What the Pac-12 really needs is a national title. It hasn't won one of those since 2004, and every other Power 5 conference has captured at least one during that 12-year drought. And yes, this is not the first time that has been typed by a person situated in the western third of the college football nation.

But what the Pac-12 could benefit from in the immediate future is what might very well be in the process of happening: The simultaneous rises of USC and Washington. In fact, the two -- benefits and teams -- might be connected.

We'll now pause for a moment as heads explode across the West Coast, from Westwood to Eugene to Pullman and all parts in between.

No, really, it's true -- at least if you put your partisan loyalties aside, which, as we all know, is quite easy to do. Now, think clearly and unemotionally.

For one, there's this: Washington is the only other Pac-12 team to win a national title (1991) besides USC since 1954 (UCLA), unless you include Colorado's 1990 title as a member of the Big Eight.

USC is the Pac-12's bell cow -- no debating that -- and Washington is a strong No. 2, particularly if one accepts you must look outside of Los Angeles for a No. 2 Pac-12 program. USC leads the Pac-12 in all-time wins, ranking 10th nationally among FBS teams, and Washington is second and 19th nationally.

Though USC fans can be fickle -- the Trojans' average attendance in the Coliseum ranged from 57,339 in 2000 to 90,812 in 2005 to 68,459 this season -- it's the outlying exception when it doesn't lead the conference in attendance (see 2014; say UCLA fans!).

USC is the closest thing the Pac-12 has to a big-stadium team, at least comparable to the huge facilities in the Big Ten and SEC.

The Rose Bowl Game Presented by Northwestern Mutual between USC and Penn State, despite being played on a nontraditional Monday date on Jan. 2, achieved by a wide margin the the best overnight ratings and was the most streamed non-semifinal New Year's Six game ever (12 games in three years).

The Trojans attract national eyeballs, due to attraction as well as dislike.

Meanwhile, Washington is entrenched in the top three in Pac-12 attendance, though during a winless season in 2008, it finished fourth. In 2000, the Huskies led the conference with an average attendance of 71,829, and that number never slips below 60,000. This fall, Washington ranked third in the conference with an average of 64,589 fans. UCLA was second at 67,458 while playing in the 92,000-seat Rose Bowl.

Though Oregon's Autzen Stadium can match Husky Stadium for noise and enthusiasm, it nonetheless seats 54,000, and its overflow attendance record is 60,055.

This is all to say that an unbeaten USC playing an unbeaten Washington in the Pac-12 championship game with a place in the College Football Playoff on the line is the best-case scenario for the Pac-12 in 2017.

Understand: This isn't about biases or emotional rooting interests. It's about eyeballs and ratings and clicks and raw data. It's about exposure. Ultimately, it's about money -- money that would benefit all 12 teams, not only the Trojans and Huskies.

The Pac-12's broadcast partners, of which ESPN is one, would be happy. You certainly can extrapolate significant benefits for the Pac-12 Network.

The best case for the Pac-12 going forward is sustained quality depth throughout the conference, with the eventual champion going on to win a national title. That endgame, by the way, would work well with any Pac-12 team. While USC and Washington are programs with the most potential to attract a large national audience, their standing alone atop an otherwise mediocre league wouldn't be ideal.

You might note that the SEC has lost prestige over the past few seasons as it has become Alabama and 13 enablers. The SEC's most impressive run was from 2006 to 2010, when four different teams won national titles.

That sort of elite depth would be fantastic for the Pac-12 too. But it would work best if, say, Oregon, Stanford, UCLA or Colorado were overcoming hyped USC and Washington teams also owning top-10 rankings.

USC has been mostly mediocre since 2009. Washington has been largely irrelevant since a Rose Bowl run in 2000. While their renewed winning ways might not inspire cheering among rival fan bases -- and they shouldn't! -- their potential effect on the Pac-12's bottom line might merit at least a grudging acknowledgment.

This reasoning might not warm the cockles of many hearts across the West Coast, but there's no question it makes sense -- as in dollars and sense.