College Football: Which Pac-12 Programs Have the Best Chance of Chasing a National Title?

It's been four years since the conference even landed a spot in the four-team playoffs

As Alabama and Ohio State prepare to duel for the college football national championship, it’s fair to ponder just how far away the Pac-12 Conference is from being a part of that world again.

It’s been 16 years since a Pac-12 team won the national title. USC did it in 2004, and in the intervening years the Southeastern Conference has claimed 10 titles. Alabama has five of those (so far) while LSU and Florida each have two and Auburn one.

Clemson, of course, has finished on top of the heap two of the past four seasons, while Florida State, Ohio State and Texas claim one national crown apiece during the past 15 seasons.

The last time any other Pac-12 (or Pac-10 or Pac-8) team won it all was 1991, when Washington and Miami shared the title. To find anyone else from the conference who has won it you have to dive deep into the Eisenhower administration.

This is the seventh year of the College Football Playoff in which four teams are chosen to play in the national semifinals, with the winners squaring off for the title. And it’s the fourth straight year no Pac-12 team was invited to the four-team tournament.

Oregon landed a spot in 2014, Washington in 2016 and otherwise the Pac-12 has been snubbed. Alabama and Clemson have gotten invites in six of the seven years, Ohio State four time. Almost a private club..

So how do you evaluate which Pac-12 schools might have the best chance to elevate to an elite national level?

Jon Wilner of the Mercury News took on the task of rating the Pac-12's toughest to easiest jobs, meaning which program has the best chance of building a powerhouse.

In a well thought-out story, Wilner considered resources, tradition, recruiting base, facilities, the ability to hire and retain good coaches and institutional commitment. He defined success as consecutive nine-win seasons.

Why nine?

He explained that here:

Eight victories could be obtained with three non-conference cupcakes and a 4-5 record in league play, plus a low-level bowl win. But that combination, frankly, doesn’t feel special. Set the victory bar at nine, and a winning record in conference play is required.

And why back-to-back seasons?

Because of the potential for any program to produce an outlier year in which everything breaks right even if the foundational elements for success aren’t in place.

We’ll jump ahead to Cal, which Wilner rate as No. 9, suggesting there are eight programs in the conference with a better chance of achieving high-level success.

Here’s what he said about the Bears:

If not for the location, Cal would be ranked even lower. The Bay Area is well stocked with players and flush with Cal alumni, and all that talent in Southern California is just a half-day drive away. (Like Stanford, the Bears are a natural recruiting fit for quarterbacks and offensive linemen.) But there are steep challenges with the budget and admissions, plus faculty and community resistance. No job in the conference requires more patience and a greater acceptance of the football program’s place in the campus hierarchy.

Here’s how Wilner rated the 12 teams:

1. USC
2. Washington
3. Oregon
4. UCLA
5. Stanford
6. Arizona State
7. Utah
8. Colorado
9. Cal
10. Arizona
11. Washington State
12. Oregon State

Here’s what Wilner had to say about USC:

No surprise here with the Trojans’ rich history and deep pipeline to the Trinity League, the most talented high school conference in the history of the sport (Mater Dei, Serra, St. John Bosco, Santa Margarita, etc.). Two things are equally true when it comes to roster building: USC has a greater advantage over its Pac-12 peers than any traditional power has over teams in its conference; and the job is more challenging now that it used to be institutionally. Not every corner of campus is hell bent on winning championships.

Wilner acknowledged he seriously considered putting Oregon at No. 2 but went with the Huskies primarily because of their stronger in-state recruiting pool.

I’d have picked Oregon at No. 2 because of its recent track record, the financial clout that Nike provides and the wow factor the Ducks have developed with recruits nationwide.

Here’s Wilner’s analysis of Oregon:

No program can match the Ducks when it comes to the campus-wide commitment to football success. That culture — combined with Nike’s incalculable influence — fueled Oregon’s rise two decades ago and has continued to provide the backbone for success. The in-state talent pool, although improving, remains shallow compared to Washington, Utah and Arizona. However, the Ducks have used the virtuous circle of winning, branding and facilities to become a destination program for prospects.

And just for fun, here’s how he evaluated Stanford at No. 5:

The admissions bar remains a steep challenge but is partly offset by the unmatched campus, facilities and lure of post-graduate opportunities. (No school is more popular with the parents of recruits.) One ingredient is often overlooked when assessing the program: Stanford owns a recruiting advantage over every program in the conference (except USC) when it comes to quarterbacks and offensive linemen, because of its own history with those positions and the socio-economics of the talent pools.

.

Follow Jeff Faraudo of Cal Sports Report on Twitter: @jefffaraudo