WSU 28 ISU 26

The 2018 Cougs are an excellent team but they have two losses and that fact alone pushes them out of the conversation that compares teams to the 2000 Beavers. Even if you do compare the two... WSU's two losses were a road loss against an average (at best!) SC team and a HOME loss to a very good, but not great, UW team that absolutely shut down the vaunted "Air Raid." The 2000 Beaves lost on the road earlier in their season against a Husky team that wound up being the #3 team in the nation. In my eyes, UW was one of a handful of teams that were worthy of being placed in the title game that year.

On another note: I advocate an expansion of the college football playoff to eight teams I have to admit that a large part of that position is that if such a format had existed in 2000 we likely would have been given the opportunity to see how far that Beaver team could have gone. Oregon State was one of eight teams in the four BCS bowls that year. I also think that year would have been a great year for an eight team playoff. 

The four BCS bowls in 2000 featured the winners of the six BCS conferences and two at-large berths, Oregon State and Notre Dame. The eight teams were comprised of the only undefeated team in the BCS (formerly 1A) division of college football (Oklahoma), four one-loss teams (Miami, UW, Oregon State, Fla. St.), two two-loss teams (Fla. and ND), and a three-loss team, Purdue, that got in because they won the Big 10 title.

The 2000 season had a team with a legitimate gripe at a BCS-bowl snub: Virginia Tech. They finished the regular season at 10-1 but finished second in the worst BCS conference, the Big East. The Big East featured Miami and Virginia Tech at the top of the conference but filled out the next four slots in the conference standings with four five-loss teams.

OSU was at #6 in the BCS Standings before the bowl games were played, which would have put OSU in a first-round matchup of the third place team, Miami. It would have been nice to have seen a game against a team like that instead of going against the fan/media favorite but vastly overrated and ultimately outmatched Notre Dame team. Notre Dame could then have gotten blasted by the Sooners instead of the Beavs and given their fans the excuse that they lost to the only undefeated team in the country. 

That could have been the opening salvo of a good football playoff. Purdue could have gotten blasted by Florida State instead of UW and then two outstanding teams out of UW, Miami, OSU and Florida could have set the stage for a second round showdown against Oklahoma and Florida State. 

I think I'd rate OSU's 2000 a bit better than a "mild edge" over WSU 2018.  

2000 OSU - conference co-champions - finished in a 3-way-tie for 1st with a round-robin knockout amongst the 3 leaders.  Only loss was a 3-point road loss.      
2018 WSU - North Division co-champions - lost head-to-head to the Division Champs.  Losses were also a 3-point road loss, and a 2 score loss at home vs their rival for the Division Championship.  

That 2nd loss, a much lower national ranking, and lesser bowl game won by 2 points over a perennial conference doormat team vs OSU win by blowout fashion over a historically strong program doesn't stack up well.   

OSU 2000 vs WSU 2018 isn't a "mild edge" in any way, shape, or form.  Every WSU player and fan would trade their 2018 for our 2000 without hesitation.  

They tied with the same record and only lost the champ game berth due to losing on tie-breakers - technically, they are division co-champions.  

No, tying for the division championship makes you a co-champion.  

Losing the tie-breakers for the championship berth doesn't dismiss the fact that you had the same record as another team.  

Oregon State 2000 were co-champions of the Pac-10.  We didn't qualify for the Rose Bowl because we lost the tie-breakers, and the final tie-breaker was head-to-head with UW.  

That's the way the Pac-10/12 does it.  

It's not really MY take, I was only saying what the Pac-10/12 has always said in the past.  OSU 2000 were co-champions.  That wasn't MY interpretation, that was the interpretation of the Pac-10.  It's possible that the Pac-12 has abandoned the idea of "co-champions".  It's just as likely that whoever wrote the press release has no idea how the Pac-12 "officially" does it. 

I don't really care if the Pac has changed whether it calls teams that tie by record and lose by tie-breakers co-champions or not, I was merely passing along how they have done it in the past, and the logic THEY used to do so.  

You asked the question, I just answered.  Sorry if you thought I was "arguing" with you.  I was merely stating how it has been done in the past, and the logic behind it.  I feel like your level of "care" here has surpassed mine, but, whatever.