Poll: Grading the Pac-12

Last week, Ted and I gave you our thoughts on how we would grade the overall season for the Pac-12 in 2012.

Ted gave the league a B-minus. I went a notch lower and went with a C-plus.

Depending on how you give weight to certain aspects of the overall season -- bowl performance, expectations versus expectations met, etc. -- the results are going to vary. And when results vary, we believe that makes for a darn good poll.

So your Tuesday poll question is this: How would you grade the Pac-12 in 2012?

Your options:

A: It was an outstanding season filled with great offense and great defense. The Pac-12 won two BCS bowl games and had two teams finish in the top 10. That's all that matters. The rest is just fodder for message boards.

B: Pretty good year. Eight teams went bowling and three finished in the Top 25. Would have been nice to have a national champion, but overall it was a better-than-average season. Stanford and Oregon represented, Oregon State was a nice surprise and surging UCLA, Arizona State and Arizona made for a good season.

C: Just average. The bowl performance of 4-4 was salvaged by the BCS wins, but the four losses -- three of which came when the Pac-12 team was favored -- were too much of a stain on the season. The debate of whether the Big 12 or the Pac-12 is the second-best conference remains unresolved.

D: Below average. More was expected out of the Pac-12 this season with the high hopes of USC and the fact that the conference teams were favored in seven of eight bowl games. The conference failed to separate itself as the No. 2 conference behind the SEC and the losses to Baylor and Texas were huge setbacks toward the league's national perception.

F: Total failure. The Pac-12 had two different teams ranked No. 1 at some point during the season and they failed to win -- or even reach the national championship game. The Big 12 proved to be the stronger conference and the national perception of the Pac-12 took a serious hit.