.

It's been awhile since Cal was in the mix for the BCS, even as USC has fallen. Oregon answered the call and rose, but what has prevented Cal from winning the Pac-10 and Super Pac-10 since the Trojans' swoon?

Ted Miller: You mention quarterback play. Cal fans ... any thoughts? You mention Aaron Rodgers. Cal fans? Oh well, that's not very nice during this festive time of the year.

Cal has become a solid defensive team, but it has lost its offensive mojo, and that can be traced to a drop in quarterback play since Rodgers departed. The latest Bears quarterback, Zach Maynard, started fairly well then stumbled, but then seemed to catch on late in the season. It's reasonable to believe the team that gets better quarterback play -- mistake-free quarterback play -- is going to win this game.

Nice to cover a conference in which quarterback play matters, eh David?

Speaking of quarterback play and winning, let's wind it up. Our specific predictions aren't coming on these games until after Christmas. But we can handicap the Big 12-Pac-12 side of things. We have a three-game series this bowl season.

I say the Pac-12, underdogs in all three games, goes 1-2. What say you?

David Ubben: And to think, before the season all I heard was the Pac-12 had surpassed the Big 12 in quarterback play. Did somebody petition the NCAA for another year of eligibility for Jake Locker and/or clone Matt Barkley? You West Coast folk are geniuses; I figured you'd find a way. We can't all be Stanford alum ...

Clearing out all the tumbleweeds here in middle America, I'll go out on a limb for the Big 12 in this one. Every matchup is a good one, and I don't think Cal has seen a defense like Texas', and Washington hasn't seen an offense like Baylor's. People forget that, yeah, RG3 is outstanding, but the Bears also have the league's leading receiver and leading rusher.

Stanford-OSU is a toss-up, but I'll go with a perfect sweep for the Big 12. The Cowboys haven't played poorly on the big stage yet, so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt in this one, and they clean up for the Big 12 against what was almost their new conference this fall.

Oh, what could have been. Ubben and Miller on the same blog? Divided ultimately by a little thing we call the Rockies.