I've long argued that "strength of schedule" in college football is relative. Computer models tabulate strength-of-schedule in absolute terms, which is a flawed approach.

The ultimate goal of elite teams - like Ohio State 2019 - is to go undefeated, or at least lose no more than one game prior to playoff/bowl selections. For these teams, the odds of losing to, say, the 60th best team in the country versus the 95th best team, almost approaches irrelevancy. Elite teams will very rarely lose to the 60th best team. The 30th best team could pose an upset risk (see: Oklahoma at Kansas State), but - for the most part - elite teams aren't significantly at risk until/unless they face opponents in the top 15 or 20 or so. 

In contrast, it matters a lot to, say, the 24th best team whether an opponent is the 60th or 95th best team. 

With this relativity in mind, an elite team is better off facing a schedule that consists of 10 games against middling "power 5" FBS teams plus two games against teams ranked between 10 and 20th best than they are facing 9 terrible FCS teams plus 3 teams of top 10-caliber (to wildly exaggerate the point, let's call this the LSU 2019 schedule). Yet almost all computer models will tabulate the former schedule as being much "tougher" than the latter ("LSU") schedule. Moreover, the 24th best team in the country actually is better off playing the latter schedule, since their goals - and their odds of losing to middling teams - are significantly different. 

I raise this point because Ohio State 2019 is currently benefiting from the absolute approach to strength-of-schedule. And, hey, I got no complaints about it. But if I am being intellectually consistent, I must apply my theory consistently. 

What do you all think about my theory, though (that strength of schedule is relative, not absolute)?