I have homer glasses, but I can think of scenarios where a team that has beaten another but has more losses isn't automatically going to be thought better than the team they beat due to one game. If they have 3 losses, including loss to Oregon, whom we beat, than is that 3 loss situation really so much better than our 2 loss scenario just because they beat us by 10 at home?
We beat Oregon last year. If we had finished within one loss of them, I wouldn't have considered us better.
In the case of ASu vs UCLA, there was a clear, painful decision with UCLA scoring 62, and winning by 35 AT ASu. We played one game, in LA, and lost by 10, a game that was contested into the 4th quarter (and the worst we have played all year, but that is subjective).
I think that a team with 2 losses, an impressive win over a #13 ASu, along with road wins over Oregon and Utah, is definitely in play to surpass a 3 loss team, especially if they are manhandled by the same Oregon team we beat, even with us having lost to them on the road by 10. Again, I don't think ASu would get the same consideration. But teams who have beaten other teams end up ranked below the team they beat all the time if they lose more games overall...