Coral Gables: "You're really not going to get excited about UCLA scoring 59 on New Mexico State are you?"

I mean, if the pundits and pollsters can loves themselves some Ohio State Buckeyes, who smeared the streets of Columbus with the hapless Rattlers from FCS-level Florida A&M, 76-0, then why can't I appreciate UCLA's win over New Mexico State?

We'll see how high either Washington or UCLA can actually rise in the polls, because UCLA was No. 21 at the start of the season, and Washington was unranked. In the Huskies' stead were USC at No. 24 and Oregon State at No. 25, while Oregon and Stanford were Nos. 3 and 4, respectively.

I'd argue that's what makes the Bruins and Huskies darkhorses, because it's not where they are on the polls' radar right now, but where they were at the starting line.

Because of the relative level of parity in the Pac-12, coupled with the good-to-high caliber of six or seven of its teams, it wouldn't surprise at all if the eventual champion accomplished that feat with two conference losses.

But given their starting position in August, even if the UW Huskies somehow managed to actually run the table, they really enjoy little or no chance of making the BCS championship game in January and will have a hard time ever rising above a No. 4 ranking, unless multiple teams ahead of them falter markedly or implode.

I remember what was considered UW's greatest season ever, when the 1991 Huskies started the season ranked No. 4. Certainly fair enough, given that they were the defending conference and Rose Bowl champions and were returning most of their players that year. Expectations in Seattle were understandably high that this could be a national championship team.

But despite going unbeaten, beating three teams in the Top Ten and dominating their opponents by an average margin of 41-8, Washington languished in place in the polls throughout the season, and even fell a notch late in November after beating USC in Los Angeles. They only climbed at the end when they whipped Michigan by three TDs in the Rose Bowl, to finish at No. 2 behind Miami.

The 2000 Huskies went 12-1 and tied for the Pac-10 title with both Oregon State (12-1) and Oregon (11-2). They finished at No. 3. Their fellow co-champs the Beavers and Ducks also finished in the Top Ten at Nos. 5 and 9, respectively. The pollsters that year still couldn't even see fit to rank the Huskies ahead of No. 2 Miami, whom the Huskies had beaten earlier in the season. The fatal blow? Losing to eventual co-champ Oregon by 7 in Eugene, 23-16, which caused them to fall an inexplicable seven places in the polls in week 5, from No. 6 to No. 13.

That's what a perceived lack of pedigree and marquee value can do to a team in the eyes of east coast and southern pollsters. It took Oregon years before BCS pollsters would ever consider them actually worthy of national championship contention. But if USC went 12-0 or 12-1, guess where they'd be ranked?

As always, CG, it's great discussing these highly compelling and very important matters with you.