Question for CFB fans: why did Oregon not win PAC 12?

[JoeyBoy718]

I follow college football a little but I'm not too familiar with all the rules regarding conference champions. Anyway, so up to a few weeks ago, Oregon was undefeated and #2 in the nation, and after losing a game they didn't even get a shot at the PAC 12 championship. To make matters stranger, the PAC 12 championship was a rematch between two teams that had played the week before, with Stanford beating UCLA for the second straight week to take the crown. Fortunately for Oregon, they still made a BCS bowl game as the top ranked non-conference champion. I just don't understand how Stanford and UCLA played (in a rematch) for the title when Oregon was ranked ahead of both of them. Somebody please enlighten me.

[JoeyBoy718]

Oh never mind. I just saw it. Stanford and Oregon both finished 7-1 in the PAC 12 North, but Stanford beat Oregon in the head-to-head, and UCLA had the best record in the PAC 12 South.

[Aikbach]

Originally Posted by JoeyBoy718

Oh never mind. I just saw it. Stanford and Oregon both finished 7-1 in the PAC 12 North, but Stanford beat Oregon in the head-to-head, and UCLA had the best record in the PAC 12 South.

Yep, the perils of divisions instead of straight up conference rankings.

They are the best or second best team in their conference but effectively will be treated as the third place finisher.