Welcome to the mailbag. You can check out anytime you'd like. But you can never leave. So you might as well follow me on Twitter.

Bryce in San Francisco writes: Based on how the College Football Playoff Rankings are going so far, the Michigan State @ Oregon game looks like it was effectively an elimination game. Michigan State doesn't control its own destiny despite a single road loss to a very good team, which is no worse a loss than anyone in front of it has. How are we supposed to get teams to schedule tough opponents? Michigan State can look to the teams ahead of it in the rankings and conclude it should've scheduled someone weaker.

Kevin Gemmell: This is all one big grand experiment. We don’t know if it’s going to play out like that yet, but you might not be wrong. This weekend’s TCU-Kansas State game is definitely an elimination game, and if the Spartans win against No. 14 Ohio State, it will enjoy a nice bump.

No. 1 Mississippi State still has to play No. 5 Alabama, which still has to play No. 3 Auburn. The SEC will sort itself out.

So the question becomes whether we see two SEC teams, thus burning two Power 5 conference champions, or we see four conference champions and only one is orphaned. If conference championships and strength of schedule are truly factors the selection committee will consider, then maybe we do see the Spartans in the playoff if they can close the year with one loss. Same for the Ducks (or Sun Devils, for that matter).

Once the conference champions have been determined, then it becomes a question of overall record and head-to-heads (and that’s where the Oregon-Michigan State game comes into play). One of the Power 5 champions is going to get left out (cough, eight-team playoff, cough, cough), but to leave out two seems illogical. Especially in the first year when they are trying to get teams and fans to buy into the new system.

But with no historical precedent from which to draw, we can only speculate until we get to the actual selection process.

: Do you believe that Mike Riley's coaching a hot seat? How many more losing seasons does OSU give him? Regardless of anything else, someday the W's will matter. When do you think that is for the orange and black?

Kevin Gemmell: With Riley, there is a lot more to consider than just the wins and losses. I get the frustration, but there is also the long-term health of the program to consider.

First, whom would you hire? It’s not like Corvallis is overflowing with the finest facilities the Pac-12 has to offer. Oregon State will be seen as a stepping-stone job at best. That means the next up-and-coming riser will get a look, be it a head coach from a Group of 5 team or a coordinator from a Power 5 program.

If they are successful, what are the chances they stick around and really grow Oregon State into a powerhouse? Slim to none. Any success will catapult them to a bigger job.

At worst, said up-and-comer struggles and after three years the Beavers are looking for a new head coach again, thus beginning what’s known as the Colorado Spin Cycle (although I do think the Buffs got it right this time, but that’s a whole other mailbag). “Gosh, I sure do miss Mike Riley,” will be a theme.

Consider some of the players Riley has recruited through the program. Pretty darn impressive.

The fact is the rest of the Pac-12 has gotten better at an accelerated pace. Utah and Cal are rising. I don’t think Washington State or Colorado are much further behind.

The losses are frustrating. Having an All-America offensive linemen on the shelf all season is frustrating. Not having the reigning Biletnikoff winner back is frustrating. A program like Oregon State has to go with the current. Go all-in when you’ve got the players and try to keep your head above water when you don’t.

If we see two or three consecutive seasons of sub-.500 play (and keep in mind, the Beavers aren’t out of the bowl hunt yet), then we can have that discussion. But for the loyalty Riley has shown and for what he’s been able to produce, looking elsewhere could be more costly in the long run.

: ASU's offense certainly wasn't at its best against Utah and it wasn't one of Taylor Kelly 's best performances... but that said, after a third consecutive game in which ASU gave up fewer than 20 points and fewer than 300 yards, is it finally time for the Pac-12 blog staff to acknowledge that the Devils' defense is for real and perhaps the UCLA game was an anomaly? Or does that have to wait until after Notre Dame comes to town?

Kevin Gemmell: I get what you’re saying. But also, consider the offenses it has faced in the past three games. Stanford, Washington and Utah all rank in the bottom half of the conference in scoring offense. The Utes are No. 7, Washington is 10th and Stanford is dead last. So is it a product of the ASU defense being good? Or the opposing offenses not being so great?

Probably a little of both.

Is ASU’s defense “elite”? No, I don’t think so. Are they sub-par? Again, I don’t think so. Right now I would categorize them as very capable. They have forced 11 turnovers. Not great, but not terrible. They have muscled up in the red zone and only allowed 19 total touchdowns. If the name of the game is keeping the other team out of the end zone, then yes, I’d say they are "for real."

The safety duo of Damarious Randall and Jordan Simone has been lights out the past few weeks. Viliami Moeakiola was a monster against Washington with 10 tackles, two sacks and a forced fumble.

I would say the group has come along quicker than expected. But the Notre Dame game will certainly be telling. The Irish rank in the top 30 nationally in scoring offense with 35.4 points per game. Hold them below that average and win, and then we can start talking about ASU’s defense breaking through into the upper echelon.