One problem with using conference teams for OOC games is that you still have a "conference" team with a loss.
The big boys rely on there OOC games against the small guys to a) get extra home games and (b) pad their records.
That is why you will never see a full split from the NCAA - the big boys NEED the smaller conferences around.
That is very true. However, you also need to factor in that in a traditional 8 or 9 game schedule IN conference, it means that a school will be playing a harder opponent each year anyways. For instance, even in the SEC, a school like LSU is going to have to play the likes of Florida, Tennessee, Alabama, Auburn, Arkansas who have been solid, other stronger on and off schools like Georgia, SC. Only Vanderbilt and Kentucky are the "pushover" conference games.
So if you are Texas in a Pac-16, you have to play: TTech, OU, OSU, Utah, CO, AZ and ASU every year. So having 1-2 games that dont' count for the "conference" record against the pool of UW, WSU, OSO, Oregon, UCLA, USC, Cal and Stanford isn't much different. One can argue that when you look at Florida's total schedule in a year, that it might be tougher than Texas if they play their 7 conference games and then 2 games against even USC and Oregon to get to 9 (since #10 and #11 for Texas could be against the Rice, SMU, Baylor, Texas St., UTSA, Central Arkansas, SHSU type schools).