I happen to find the situation that the Pac-12 South finds itself in to be downright fascinating, as the circumstances that have led up to this position have been weird enough. First, USC’s postseason ban. Then, the divisional split. Then, Arizona State’s surprise fall from grace.
Last night, I tried to figure out UCLA’s likeliest bowl scenarios – pretty much all signs point to the Maaco Bowl in Las Vegas, if things play out the way they should – and got confirmation that in the *unlikely* event that UCLA advances to the Pac-12 championship game with a 6-6 record – which, though likely for the Bruins, would also mean that both Arizona State and Utah would have to lose one of their next two – a loss in that game would mean a 6-7 season record for the Bruins, and no bowl eligibility.
This is even weirder.
A reader pointed out a very, very unlikely scenario – albeit an actual possible outcome – that is just wild: If UCLA, Utah and Arizona State each go 0-2 the next two weeks, and UCLA “wins” the Pac-12 South title-game appearance by default but somehow wins that game, the Bruins would be 6-7, and STILL ineligible for a bowl, despite being Pac-12 champions.
Here’s what I got from the conference:
“That is correct. While the winner of the Pac-12 Championship Game is the
Rose Bowl participant, unless No. 1 or No. 2 in the BCS poll, in this case
an appeal process would need to be made to the NCAA Leadership Council for
our Champion to play in the Rose Bowl Game.”
In the weirdest college football season since 2010, how fitting: The Pac-12 champion might not have enough wins to play in the Rose Bowl.