Depends on what you mean by a national schedule.
Yes, schedule strength which affects rankings is a player in determining who gets to the table at the play-in format coming up.
But, you win your conference, you sit at the table. I'd think that is where M's emphasis should be.
ND? That's another matter altogether. If I'm not mistaken, ND gets a seat as an at-large/independent based on rankings much like it had access under the old BCS formula. Racking up wins, regardless of SOS, is going to be key for them. So, why risk playing a team that you are going to lose to 60% of the time if history is an indicator of that metric.
Yes, schedule strength which affects rankings is a player in determining who gets to the table at the play-in format coming up.
But, you win your conference, you sit at the table. I'd think that is where M's emphasis should be.
ND? That's another matter altogether. If I'm not mistaken, ND gets a seat as an at-large/independent based on rankings much like it had access under the old BCS formula. Racking up wins, regardless of SOS, is going to be key for them. So, why risk playing a team that you are going to lose to 60% of the time if history is an indicator of that metric.
Comment