Washington State deserved the win, but USC didn’t deserve the game.

It was terrific Friday night theatre for the Pac-12 football brand, with the football stage clear of competition for ESPN’s audience and with the Martin Stadium stands packed with Cougar crazies.

The conference couldn’t have asked for more, except for the Trojans to have been elsewhere.

That was no way to treat one of your playoff hopefuls. Get Pac-12 Conference news in your inbox. Sign up for the Pac-12 Hotline newsletter.

My view will undoubtedly prompt snickers from every corner of the conference, and perhaps even from every corner offices in the conference.

But the Hotline calls ’em like we see ’em, so let’s consider the situation from the highest perch possible.

The ultimate goal is the end games: Placing at least one team in the College Football Playoff and a second (third?) in the New Year’s Six bowls.

Parity makes for wild weekends and fulfilled bowl obligations. But top-heavy seasons make for cash windfalls and national prestige.

The conference undermined its own efforts on that front by sending USC — its greatest football brand, by far — to play Washington State in Week Five. It was an extraordinarily difficult assignment at the end of a brutal month.

Remember, the schedule was finalized in January. At the time, the Pac-12 knew:

* The Trojans would be a preseason top-10 team with the Heisman frontrunner.

* They would have no early-season byes (because they have no byes at all).

* They were playing Western Michigan and Texas in September (because non-conference games are set years in advance).

* They were playing Stanford in September (because that series is annually played on Week Two).

* That Washington State would be a top-25-caliber team — Luke Falk had already announced he was returning — and would be fresh from a home-heavy September (again: non-conference games are set in advance).

* That there was a good chance ESPN would move the game to Friday night, thus creating a short-week road game at the end of a grueling stretch.

It wasn’t an ambush, because you could see the loss coming months in advance.

Yes, Washington State is the only team on USC’s early-season schedule currently ranked. But tough Septembers are rooted in either the number of high-end opponents or the paucity of cupcakes.

The Trojans’ September is devoid of both FCS and low-level FBS opponents.

It’s the fourth-toughest schedule in the country, according to the latest Sagarin computer ratings. (Washington’s is 96th, if you’re wondering.) Related Articles Weekend wrap: New directions, old habits and eating your own (Woodstock-with-clothes-on edition)

My AP top-25 ballot: Clemson remains No. 1, Washington State soars, Washington falls and Miami jumps

College Football Playoff: Mocking the bracket, the path for two-loss teams and what it means to the Pac-12

Pac-12 Networks: Analyzing ratings for football, Olympic sports (Yep, the Hotline has the numbers)

Now, let’s be clear:

I would make the same case if UCLA had been projected to win the South. Or Utah. Or Colorado. Or one of the Arizona schools.

It’s not about USC specifically; it’s about the division frontrunner — one of the Pac-12’s two best playoff hopes.

Nor am I suggesting that the conference actively seek to create soft schedules for its top teams. No, no, no.

This is a case, instead, for avoidance — for not placing the best teams in highly vulnerable situations, especially early in the season.

(Of course, the conference doesn’t always know which teams are potential playoff contenders. Favorites in January can turn into bottom feeders by October.)

And remember, too, that this approach is entirely on the margins. Scheduling is highly complex, with far less flexibility than you might expect.

The conference uses a scheduling service to create the master lineup. Each school then approves its schedule or request a reassessment. Invariably, consensus is the goal. (The Pac-12 is nothing if not collegial.)

Would schools object to subtle manipulation designed to protect the best teams? Possibly.

And in those cases, the response should be: Turn yourself into a top-10 program, and we’ll do the same for you.

Yes, it’s a cutthroat approach that runs counter to the Pac-12 ethos. Would you prefer content coaches and administrators, or New Year’s Six paychecks and exposure?

Objections would almost certainly be minimal each season because there are so few opportunities for schedule massaging.

But in the rare instances you can avoid placing a presumed playoff contender in a vulnerable position, you do it.

Think the SEC or Big Ten would have sent their powerrhouses into comparable situations? For more Pac-12 coverage

follow Pac-12 Hotline on Flipboard.

Essential point: The Pac-12 is already at a scheduling disadvantage relative to the SEC because it plays nine conferences games and one fewer cupcake.

It’s already at a disadvantage relative to the Big Ten, ACC and SEC because of the crossover rotations in those conferences.

It’s already at a disadvantage compared to every other Power Five because of travel distances and weeknight/late night demands.

Again, this isn’t a case for protecting USC specifically, about actively seeking the softest schedule possible for your biggest football brand.

It’s a case for limiting extreme situations for division favorite X, thereby maximizing your CFP and New Year’s Six opportunities.

The other Power Fives would do it.

*** Send suggestions, comments and tips (confidentiality guaranteed) to pac12hotline@bayareanewsgroup.com

*** Follow me on Twitter: @WilnerHotline

*** Pac-12 Hotline is not endorsed or sponsored by the Pac-12 Conference, and the views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views of the Conference.