[CTcard]

Sure, the committee should given credit to teams that schedule against historically/recently strong teams even if their seasons don't pan out that way, 

I would argue that the committee very much should not give credit for "intentional" scheduling. 

The issue is to pick the best teams for the playoffs, and for the top bowl games. 
The issue is not some kind of moral evaluation of how tough a test a team wanted to have. 

It is possible for the best team in the country to go out and play the easiest schedule in the country (at the least they presumably won't play the best team in the country). The problem, of course, is that one typically cannot tell which teams are the best. Managing to win against good teams is a better measure of a team that blowing out also-rans. So, the evaluation of teams with weak records is more difficult, and therefore less clear if they belong at the top. 

But the intent to schedule tough games does not aid in the evaluation process, only the actual tough games played. 

In addition, the issue isn't really OOC schedule, it is what the total schedule allows for in the evaluation of a team. The focus on OOC is because nominally that is the only component a team can control - but the issue should still be on the reliability of the total evaluation of the team. 

The major issue with SEC (and ACC) scheduling is the 8 conference games/4 OOC games. That allows them to schedule one real team and claim "look our OOC scheduling is fine - we played XX." Of course, the at the same time they play 3 scrimmages with automatic victories whereas the same approach by a Big Ten or Pac 12 team only leaves two such automatics - and thus a significantly tougher schedule overall. If the SEC maintained 8 conference games but included a minimum of two Power-5 teams in their OOC games, then much of the concern would vanish.

[CTcard]

Sure, the committee should given credit to teams that schedule against historically/recently strong teams even if their seasons don't pan out that way, 

I would argue that the committee very much should not give credit for "intentional" scheduling. 

The issue is to pick the best teams for the playoffs, and for the top bowl games. 
The issue is not some kind of moral evaluation of how tough a test a team wanted to have. 

It is possible for the best team in the country to go out and play the easiest schedule in the country (at the least they presumably won't play the best team in the country). The problem, of course, is that one typically cannot tell which teams are the best. Managing to win against good teams is a better measure of a team that blowing out also-rans. So, the evaluation of teams with weak records is more difficult, and therefore less clear if they belong at the top. 

But the intent to schedule tough games does not aid in the evaluation process, only the actual tough games played. 

In addition, the issue isn't really OOC schedule, it is what the total schedule allows for in the evaluation of a team. The focus on OOC is because nominally that is the only component a team can control - but the issue should still be on the reliability of the total evaluation of the team. 

The major issue with SEC (and ACC) scheduling is the 8 conference games/4 OOC games. That allows them to schedule one real team and claim "look our OOC scheduling is fine - we played XX." Of course, the at the same time they play 3 scrimmages with automatic victories whereas the same approach by a Big Ten or Pac 12 team only leaves two such automatics - and thus a significantly tougher schedule overall. If the SEC maintained 8 conference games but included a minimum of two Power-5 teams in their OOC games, then much of the concern would vanish.