This also gets at who you want your program to be. If you are K-State or VaTech in the 1990s, you just wanted as many wins as you could get. But there's a reason that many of us didn't put them on the same level as Nebraska or Texas. I pulled those two at random from my memory of when I was most invested in college football. Then I randomly selected some years to peruse. In 1997 Nebraska played at #2 Washington. Nebraska wasn't afraid. K-State went 11-1, with their one loss to...Nebraska. But they didn't play anyone of note outside of the Big XII. Then I randomly picked 1995 for VaTech and Texas. They played each other in a bowl. VaTech beat Texas, the SWC champion, who had one loss and one tie. The tie was in-conference to OU; the loss was OOC to Notre Dame. VaTech was 10-2, with that big win over Texas in the Sugar Bowl. Their two losses were to BC (in-conference), and--laughably 9 (at least in 1995)--Cincinnati. They didn't play anyone of note OOC until the Sugar Bowl. Now maybe that suggests that VaTech scheduled better. But from my perspective, I respect Texas, and I never respected VaTech (not as a serious national contender)*. So, if wins and losses matter more than respect, by all means, don't schedule potential losses. But if you want to be one of the Kings, suck up the losses and hold your head high, even if you miss out on losing in the college football playoff.
That's what Texas should do because it is Texas. That should be enough.
*Curiously, VaTech had a substantially better 1990s than Texas did. And yet this is my impression of that program. So don't schedule patsies just to pad your record. Play good teams to prove you are good--or at least want to be.
